Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation

Project consolidation

At WP:VG we currently have a task force that is aimed at consolidating and organizing video-game-related WikiProjects and task forces. A lot of this means merging or moving overlapped projects to task forces of our main project. This is good for less active projects because it gains them attention and grants access to our main project structure/resources/editors. This is also good for active projects for the same reasons, but in this case also benefits WP:VG with more members to help with peer reviews/cleanup/general discussion. We even had one specific instance where the process was greatly helpful in (somewhat) stabilizing a project that started leaning towards edit wars and calls to WP:ANI.

The reason I am bringing this up is that projects that a venn diagram of our two projects often pop up, and if this sort of cleanup work group sounds like a good idea for your project, then that would make a great collaboration point. I am merely offering it as a suggestion. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting the Anime and manga project become a task force under VG? If so, that would be a big no. Not even close enough to being related as a whole to even consider. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm glad you were clear. NO, I mean it might be a good idea for you guys to make a similar department for project cleanup. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh... :) Reading it again with that in mind, and looking at the task force page (should have done that first, eh LOL), its a good idea to me and something I've also advocated to a lesser degree several times. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be made a part of our cleanup taskforce... It would just require someone finding a wikiproject and listing it there somewhere, and then we could bring the topic here for general discussion if necessary. (BTW, what ever became of absorbing WP:O-Parts Hunter? —Dinoguy1000 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just absorbed it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So I see... Good job. —Dinoguy1000 20:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever arrive at a conclusion regarding WP:GUNDAM? G.A.S^talk 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Other then, merge if WP:GUNDAM wants to merge, no. The problem being is that WP:GUNDAM is just barely active that its one or two members didn't express an opinion or supported the "merge if the others in WP:GUNDAM wants to merge" position. --Farix (Talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a call for boldness. Just absorb, and see if anyone reverts. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. That now leave WikiProject Sailor Moon --Farix (Talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. :) Several active members, already working with the anime project, like our name, etc. --Masamage ♫ 23:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously support SM also being task forced, but strongly suspect its members will allow it to happen without a fight. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Returning to WP:GUNDAM for a minute, should we also merge its talk page banner into our own (after a reasonable amount of time to make sure no one objects to its absorption)? —Dinoguy1000 04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Can add a task force param to our banner for it to compensate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See! Now, if you guys take Digimon and Yu-gi-oh, we'll take Pokemon. We already have visual novels, so I think it evens-out. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I don't think any of those three need merged anywhere... Pokemon encompasses the immensely popular line of video games, true, but it also includes the TCG and the anime series, both of which are major components of the franchise. It's much the same way with Yu-Gi-Oh, having the million-and-one video games, the very popular manga and anime (and their associated spinoffs), and of course the TCG. I'm less familiar with Digimon, but I'm pretty sure it's the same way with it. Therefore, we, WP:VG, and a collectible card game wikiproject (when or if it ever gets created) could all conceivably claim any of these three projects, and the projects themselves would likely fight against consolidation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no major objections to WP:GUNDAM being absorbed. Hopefully we can get a few more knowledgeable people to help us clean up and get into shape the UC Gundam stuff. More stuff from MalikCarr would be nice as he writes the best Gundam articles so far, but he doesn't like Wikipedia much -.- Jtrainor (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Yusei Fudo and Akiza Izinski

• A user, Beejay1234 (talk · contribs) insists on adding unsourced speculation about the relationship between these two Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. He says he has a source, but refuses to link directly to it, and instead just keeps re-adding the speculation. What is my recourse here? JuJube (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's continuing to ignore discussions, rv as vandalism (either OR or introducing deliberate factual errors) with escalating warnings, then report to AI/V. Bet his "source" is some fanfic :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion manga volumes

I created this list from the Evangelion manga series. Does anybody have the titles from the manga angelic days? Also, does anybody know sources of the evangelion manga published by Viz during 1998? The lead also needs some work, so could anybody give his cents? (Was that the phrase commonly used to help?) Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

'two cents". Looks good so far, I'll take another look in a minute. I wish Sadamoto would hurry and finish the damm thing, 13years is a joke...Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Discographies

Something we should consider as part of our MOS, given the number of albums certain anime franchises emit: there's a proposed MOS:DISCOG in the works. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace artiste by anime_franchise.

