Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Regarding the use of the gnn/gnr template in FLC articles

Goodraise (talk · contribs) and AngusWOOF (talk · contribs) has raised concerns whether we should use the gnn/gnr template in anime/manga articles on my talk page. It has been implemented on List of Naruto characters, a featured list, List of One Piece characters and most recently, List of Fairy Tail characters. I am opening up a discussion here to see if other members can voice their opinions whether we use those for Featured Lists or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It could also be good to get an opinion from a FLC reviewer.Tintor2 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All right. We'll see what we can do about this. Also, should we consider opening up an RfC about the use of the gnn/gnr templates or not? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely preferable on character pages to cut down on size. I don't think it would be an issue for FLC either. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying it shouldn't be used. I'm merely advising caution. I created these templates for a highly specialized purpose: a constantly changing character list requiring massive amounts of citations to chapters spread out over a huge number of volumes. (Before these templates were written, I used {{ref}} and {{note}} in a similar way. Anyone interested can take a look at the history of the One Piece character list.) While I was still trying to make this, let's call it a "referencing style", presentable, it already began spreading. When I look at it, I see a bunch of flaws I haven't yet been able to overcome and can't help but think "man, this still looks crappy." On the other hand, that may just be overzealous perfectionism on my part. (I think I've put too much thought into this to be objective at this point.) Anyway, last time I checked, WP:CITE contained nothing that would prohibit using this style. So, if you want to give it a go at FLC, be my guest. I just can't recommend it. Especially since the typical FLC reviewer is a pedantic nit-picker. (Trust me, I know; I'm one of them.) Cheers, Goodraise 06:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

gnn/gnr is close to the Template:Harvard citation documentation style which is used for referencing pages in books per WP:CITE. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Lupin III Part II episodes at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Lupin III Part II episodes 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see some interest in saving this list's status as featured, it should be noted that WP:TV seem to strongly object to removing transclusions from episode articles, see the history of List of Friends episodes for a good edit history demonstrating what has happened in the past. Also, please remember that episode titles should be "in quote marks". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fairy Tail episode discussion

There is an important discussion whether the List of Fairy Tail episodes should be split into individual seasons. The discussion is at Talk:List of Fairy Tail episodes#Possible split?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New discussion in WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Hi everyone, The talk page for WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources hasn't had any discussions in a while, so just wanted to bring attention to a new discussion I started there. Please feel free to add your thoughts. --AutoGyro (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the source in question was LupinEncyclopedia.com. I went ahead and asked over at the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#LupinEncyclopedia.com and after some chat it appears that the source is unreliable. Now the norm is to just leave it be at that but the source has the misfourtue of being used alot in the Lupin III article, which is rated as a GA article, I have gone ahead and tagged it based on the outcome of the discussion, hopefylly reliable sources can be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bleach season 17 deletion

Someone has created List of Bleach episodes (season 17), which I conclude is a hoax. I've nominated it for deletion here. This should be concluded quickly. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting is know, I went ahead and placed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Grouping Japanese Light Novel/Manga/Anime/etc. Series into Japanese Media Series

As per Subject I would like to propose a suitable word, Media to be used in a complex series rather than using a single individual type of media and then tagging adaptions of it. This would make it feel more organized. This doesn't include individual series that has made into only 1 type of media.--Bumblezellio (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure wp:japan fits. I have not noticed these categories though.Lucia Black (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cross Epoch

Somebody's recreated the Cross Epoch article. I would redirected it but I don't where to redirect it to. Potential AFD discussion maybe? Sarujo (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

very diificult indeed. My best choice is attempt to prove notability of the article. However I'm pretty sure many have attempted it. Best not to redirect it since it relates to two authors equally.Lucia Black (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of articles by Jeangabin needs to be redirected due to lack of notability. I suggest treating Cross Epoch as a one shot and redirecting it to Weekly Shonen Jump. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Those pages exist in other language wikipedia. They should remain on the English version. We can't have pages for those articles in other languange, and not have it in English.

Most of the pages created are most notable than Kintoki. If those pages are deleted, it would mean that the Kintoki article that existed before those pages must also be deleted.

