Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Top 5 stub and start class articles

Here is the list of the top 5 stubs and start-class articles based on most view counts per day. Also, i did not include video games or anything that mostly encompasses another wikiproject.

Stubs

• Noragami
  • Start class
• Space Dandy
  • Start class
• Witch Craft Works
  • Start class
• Sakura Trick
  • Start-class
• Engaged to the Unidentified
  • Start-class

Start

• Kill la Kill
  • C-class
• Log Horizon
  • C-class
• Nisekoi
  • C-class
• Tokyo Ravens
  • C-class
• Strike the Blood
  • C-class

I think we should focus on the stubs though. but if you have information ready to be sued for the start classes, that is fine too. I personally will be looking over the stubs, not so sure how far i'll go with one of them, but i'll let you all know which one i decided to focus on. Lucia Black (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on Nisekoi for a while, but it was mainly rated Start class because the anime began airing this year, so episode summaries should be filling in nicely, and because it needs a Reception and possible conception/development section. The graphic novel section was also incomplete. As for Space Dandy, there's Talk:Space_Dandy, other than that, it needs the similar Reception, Development, and Manga (if appropriate) sections. Please do help though. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to fill in. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) updated 18:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wind Rises might need reassessment. It's well sourced and covers a decent amount of information. It's unlikely it could be expanded significantly until the home release and whatever subtitled/english language extras that comes with (in the Uk at least, the Ghibli BD's typicallycome with supporting materials like interviews and behind the scenes stuff).Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I reassessed The Wind Rises upto C-class and replaced it with Strike the Blood article. Lucia Black (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems we're already doing progress. Lucia Black (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this go in the task force section? Is the plan to always have a running top 5 stubs and starts or just ones for a month to focus on? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The last time this was an "established" project, lack of "established" volunteers was made the project fade. Instead, i'm just going to be updating the top 5 stubs by popularity regardless of who sees it or decides to work on it. I think more volunteers will come in without stating their volunteers if i just update this. Its a project without the commitment i guess. Lucia Black (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bump (i will continue to bump this until all the current stub-class listed are start-class. When all the stub classes are moved upto start, i will create a new section with a new list of stub classes. Lucia Black (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A few weeks late, but all the Stub-class articles have been promoted now. Now all we need is to get some of our C-class articles to B, and some of our articles to GA. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to do that, that is fine, but i still want to continue bringing up more stub-start articles. i could look up the most popular C and B-class articles. and see where they go from there. Although, i will say getting them to GA will take significantly longer as it takes an neutral editor to evaluate. But i'll find a way. Lucia Black (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And with that folks, we're down to Strike the Blood. Whoever is going to tackle this article should note that it is going to take some doing because almost the entirety of the page is plot summary. —KirtZ^Mail 05:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Strike the Blood needs a rewrite on the anime summaries as they are copypaste jobs from Crunchyroll. I've tagged them as copypaste, but if someone's gotten around to watching the series, please fill that in. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

well the summaries isn't whats making the article any better, so they can be removed. Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

True that, I've removed them. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, can someone write-up a short reception and then nom it for C-class. I'm tired. Best. —KirtZ^Mail 03:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added sales date onto it, but it still needing a critical reception. Here more sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (See above), [6], and [7] (the last two are ok: WP:A&M/I#List of sources). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've composed a reception paragraph based on those sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank YOU! I've just ranked it as C-clas and stroke it on the above list. Now, should we work to to get C-classes to B or GA or work on more stub/star articles. I couldn't agree more with Kirtz when he (she?) said this lists are motivating. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think focusing on stubs->starts->C and C->B->GA as separate and simultaneous tasks is the way forward. Ultimately each article is going to need to be addressed based on what is available for improving the article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So should we get the next 10 most popular sub and start class rolling...or..what? Frankly, I think we should keep this as an ongoing community project because it appears that we can work on and assess pages a heck of a lot quicker this way. —KirtZ^Mail 11:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be a pretty good idea. It would also be nice if we could promote more of our C-class articles to B-class, and work so that some of our B-class articles can become GA-class. And speaking of the assessment page, there seems to be a problem with it: some articles are shown to have outdated assessments (for example, an article can be shown to be Stub class when it is in fact Start). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 C-class

I'm not so sure we're ready for making the top C-class articles into B-class or GA. I think they stayed that way for a reason, but i think we can at least try to see where we stand. Here are the top 10 C-class articles.