Oricon gives freely the peak rank in chart while detailed sales & ranking evolution data are not but that sufficient for MOS:DISCOG. You just need to google the CD label & Oricon. --KrebMarkt 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim Task Force

A task force for Adult Swim has been created under the Cartoon Network project (even though the CN project's scope currently says AS isn't covered :P). One editor then tagged 1-2 dozen anime articles with the CN banner, even though both the CN project and the AS task force specifically states "doesn't cover anime." He then modified the AS task force page to include anime, which has since been reverted. There is now a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Adult Swim#Adult Swim regarding the issue of whether the AS scope should include anime that airs on AS. As all members of the CN project have been notified of the discussion, it seemed only fair that this project also have a say in whether the overlap is necessary or desirable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Tactics episodes

Recently, I created List of Tactics episodes. While I've read a few volumes of the manga, the anime only follows it in essence, with the basic plot, (most) characters, and certain events being the same. I currently have no plans to buy the DVD boxset, so...It's be a great help if someone could fill in the episode descriptions. Normally, I'd ask on the main Tactics talk page, but the entire article seems to be inactive in the case of editing. Also, I believe that the episode titles are different in the English release than in the Japanese release. ANN lists them differently, and I believe I should change the titles to reflect that. Does anyone have that conformation? Also, my last quick question is how they refer to Haruka in the anime: as a tengu, demon, or goblin. In the manga, it's tengu, but I believe he's referred to as a goblin in the English anime. Thanks. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the anime as it premiered on Sci Fi, but that was spring last year, so I can't help with the plot summaries at all. IIRC, Haruka is referred to as a goblin (specifically, the "demon-eating goblin"), and I think I have all of the episode titles written down somewhere (unless Tactics is one of those series where the title card left the title in Japanese; I can't remember), so I may be able to help with that, too. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Madman licensed Anime

I'm finding it hard to find reliable release info for the Australian dvds published by Madman Entertainment. I don't believe there is an Australian Amazon (if there is, I've never found it), and Madman remove discontinued products from their own site(such as individual volumes that they now only make in box set form). Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 10:07, January 6, 2009

Nope, no Australian Amazon and its darn hard to find good Australian sites for anime and manga in general. For Madman, I think for licensing, as long as they at least have the boxset, the Madman site can be used for the site. For individual releases and dates...maybe check the web archive? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Each 3 months or so, there's a small ad booklet that is released by Madman (called Madman Updates), which has what anime DVDs and manga are coming out in which month. It's coz anime isn't very big here, and that's why we have so little coverage. I've got a few volumes of Madman Updates, back till round 2006, and I've also subscribed to the Madman newsletter, and have it dating back to April 2007, so let me know if it can be of any use. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those Madman Updates can be used as sources, as it sounds similar to the current version of Animerica. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just let me know what you need me to do, and I'll have it done sometime soon. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time, maybe add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines with the lists of contents for the issues you have, so editors which series it can source to? Or, depending on how many volumes you have, you could run through add sourcing on those series *grin*-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see :D They're not really magazines, just ad booklets, so it doesn't really belong there. I'll go home and dig them up and see what's in them. When I have time, I guess I'll head over to the series mentioned and add a sourced line about when the first DVD was released in Aus. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These would certainly be helpful, but unfortunately both the series I'm having trouble with Love Hina and Chobits are both from 2003 or so. I think listing them in the magazine section is a great idea. While they may not technically be magazines in a literal sense, I don't see any reason to exclude them Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll put them up soon then. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put up the volumes I have at the moment. The contents will come soon (I hope)! -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 04:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One possible place to check is the Classification Board and Classification Review Board of the Commonwealth of Australia. I used it for sourcing the DVD releases of Tokyo Mew Mew. I found Love Hina[1] and Chobits releases there[2] (when searching, make sure to check the include adult/RC titles or they won't show up). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That will be great for referencing that they exist, but won't help with street dates (dates are classification dates). However as these are for episode lists I should be able to get away without street dates for individual volumes for B class (the Chobits list managed it). Thanks! Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That did the trick, found a page archived from 2006 :) Although wikipedia doesn't like the formatting of the url - any ideas? i think it causes problems because it appears as two urls in the same field. see here. I've added the dates but left it unreferenced for now. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody with good Japanese?