As for the notability, those manga are known and were released all around the world, in several different language. There are pages here for manga that weren't even translated in English. The simple fact that pages exist for those manga on foreign language versions of wikipedia proves they're widely known. Jeangabin (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not how notability is established per Wikipedia:Notability. Notability must exist through third party coverage. Lots of non-notable articles exist simply because Wikipedians feel no need to enforce that rule. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been at least two instance, that I know of, where a Cross Epoch article was created and subsequently deleted per notability guidelines. The last time, the name was put on lock as a result. Sarujo (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, it was more than just two. Sarujo (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Check the reasons why the previous Cross Epoch articles were deleted: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:CSD#A1, and then every other deletion were for Wikipedia:CSD#G4. Those reasons don't apply to the current article, we now all know that Cross Epoch is a real manga (the verifiability reason was involved in 2007), the second creation was obviously a poorly written article or vandalization. Jeangabin (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

For you Sarujo, why do you keep adding that Pink was published in V Jump? Pink was first published in Fresh Jump. V Jump was created in 1993, while Pink was first published in 1982. Jeangabin (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, Jeangabin. The edit status of the Pink article has no relevance to this discussion. Sarujo (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I leaved a message on your talk page and on the Pink talk page, but you kept readding the same false information. I had to put it somwhere you would have read my message. Jeangabin (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of animes

In WP:village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television), I am developing an idea about proposing a new notability guideline about television-related topics, and it cannot limit to only fiction. Nevertheless, there we agreed that amount of episodes does not (obviously) establish notability, especially for animes. Anything on television, especially in general, can be discussed there. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied, an anime that has alot of episodes is just one factor for notability chances are that if there are alot of episodes for the series it will fall under other categories for notability as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

>animes
Ugh. Anyway, something getting an anime adaption (or an anime original project being developed) should in itself justify some form of notability, because there is a lot of money and stakeholder investment involved in making a series, and not everything ends up becoming an anime. Your typical C78 doujin might not be notable, and neither is a poorly-recieved manga, but once a light novel or manga becomes a full-season anime, surely that is enough to warrant notability. An anime isn't just something a team of nerds come up with overnight for $300. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Japanese anime review sites

Even though we are an English encyclopedia, our Manual of Style for anime and manga articles states that Japanese reviews would also be appreciated. Are there any Japanese sties that are the equivalent of site like Anime News Network, Mania.com, THEM Anime Reviews etc.? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are a whole bunch see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Japanese - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Madoka Mako

Im debating on if I should prod this or not all it has going for it is that single source. Any feedback? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal

I looked at the Viz English Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal Volume 1 and found that it uses the Japanese names (Tetsuo Takeda, Kotori Mizuki, etc.) for the human characters. Do you know if the practice continues/will continue for Volume 2 and beyond?

This differs from the practice of the Viz Yu-Gi-Oh! GX and Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's manga series (both use the dub names for characters who appear in the anime, while characters who don't appear in the anime use their Japanese names). The original Yu-Gi-Oh! manga from Viz does use mostly the Japanese names for the human characters (the exceptions are Pegasus and Croquet).

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i dont think its worth mentioning. Most likely due to zexal not having an anime.Lucia Black (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the article there is an anime.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the other spin offs, the manga came out first for zexal. So most likely the anime got localized first in previous, then the manga followed the said changes in the anime that had been localized.Lucia Black (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This anonymous user has recently been making a lot of edits recently to anime casts which all appear to be at least dubious if not completely fictional. Someone else has already reverted a complete ficional cast for the Negima OADs (FUNimation hasn't even announced a license, much less an actual cast), I've reverted some odd changes to the Claymore cast (I just finished watching it) and, well... since when was Loveless dubbed in Texas? There's a lot of stuff to check through unless there's a way of just mass reverting the lot. Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I checked some of the edits and I couldn't tell if it was vandalism or not since I'm not an expert in any of those articles. As for Loveless, the article said an English dub vocal CD was released so the names could have been taken from that. Overall though, you can revert the edit for being unsourced and controversial. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The guy's been filling those Negima character and voice actor pages for months. He gets banned for a month then comes back as if nothing happened. :( AngusWOOF (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force You can help!

I am in the process of giving our cleanup task force a much needed update, if anyone has the time feel free to browse through stuff that needs a look at and help make our project have cleaner articles =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to go through the top 500 most viewed anime and manga articles to make sure they're on the list? I'm sure more than half needs work. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now im going through Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged and making sure thats all set (Some of the articles in the category have already been merged and such) and populating the "Articles needing to be merged section". I will get to top 500 most viewed anime and manga articles though 1st when I place articles that need a cleanup under the other sections. This is big and there is alot to do so it will take some time thats why im inviting others to help of they can, there are open projects and categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay the page is now updated, all the articles listed for cleanup are active requests, I am still doing my best as well to empty the categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oricon charts database