• Hayao Miyazaki
• Hentai
• Studio Ghibli
• Sword Art Online
• Pokemon (anime)
• Fairy Tail
• Dragon Ball Z
• Digimon
• Sailor Moon
• Gurren Lagann

Hope nothing but the best. Lucia Black (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be archived for a while either like the previous list. Its motivating to see this here. —KirtZ^Mail 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

i made it so it wont archive until august considering this is a much bigger project. Lucia Black (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing/merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon

I know the proper place to talk about this is on WikiProject Sailor Moon's talk page (or possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council), but with the Sailor Moon WikiProject being inactive for so long, I was thinking if it could either be closed or made into a task force here. What do you guys think? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support I believe turning it into a task force is better off. Now that most of the members who originally ocntested aren't around anymore. Lucia Black (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Lucia Black's reasoning. It's time to move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I'm all for streamlining Wikipedia by merging an inactive Ani/Manga project with this main WikiProject. —KirtZ^Mail 03:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Does WikiProject Sailor Moon still have any members who are currently active? If so, please contact them about this. I'll also mention this discussion on WikiProject Sailor Moon's talk page. Finally, should this be an RfC? I don't really want a WikiProject to go with the consensus of just a few editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message on WikiProject Sailor Moon's talk page and have notified a number of active editors that are/were involved with the WikiProject (incredibly, of the seven remaining "active" members given as of their last update, only two have been active within the past year, although another user has made a few edits this year as well). It was also mentioned on their talk page that the project should be active again given that Sailor Moon's remake will be airing within this year; how will that affect this discussion, and the Sailor Moon WikiProject as a whole? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I hate to say this, but does it even need to be a task force if no one's around? Or is that just a typical first step for defunct full projects? Tezero (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Its also if they are very close. The proposal to turn it into a task force was because there was never need for it to be a wikiproject even if it was active, but the members contested without giving a valid reason other than its their wikiproject. which is valid enough, but not productive. Lucia Black (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to start an RfC below to get more editors to discuss about this. We have relatively few active editors, so we could have some outside comments as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon be marked as historical, be turned into a task-force, or be kept?

Note: The discussion is here, rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon, as this WikiProject is the latter's parent project, and also because the latter is inactive, and only two of its editors who are marked as "active" have been active within this year. Another reason is because one of the options is to turn WikiProject Sailor Moon into a task force of this project. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge with WP:ANIME per my above reasonings. Basically, the inactivity has gone on long enough and though I am one of the active editors around here (to clarify my understandings, there are actually five of us now as of April 2014), I would accept a merger and remove the inactive members from the list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge even back then when it was active, it wasn't really worthy of its own project. Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The effort is still needed given the current state of the articles but as a taskforce now within our project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The series is part of this WikiProject and it makes no sense leaving it in a place that is inactive. —KirtZ^Mail 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alternate universes and omake theater in Megatokyo#Merge?

It would be good if more user can participate at the discussion. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5 has nominated it for deletion instead, you can vote and discuss it there at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate universes and omake theater in Megatokyo. Lucia Black (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

One Piece character discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Recently added characters regarding the addition of new characters. Input from project members will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Tokyo Ravens#Characters

I raised this concern in this page, as this WikiProject is the only one covering the Tokyo Ravens article. I believe that the section Characters has multiple issues, including, but probably not limited to:

• Lack of references
• Not appropriate in the article
• Violations of a Wikipedia policy that I don't know which is appropriate

It so happens that that section is tagged for copyediting, as I am a part of the GOCE's May backlog elimination drive. If someone reads this post and this, it may be urgent for an immediate response on the action to be taken. Thanks in advance, Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone is very familiar with the series to fix it, i'm sure they would, but if not, its very hard to summarize and reference plot-related info for characters when we aren't familiar with it. I usually recommend to remove it and start over, or keep only the central characters. Lucia Black (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to my username, I am a Filipino and not a Japanese, and I have no knowledge at all about this novel. However, this suggestion of mine might also work: to list all characters in tabular form. That is, characters in one column and voice-overs in another. It may work for a two-fold purpose: to simplify the listing of characters and to list some background information about the characters in real life. A Wikipedia policy may state that fiction is not included in this encyclopedia, so in the meantime I think we should remove the information regarding the characters, leaving out their names and their voice-overs. Though probably we can leave a few information about their participation in the novel and remove those pertaining to the plot or story behind them. Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggest removing the copyedit tag and marking it GOCEreviewed on the talk page. It's not ready. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done here, but I'm not sure what issues to place in the tag. Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 09:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the issue parameter for the reviewed template, you can just say fancruft or accessibility issues. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done here. Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We can either list the characters in tabular form, or like Lucia Black's suggestion, keeping only the central characters. Or maybe we can introduce list form in that section. What do you think? Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a character list in table format and it surely wouldn't pass the GA criteria with such a table. Base on the edit that placed the template on the article,[8] the problem was that the section contained many grammatical errors. From my perspective, the section needs to be completely reorganized, minor characters removed, and possible split from the article into List of Tokyo Ravens characters. However, this also requires that the plot section be completely rewritten to summaries the entire series to date, instead of just an extremely short teaser. Right now, most of the plot details are in the character descriptions. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a nice idea. In the event that in the end of reorganization of that section, and we find it too long, then we can split that section into the new article that you are referring to and keep at least a few paragraphs summary. Probably we can leave just a short description about the characters such as A is the mother of B and B is the stepsister of C without the storytelling. Or the list form I was suggesting, A - voiced by B, A is the main character in the novel. I think we should have a vote here: the list form or 24.149.117.220's suggestion? Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Voting is evil. 2) This has already been hashed out at MOS:A&M#Characters. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The standard layout of the article is in the format generally acceptable by this WikiProject. The only things that need to happen here are either to split off the character and episode lists into their own list-class articles or simply trim them down. That is all. At the risk of not reading all of the above discussion, I really dont see the point of this discussion other than to simply find someone remotely interested in this page to work on it. —KirtZ^Mail 14:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I was the user who added the copy-edit tag to the section (and incidentally, probably am one of the few Filipino Tokyo Ravens fans out there, although I don't recall enough details to expand the character section). As mentioned above, I added the copyedit tag because I noticed that the grammar was off in certain parts of the section. Without having seen this discussion, I added a split tag to the section, as it's probably good enough for a split. However, as mentioned above, this could only work if the Plot section is expanded. I'm willing to do that, but I might need to rewatch the series or rely on external summaries to finish it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you can go ahead and move the characters to a separate page for starters. You dont really need a consensus for that. It's already overlong. And maybe that episode list as well. —KirtZ^Mail 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I'll hold of until the plot section is expanded. Right now, it's too short. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Artbomb.net reliable source?

I was looking for more reviews when i encountered Artbomb.net as a possible source. The co-founder is Warren Ellis who has written several comics and apparently novels and scripts (i'm not familiar with him, but he seems to have the credentials). I was looking at other staff members and seem to also have some level of credentials to reviewing manga, but again i didn't look at all of them, just the main cast. Here is the "About US" page. Can anyone let me know if its a reliable source? I'm assuming its reliable, just don't know if its completely reliable (entire staff), situational (specific areas), or just one person (Warren Ellis).

I ran into it by seeing viz media feature one of their reviews on the back of their manga, but i learned in the past their not always reliable, but who knows. Lucia Black (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

May want to ping WP:COMICS about this. This would definitely fall into the WP:SPS criteria. Beyond being comic artists themselves, what other writings on comics from this group have previously been published by reliable third-party publications? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Warren Ellis has columnist credentials with multiple articles at Wired UK magazine [9]. Some of the contributors such as Jamie S. Rich [10] have been editors in the comics industry. Tom Spurgeon is on the RS list. Regarding the website itself, I found this article of artbomb.com in the press: [11] Interview with Kelly Sue DeConnick where she describes artbomb.net as her first experience in comics was writing reviews: [12] It's not clear whether they have established themselves as manga reviewers like the contributors on Fandompost, but they certainly are involved in the comics industry. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

They don't necessarily have to establish themselves as "manga reviewers" if they establish themselves a comic reviewers. But at least a couple of their staff members have worked on translations for TokyoPop. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if their credible for comic reviews they are for manga. I think WP:ANIME should accept reliable comic review sites that also review manga. Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Adi Tantimedh has been a columnist for comics. His interview with Alan Moore was mentioned on techland.time.com [13]. Christopher Sebela has published comics for Marvel [14] Sam Humphries is a comic book writer. [15] Gail Simone is a comic book writer. Charlie Chu is an editor at Oni Press. [16] Dan Curtis Johnson is a comics writer. [17] Janet Harvey has written for DC Comics [18] Ian Shaughnessy has edited for Oni Press and writes a column there. [19] Library groups have listed it among their resource sites, [20], [21] [22] This book mentions the website as staff-written reviews about graphic novels [23] -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC), updated 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like its completely reliable. anyone object? Lucia Black (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Source details translation request