Hey everyone, I just noticed that links to Oricon's chart database are dead. Apparently, they have been since at least December. Here's an example of what the pages looked like: [1] Various articles use links to the database, including a featured list. Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails out of the website (http://ranking.oricon.co.jp). Perhaps someone here knows or can figure out whether these pages have just moved to other addresses or are gone for good. Goodraise 03:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this a while back ago. You now have to pay to use that specific database, but the individual chartings are still listed on Oricon's main site as rank-weeks; in this case, rank 1 and 5 weeks. You just have to update the links.--十八 04:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Goodraise 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English Adaptation) splitting

As previously discussed, Sailor moon (English Adaptation) is a major issue because it is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:POVFORK. So for a more neutral way of fixing it is merging info to it's respected articles (list of manga chapters/episodes, main franchise article) but the issue is the article will be way too long. So I propose splitting the main article into Manga and Anime. In the end it was proposed i would make a sandbox but didn't know how at first because the article has to be broken into multiple articles that already exist. So this is as far as i currently got for the moment and wanted to see if anyone would like to join in. This is my sandbox here. I currently just cut the info and renamed the sections to what section in what article it would go more or less. The only thing is now summarizing the information, fixing some ref problems and of course removing the unreliable ones which are easy to pick out, i might just take care of that. I'm not good with over copy editing to the point where ts well summarized so it would be really great to gets oe views. it doesn't have to be a significant amount, but ti would be a great help either way.

That and this article is one of the most bias articles i have seen. Including Editing of anime in American distribution which i also believe has some WP:SYNTHESIS.Lucia Black (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood completely but here's my opinion. I don't understand what you mean by neutral, but looking at original article and the sandbox, it needs an aggressive trim and compression; regardless of how readers feel. Things I noticed, from a quick skim, were the manga character names section, 1-2 sentence paragraphs, detailed list of specific changes in the anime section, and the lack of concision in the broadcast sections. As for the splitting idea, this can probably be related to the discussion they had for Dragon Ball after the other animes were merged. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for help.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This idea appears to be from Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation... The merge tags were removed and the discussion forgotton about. Lucia I would start a new consensus discussion here about it first before going ahead with a merge. You are likely going to get more voices here or on the article through an RFC. In my opinion I see a well referenced article there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It goes even further. I dont know if this is being looked casually. But please read POVFORK and SYNTHESIS in the links i gave on the first post. It really doesnt need consensus to say this article shouldnt exist.

The article concludes that sailor english localization has made itself more notable then the original japanese without proof. Its based on Point of View Fork aswell. Its treating the media as if it was different simply for the reason that it was altered.

Same media, different language. It was said consensus isnt necessary at this point if you understand the issue the article has. The discussion wasnt forgotten it was just ignored and no one (actually it was simply 1 editor) wanted to wait because they all want is one editor to do it all.

So i created the sandbox to show you all where each info can be merged to its respected (and should be merged to). I did not edit it in detail because i am not confident in my copyediting skills so i showed you all. It was a copy paste. All it needs is summarizing.Lucia Black (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So let me explain again, i need help summarizing the current info i have section per section and rework it to its respected page. Een then summarized there is enough to split the main article into two. (Anime) and (Manga), the split will be less subjective then having it Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (English Adaptations).Lucia Black (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If those do not understand the situation, here is the last mediation we had. Closed due to someone unable to give their statement for oppose. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sailor Moon (English adaptation)Lucia Black (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to open an RfC on this matter. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should we merge Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into Sailor Moon?

The main issues here are WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Despite a failed request for mediation and numerous attempts to discuss, it ended in a stalemate. Should we merge Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into the main article, Sailor Moon? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of sources for the adaptation of sailor moon in america. Sailor moon was a huge here as it was in Japan, and I feel that info comparing the two is fine as long as it's done in a newtral way and remove the things that imply that the Japanese or English version was better. Note: There is alot of unsourced material added in the article, this can be removed and the article improved upon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  Support - After thinking over things I can see no harm in the merge, go ahead with what you feel is right Lucia =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I did a brush through removing POV and Unreferenced additions, the article just needs work done to it I feel that it has potential if it is cleaned up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  I haven't given the articles a real through look so bear with me. Pretty much all I see left after your edits is basically a history section of how 1. the anime was distrubted and 2. how the manga was distributed. I feel like it could just be rephrased as a release history, just detailing how Sailor Moon journeyed through the English market. There's a ton of information in the article already sourced which for one would be a headache trying to merge and would bloat the main article. If you switch the focus of the article to that, then POV issues would be gone. What do you think? AngelFire3423 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support The articles existence is violation of NPOV. Its the same media, yet separate article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Knowledgekid87, please understand the issue. The issue isnt lack of sourcing. Do you skim through the issue and just look at the article instead? The existence of the article IS what suggest the english version is more important over the japanese. Why separate the english manga and english anime into one separate series? When the most appropriate merge and split is by media, not by language.Lucia Black (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  Why not just make it about the english releases and the infulance it has had here? Why cant wikipedia have an article that describes the impact about something that has the reliable sources and is notable enough for a stand alone article? I can just as easily compare this to any anime article, why should it include info in english? The article here describes the impact the anime has had on the english speaking world as well as compares diffrences. I can see the release has had a huge impact on the english speaking world and see no reason why the article can not exisit as a child to the parent article Sailor Moon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  "Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thats the thing, both articles talk about the impact to the english speaking world. We might aswell merge the reception of the main article here. This is a POVFORK. I dont know why you constantly ignore that point. Thats when the fork is on the same subject (same anime, same manga). And it was dony by WP:SYNTHESIS. You actually talking about how much "impact" it had to the english speaking world contradicts your previous point on "removing the aspects that make it more important over the japanese". You literally proved this is WP:SYNTHESIS.Lucia Black (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I comment as one who hasn't really looked at the article past the ToC. I believe that an article that focuses on the impact of Sailor Moon on the english speaking world can exist. However, I think would be better that such an article be named Impact of Sailor Moon in X, X being whatever is appropriate. I believe that is what Knowledgekid87 is suggesting. The suggestion is to make the article into something akin to Cultural influence of Star Trek, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Those last two examples aren't exactly the best examples for this situation. But then I don't know much about POVFORKs and they go waaaaaay over my head. Although I can't really find an article in the vein of Influence/Impact of X on Y, I believe that such an article can be written in a completely NPOV, non-OR way without making the English adaptation seem more important than the Japanese. The way the article is now (according to the table of contents, at least), there is no reason for it and it should be merged, in my opinion. But if a respectable Cultural influence of Sailor Moon on X, I wouldn't say kill it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mainly the issue is that both articles cover the same media but treating it as if it was different. Yes alterations were done, but can be covered in summary-style. Mainly if it does merge, a more proper split would occur due to size issues, most likely a Anime and Manga article (or the manga article being the main one). However broadcasting info can easily fit into List of Sailor Moon episodes (season 1). Its just it looks like alot of areas are lacking because they took them out to make this article.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering Knowledgekid now supports the merge, my above comments on what the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article should be is relatively moot. I still honestly believe the article should be merged and I support a merge. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If and when this is merged the redirect will most likely need protection added to it. The page is currently watched by 52 editors and gets 250 hits per day about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Upotte!! names

Can we get some eyes on this page? Someone keeps going back and changing the names from the ones used in the official translation to gibberish. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you want those eyes to do there? When you have a content dispute with someone, try to talk to them before coming here. Goodraise 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know exactly what neesds fixing as there have been so many IP edits, maybe make a section on the article's talkpage about what needs to be done? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since half the IPs are changing the names to gibberish and the other half are using the official translations per the MOS.... And there is a talk post related to this, it shouldn't take rocket scientist to figure out what the problem is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the gibberish. And you didn't answer my question. What do you want us to do? When IPs refuse to engage in discussion, get the page semi-protected. Problem solved. Goodraise 11:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there references for the official translated names? Maybe that can deter some of that activity? I would also put comments in the page itself. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Magical girls