Hi all, in my quest to improve the article Puella Magi Madoka Magica, I have run into a source with great content (I already have a translation of most of the text), but for which I need more information on (translated title, date, author, etc.) The source can be found here:

• http://ultrajumpegg.com/#/column/0004/0029/01 (page 1)
• http://ultrajumpegg.com/#/column/0004/0029/02 (page 2)

What I need is:

• A transcription of the characters in the title (unfortunately it is an image so I can't just copy and paste)
• A translation of the title
• A translation of the author of the article (if it is listed)
• The date of the article (if it is listed)

If anyone would be able to help me out with this, that would be great! Artichoker^[talk] 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Title is "Kyakuhonka Urobuchi Gen-san intabyu- uruturajyanpu-honshi 'ULTRA NEXT' zouhohan", translation "Interview with scriptwriter Gen Urobuchi - Ultra Jump 'Ultra Next' extended version". Can't see an author (the interview is conducted by "UJE" which I assume stands for something like "Ultra Jump Editor"), and no date either. Although, if you go one level up, it lists the first part of the interview as being dated 2011.7.27 (and having the subtitle "#1 Mami-san wa kikakusho no dankai kara shindemashita (wara)"　or "#1 Mami died in the planning stages (lol)"), and the second part is dated 2011.8.3, with subtitle "#2 'Mahou shoujo no kyakuhon wo' to iwarete saisho wa mayamimashita", or "#2 'A script about a magical girl' was initially a pain". Or thereabouts. You might want to get a second opinion on those. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 08:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, both pages of this are just part 1. The subtitle on page 2 is different to the title of part 2. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 08:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have incorporated this into the ref, but would definitely be open to a second opinion. Also, if someone could transcribe the title to the actual Japanese characters and kanji, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

脚本家　虚淵玄さんインタビュー　ウルトラジャンプ本誌『ULTRA NEXT』増補版 Oda Mari (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Artichoker^[talk] 16:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Brazilian IPs

There have been about a half a dozen Brazilian IPs that have been changing the importance scales for many articles, the latest one is 179.177.15.85 (talk). I have put in a request at WP:ANI, to have all of these changes rollbacked, however changed do need independent review. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor has switch to 201.23.162.17 (talk) making the same types of edits. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now using 179.180.53.100 (talk). This editor is being very persistent. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried requesting a rangeblock? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be hard to do without blocking the entirety of Brazil. The editor is on an entirely different ISP each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Brazilian editor seems to be focusing on the following articles. Despite repeated requests to him/her to discuss mass changes to the importance scale, the editor has included to engage in a slow motion IP hopping edit war. So I'm bringing up the articles myself.

• Tomoharu Katsumata: Top -> High
• Shinichirō Watanabe: Mid -> Top
• Bones (studio): Top -> High
• TMS Entertainment: Mid -> Top
• Production I.G: Mid -> Top

The last two seems fairly reasonable (at the very least, they should be high), but I know that it requires a consensus of the project to up an article to Top-importance. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the last three. I'm not convinced Watanabe should be Top though. Does he have "a essential historical influence on the medium"? Not from what I can see. Even his status as mid importance is of some debate, while Bebop is of significant influence on other works, can the same be said for his other works? I do feel some of our importance levels could do with some reassessment, much like the "major figures" list in the anime/manga template. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bones is one of our examples for a top-importance article as it is a highly influential and major anime production studio. Why do you think it should be demoted to high? —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Anime and Manga At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Interview

I found this interview involving Ryota Ohsaka. It's in Japanese but it could be useful for the article since it's quite small. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#genres in infoboxes

Since this involves the anime and manga WikiProject, it would be great if the community could participate in this discussion to reach a clear concensus on the number of genres that should generally be listed in an article's infobox. —KirtZ^Mail 09:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, Dream Focus is up to his antic again. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Animerica request

Does anyone have Animerica vol1 issue 1? It's not listed on the resource page but someone might have it. I only need the Gunsmith Cats article. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)