Hello. Recently I have seen the category Category:Magical girls incorrectly applied to non-anime articles, such as Hermione Granger and Sabrina Spellman. I think this is the fault of the category itself, which is poorly named, and does not even mention that it is anime-related in its description page. I think the best solution would be to rename this category to something more meaningful, such as Category:Magical girls in anime and manga, but failing that proposal, it would be good to at least place a full description of the category, and an indication of what the category is not, on its front description page. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! Goodraise 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I considered going ahead right away but I figured out of courtesy and as a non-member of this project, I should at least notify you of my intention. I have made a minor edit to the category description page, and started a discussion for the rename here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 2#Category:Magical girls. I would encourage you to join in. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen similar discussion on specifying Talk: magical girlfriend It should NOT apply to female characters in fantasy worlds (Harry Potter, Legend of Korra, Slayers/Lina Inverse (just removed that today)) although there can be a subsection on magical girls in Western media: then Sabrina would be okay as well as Wizards of Waverley Place. Also, entries were added to the list only when there was a source such as a review referring to the character as such. AngusWOOF (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I also removed some more such as the DC comics character Zatanna, the Winx Club (Itinan Cartoon) Will Vandom (W.I.T.C.H an american TV series), Syaoran Li (not female), Raven (comics), Princess Gwenevere (redirect to the cartoon series) Hay Lin (a character from W.I.T.C.H) Irma Lair (a character from the same series) Orihime Inoue (BLEACH is Shōnen), Cornelia Hale (W.I.T.C.H again), Taranee Cook (dito). I also removed the cat from the Sailor Starlights article since no other character from the Sailor moon series is listed as magical girl but if anyone thinks that this change is a mistake please fell free to readd.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I left most of the anime characters alone since I am not familiar with many of the series they come from but the list may or may not need more pruning.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Syaoran Li in Cardcaptor Sakura, he uses Eastern magic but doesn't do the usual magical girl transformations. It's okay for magical boys to be on the list though. Orihime Inoue in Bleach (manga) does act like a magical girl for one of her early episodes, summoning characters out of her butterfly pins. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the circular argument on magical girls now. As Bewitched inspired Sally the Witch, it also inspired Sabrina, Wizards of Waverley Place, and Charmed. I'm good with limiting it to anime/manga and only citing Western ones that have reviews/interview sources how their show was influenced more by magical girl shows in Japan than witches in general. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Another new discussion in WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

I'd like to request some attention to this discussion in regards to whether the site InsideScanlation.com could be considered a reliable source. AngelFire3423 (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the Sailor Senshi article

Despite the discussion at the talk page that the Sailor Senshi photo should be removed, Lego3400 (talk · contribs) has readded the diagram and started a discussion on the talk page. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits are dropping – wonder why?

Edits to this talk page are dropping, indicating reduced activity of this project. They've fallen from 5124 in 2009 to 2968 in 2010 and further to 1932 in 2011. We've lost a lot of high volume editors. That is normal. However, we haven't gotten enough new blood to replace them. One reason for that is, I think, that this project is acting more and more like a gang. I've been watching this for quite some time now. I can't keep quiet any longer.

The most common example of what I mean usually goes as follows:

1. A project member has a disagreement with a newly registered or IP editor.
2. After some revert warring, the project member comes here, asking for "more eyes" or something.
3. The new editor finds him- or herself opposed by a gang.

It usually ends with the editor's talk page being plastered with warnings, the editor blocked and totally fed up with Wikipedia.

You can get around the 3RR rule by calling for backup from other project members, but you're still edit warring, worse, you're gaming the system, using your greater knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's inner workings to get your way. This is not how dispute resolution is supposed to work.

Have a look at WP:BITE, and don't just read the nutshell. We need to be nice to new editors, welcoming them instead of warning them, teaching them how this place works instead of getting them blocked.

I know that WP:DR is a difficult read and seems to expect editors to go to unreasonable length to solve minor content disputes, but that isn't actually true.

Anyway, I'm not just writing this to criticize. I'm offering my help. Please, next time any of you feel the need to call the cavalry, drop me a line on my talk page instead. I'm checking my messages multiple times per day on average. Of course it would be even better if the entire project stopped this behavior at the same time, but I'm not that optimistic. Goodraise 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the problem is necessarily new users, since the absence of new users is a general phenomenon across all WMF wikis (check the master statistics sometime - over all wikis, the number of editors editing >5 times a month has increased by just a few hundred or thousand over the last few years, and is below the peak figure!), and the absence of new users wouldn't explain the results of my talk-page experiment, where useful new references are ignored (since if there were plenty of old-line active editors, they would be used).

The problem is the absence of high-volume editors who are anime fans. Why would that be... --Gwern (contribs) 16:34 7 July 2012 (GMT)

Well im here to stay =) I dont see anime or manga going out of popularity anytime soon so there is a chance this lull will pick up again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been curbing my activity a fair bit as I've had RL issues to deal with. I'm still around though, even if I'm not always posting here like I used to. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still around despite my university studies. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe its an issue with new editors, but conflicting old ones such as ourselves.Lucia Black (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Obviously it isn't an issue with new editors, it's an issue without new editors. That's my whole point. Few new editors stick around because they're not treated decently, let alone friendly. But of course this idea is lost to those among you who can't even treat each other respectfully (you know who you are). Goodraise 17:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No! You're wrong! (^_-) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can literally split editors in this conversation that have had conflicted views from one another. Reasons why potentially GA/Featured class articles are at C class....or articles that are POVFORK exist. Everything ends at a stalemate. No one can be bold for the articles that need bold edits.Lucia Black (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Wikipedia's consensus based system means that nobody can always get their way. That's normal. Just walk away, edit another page. Goodraise 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Point is we have enough conflicting long term editors (which isnt alot of editors). Its not about getting "our" way but getting the way according to wiki rules. Its not normal if the wikiproject is split in half.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to see here? Should I complain about lack of useful feedback on assessments? Territorial editors? Macroned character lists conflicting with English releases? The blanket labels of "needs verification/citation" and "sources" also get frustrating. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember in the end everyone who edits is only human there are going to be arguements but there is also WP:LOVE that is in place as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

=)

Most likely, yes. But the point is reaching an agreement somewhere along the line. We lack "consensus". The only time we do is when we beat the subject to death.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the general trend has to do with the fact that Wikipedia isn't something new and fascinating any more, so we have far less of a pool to attract people into "that nifty thing you can do" as it were. There's less new editors because there's less people who'd want to be editors that are left and have the potential to be, or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no question that Wikipedia now has to compete more for the time of editors than a few years back. That only reinforces my original point. Goodraise 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree that the main problem is simply interest, or lack thereof. The standards of articles are a lot higher than they were when I joined back in 2006, and a lot more work goes into not only building up an article, but to maintain it. New editors often do not take the time to read up on policy, or even if they do, they're bound not to be as familiar with the various guidelines as we are, so articles lack the proper formatting. Often, people don't know about the dark underbelly of Wikipedia behind the scenes until they actually start editing, and this is often a factor in if the editor will continue editing, so it doesn't have to necessarily involve conflict with other experienced editors, though I admit that's probably a factor. A few months after I joined, I was in my first major conflict over Air and a couple of its branch articles. Some may have been turned away from Wikipedia then, but I simply stopped editing those articles for about 6 months, so I think it also depends on the type of person and if they can deal with the debates, some of which can be incredibly long and tiresome. Still, I'm at least hopeful that new editors will come in to stay, assuming they abide by the rules.--十八 20:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there def isnt a lack of work that has to be done as I pointed up above with the cleanup project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped editing wikipedia when Wikipedia stopped appreciating my contributions. We're supposed to include everything, but exclusionism is the prevailing wind. There is no point in spending hours writing articles when a cabal of like minded deletionists just AFD your work away. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Cleaners". If the given article was removed, its probably for a good reason. I also run into several inclusionist, that hate summarizing information and removing trivia. Unfortunately, its part of Wikipedia's policy. Appreciating your edits also has to be good edits. Try making better articles. Or make a sandbox before making the article to see if its ready. Wikipedia isn't about having the most content.Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who hasn't written her first GA or FA. Thanks for trying to paint me as a bad editor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucia was not acting in bad faith with her comment, and it's bad faith to assume she was. However, it's also bad faith to assume you're assuming she was, so I'll just assume the assumption that we're all assuming good faith. That said, it's not Wikipedia's policy to "include everything", because then we wouldn't have the various standards for articles that we do. If an article wasn't notable, it probably would get deleted eventually, so I'm curious as to where this animosity is coming from. Wikipedia's standards are ever rising, and they're much higher than they were when I joined 6 years ago, so it's not as if Wikipedia "stopped appreciating your contribs" but rather Wikipedia just raised the bar, and we should all aspire to do so.--十八 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be a new guideline that is simple and easy to understand that wikipedia isn't about having all content, but the most relevant content supported by reliable sources. Similar to what Wikipedia is "not" it would be "what wikipedia 'is'".Lucia Black (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We already do (in fact, we have two): WP:What Wikipedia is and WP:What Wikipedia Is. More specifically, all the various policies and guidelines are "what Wikipedia is"; problem is, new editors aren't as familiar with these as experienced editors, but you can't really except them to be. I learned from experience, as I'm sure most users have.--十八 21:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We need a new bot

It appears that the bot used to generate the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing stopped working in March 2010 and has been down ever since, is there a bot that can be used to replace the old one and keep this auto-updated per month? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can request a new one at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I got feedback with this: "User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing. The one for Anime and manga is here". How do you plug the info in so it links to the two pages above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Figured out a way, while it would be nice to have things appear here on wikipedia for now I linked the pages to the external link and edited the header. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

terminology

I decided to try to remove as much terminology sections as i possibly can however it has become extremely difficult with new series. For example: Guilty Crown. Then there are other series im well familiar with but having trouble such as Pandora Hearts and Eureka Seven which is already influencing Eureka Seven: AO. It would be a great help if anyone here is more damiliar than i to summarize its content.Lucia Black (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The future of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources

Hey everyone, there's a BIG problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Basically, we had the same problem before its creation. Little attention was payed to the reliability of sources. Occasionally, there were discussions here on whether certain sources were reliable, but these rarely involved serious scrutiny. Following such discussions, sources were assumed to be reliable and used in articles, which led to failed FACs, FLCs, and the like, effectively wasting editor time and causing frustration. The idea behind this list of sources was to put a stop to that by listing sources, detailing what which source could be used for and rationales for why they could be used in those ways. Needless to say, it didn't work out. Discussions held before adding new sources to the list weren't any more thorough than before and rationales weren't added either. The fact of the matter is that the audience on this talk page, by and large, was never and still isn't qualified to judge the reliability of sources. On top of that, most editors here want to write anime and manga articles and therefore have an interest in anime and manga sources being reliable, which inevitably leads to discussions about such sources being biased in favor of potentially unreliable sources. I thought about going through all of the sources listed, to investigate them and, if possible, write adequate instructions and rationales myself, but considering my lack of knowledge on most of them, that's a task much bigger than I'm willing (or even have the time) to take on alone. I therefore propose that we archive that entire page and start from scratch, demanding that every addition be first discussed at WP:RSN and that those discussions be summarized on the list of sources, explaining how each source can be used and, more importantly, why that is so. This proposal will probably not be too popular, but it's necessary that we do something. In case this proposal isn't rejected, I think we should start with the sources used most often and probably easiest to prove reliable, ANN first of all. Goodraise 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the list needs to go, there are archived past discussions reguarding project talk and WP:RS noticeboard talk that helps support the references listed. What I suggest is running the sources through the RS noticeboard and confirm them to be reliable, the ones that are not we can remove. We have a list of sources to check out might as well build on what we have rather than archive all and build from scratch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Give it a few weeks, I can slowly run the sources by the reliable sources noticeboard and remove ones that turn up negative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the severity of the problem. Say you take your article to WP:FAC and a reviewer asks you: "What makes Anime News Network a reliable source?" What is the answer you give that person? In that case, you can't expect the reviewer to read several pages of discussion. You need to provide a rationale backed up by verifiable evidence. Our list of sources doesn't provide those at the moment. What it does currently do is encourage inexperienced editors to use sources many of which probably aren't reliable. And it will take a great deal of work and time to weed out the foul ones. By archiving it somewhere, we'd be able to continue to use it as a resource without it causing damage (in the form of wasted editor time and frustration resulting from failed FACs and such). Anyway, if you want to take on this task, be my guest. Do it your way. Goodraise 23:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

anime news network is reliable only by news. The wiki aspects are not. I dont see a big issue really. You just have to look at the sources sometimes. Do you want us to put refs for proof of reliability?Lucia Black (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating that a site is reliable for something isn't enough. You need to explain why it is reliable, and claims made in such an explanation need to be backed up by some sort of evidence. Goodraise 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just put certain ones back in the table. Make it easier to find evidence. I dont think the list is doomed though. Previous discussions will most likely bring evidence. It could very well be laziness to not put detail rather than assumption of reliable source. It usually done more stricter when adding a source.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I think it would be more effective to just go through them and list why each is reliable (perhaps include that as part of the entry on the page, for future reference. If we find sources which are not reliable, then we can remove them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, that's already how they are listed. I suggest simply removing the ones which don't have any evidence to back up their claims of reliability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a while back I started fishing bits of evidence out of linked discussions and turned one of the plain lists into a table to accommodate those bits, but they are a long way from outright rationales capable of convincing editors from outside this project of a source's reliability. WikiProjects approving their own sources tends to ring alarm bells with seasoned reviewers (here a recent example). To ensure that a source will be accepted at an FAC or FLC we need either a body of overwhelmingly strong arguments in favor of a source or a discussion at WP:RSN with a clear outcome. Anything less, like a mere project consensus, won't do. Archiving the entire list and starting over would send the clear message that things aren't fine the way they are. Anyway, if you people think the problem can be solved with less aggressive methods, don't let me stand in your way. Goodraise 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea of archiving the whole list and starting over. My opinion is that the list isn't there primarily to help articles pass FACs, and that the sources listed are very useful in trying to write initial articles. A FAC is going to require especially high quality sources, with especially strong evidence that those sources are reliable. Other sources with some evidence of reliability can still be good enough to be used in articles, even if they would need to be replaced with stronger sources to bring an article up to featured quality. I think it is incumbent on someone trying to bring an article up to featured status to make sure all of the sources are of the highest quality, and have been discussed by a larger audience than just this Wikiproject. However, I don't think that means that sources only discussed by a few people, with some evidence of reliability, have no place on Wikipedia. Basically, I think you are trying to make the list serve a purpose other than what it was intended for, and that there really isn't any problem with the list as it is. That being said, it does sound like a good idea that if a source gets a WP:RSN discussion, the discussion should be summarized and linked on the list. I don't think we need to make the list into a list only of sources that could be used to pass a FAC, but for sources that have been vetted well enough to pass in a FAC, it makes sense to have the discussions linked so that someone else doesn't need to get the same sources vetted again. Calathan (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The standards for featured level content is the same as for every other content. Either a source lives up to the expectations formulated by WP:V and WP:RS or it doesn't. I'm not saying we should remove all uses of every source on this list from all our articles. I'm saying we should stop encouraging their use until we can demonstrate clearly that they meet the wider community's expectations. Goodraise 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I quite frankly think that everything you just wrote is wrong. A source can live up to the expectations formulated by WP:V and WP:RS while still being of insufficient quality for use in a featured article. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria specifically calls for "high-quality" reliable sources. My understanding is that the qualifier "high-quality" is in place to indicate that the sources are not merely reliable, but are among the best sources covering the subject. However, that in no way means that sources which aren't the best aren't reliable. The way I see it, sources could be grouped into three rough categories - those that are unreliable (e.g. a blog post by a random person), those that are reliable but not high quality (e.g. a blog post by an expert, a review from a site with some editorial control but not among the most recognized sites in the industry), and those that are reliable and high quality (e.g. a review from a professional reviewer in a publication with a professional editorial staff and a high degree of recognition by the industry). I think we as a group, and any experienced editor of Wikipedia in general, is qualified to make a decision on whether a source is reliable or not, and there is no reason to go to WP:RSN unless there is disagreement among editors, or unless you want a broader discussion just to have something to refer to in a FAC for people who may not be familiar with the source. Requiring that all sources be vetted at WP:RSN seems completely unnecessary to me, and extremely onerous for anyone trying to write article content that is not yet up to a featured standard. I think our list of sources should include anything we think is reliable, that we are a perfectly fine group to judge reliability (despite not being a broad enough sampling of Wikipedia editors to vet something for featured status), and that providing a list of all the sources we think are reliable is extremely useful to editors, whether or not all of those sources would be appropriate to use in a featured article. Calathan (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It also depends on the person reviewing the sources over at the reliable sources noticeboard for example the first source listed: Active Anime I tried getting an opinion on, I used Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle as an example when it came t oreception as it is rated as a Good article here is the response I got: "No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Calathan: Consider this: Source A deals with subjects X and Y, is reliable for claims of fact about them per WP:V and WP:RS, and is used in featured articles about both subjects. Then source B, which is of much "higher quality" than A, but deals only with subject Y, is published. The article on Y then may be considered failing featured article criterion 3c for not using the best available literature, but that doesn't affect the reliability of source A. The point is, being a "high-quality" source in the sense of FA criterion 3c is subject specific. That means sources can't be divided in just those three groups (unreliable, low-quality reliable and high-quality reliable), because the same sources would end up in differing groups depending on what article we want to use them in. The only standard by which listing sources on a project page makes sense is plain reliability (and even there we have to differentiate for what a particular source can be used). Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources should contain rationales capable of convincing editors from outside of this project that a source is reliable, convincing them that a source is among the best in a subject area is a whole different story. Goodraise 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

why can't low quality sources be used in FAs and GAs?Lucia Black (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My... That's quite some serious & lengthly discussion happening here...
Looking for a godlike authority pointy at ANN saying this is a reliable source is not foreseeable...Instead it's more realistic to go for clues hunting proving that ANN is acknowledged as "trustworthy, respectable, & weight carrying website" within the field of anime/manga. No, i'm done with argumentation and blues links spamming like i used in the good old time. However for ANN, just point to the list of guest of their podcast to point out that much anyone who matter in anime/manga where guessed and more than once for some of them or to their anime streaming page as no serious anime companies would likely trust any random websites to host official streaming of their anime series. I won't talk about neutrality of ANN because it's another matter altogether. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)