I could get some pages of the newest Naruto volumes (38 to 42) that contain notes from the author (probably conception of the series). However, it is all in Japanese, and I dont understand anything. Anybody who can help, just tell me and I ll show them the images.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach chapters

For some reason List of Bleach chapters has no received any comment since it was nominated in contrast to almost all the other FLC. Participate is very appreciated. Thanks. Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh, forgot about it with the New Years and being sick. Left some comments. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Someone has been adding quite a few summaries to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes. I checked for them online and didn't find them anywhere, so I presumed someone was writing them all. However, a new editor added a note stating that the summaries were from "Summaries from Funimation: Dragon Ball Z Uncut Season 1: Vegeta Saga booklet". While they have since removed it, could someone who has the Season 1 set check this to make sure those summaries are not all copyright violations? If so, they need to be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...from his edit summaries he is replacing the existing summaries with the Funi ones, so reverted and warned for Copyvio. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)

I have nominated List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1) as an FLC. While I have personally copyedited the summaries (which I did not write myself), it has been suggested that I get another third-party copyedit for this series. Can anybody do this? Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to plea here, but I'm afraid this FLC will fail without a copyedit... I've been looking at this for far too long so I really can't see anything wrong with the summaries. I've asked around, but people have declined on the basis that they don't know this show. Is there seriously nobody who can spare some time to copyedit this? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This project has a serious lack of good copy-editors. That's nothing new. Hope you find someone, though chances aren't exactly good. :\ -- Goodraise (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Bilby (talk · contribs) has begun to do some... I'd be happy to trade with someone. I'm not all that bad at copyediting (if I may say so myself) so I'd be happy to look at someone else's list in exchange. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of The Prince of Tennis characters merges

The various individual character articles have been tagged for merging. Additional views requested at Talk:List of The Prince of Tennis characters#Merges of Individual Character Articles -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aurora Publishing review

I like an independent review of of the article on Aurora Publishing and it's associated sub-articles. I know that many of these articles were created by an employee of Aurora Publishing, Fujoshi sisters (talk · contribs), but I've also noticed a few other accounts that were created edited/create a few articles related to Aurora Publishing and its releases, then stop editing altogether.

I've put two of the articles up for AfD. The main article itself seems rather suspect since it covers the licensed titles instead of being about the company itself. I was able to find one article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and general title announcements about ANN with the rest of ANN's coverage based off of press releases or panel announcements. Based on what I could find so far, Walkin' Butterfly is the only one of their titles that could pass WP:NOTE and WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's been the trend with almost all of our company articles for licensors. I personally think they should all have such lists removed, with just a see also to their categories where they exist, and instead focus purely on the company per the company article guidelines and general idea that we aren't a catalog, however, when I've attempted this before not much feedback was given. Aurora is a relatively new company, I believe, from what I recall from AoDs recent reviews of a handful of their titles. Not sure the company is even notable yet, but in either case, the talk page should be tagged to note the COI, and I'd be inclined to check user on Fujoshi sisters, Mizuki0066, Nopocky4kitty, and Krestalve for probably sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) since Aurora seems to have employees cataloging there stuff here. For the titles themselves, almost all should be AfDed; maybe do a bulk one noting promotional actions by publisher, but all fail WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Walkin' Butterfly can definitely pass WP:N -- in addition to ANN's review, I've seen a couple others, including some mainstream coverage (which I'll have to track down -- it could have been PW, maybe?). —Quasirandom (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I Shall Never Return is fairly good to go for establishing notability (though article itself needs work). As a minor note, some of those with disambigs need case fixes if kept. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Annnnnd Walkin' Butterfly was a TV Tokyo j-drama this past year. Even aside from the reviews and being licensed by at least three foreign publishers, it's now passing WP:BK by a fast-walking mile. (I'll take on getting this up to at least a decent start.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By the looks of things, candidates for deletion are Be Honest!, Heavenly Body, Kirepapa, Love For Dessert, The Manzai Comics, and Queen of Ragtonia. The rest have at least one review, though the reviews should be scrutinized. I'm not really sure just how reliable Mania is as a review site post AoD's absorption. --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to be careful to make sure it's by one of the staff reviewers rather than a reader, but otherwise as best I can tell they're still reliable. Collectonian? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and except for Love for Dessert and Kirepapa, I concur with those titles. But we should let the {{tl:notability}} tags attempt to bring up evidence first. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The ones that are http://www.mania.com/*title*.html should all be AoD staffers, and following the traditional AoD format. User reviews will have a URL of http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We should document that in our list of resources on the Project page. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, feel free to tweak the wording as needed :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Our most recent Aurora editor, Nopocky4kitty (talk · contribs) has been adding various reviews, many of them from blogs, to the articles. I currently don't have the time to sort them out. He/she has also restored the catalog lists back to the main article which I deleted for a second time. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted them all as sockpuppetry and advertising and send in an SSP report so they can all be confirmed, identified, and hopefully blocked. Rather shameful way for a company to act. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any particular evidence that Nopocky4kitty (talk · contribs) is affilited with Aurora, and is not just a fan of what they publish? It sounds like the user is trying to, like, improve the articles by adding third-party reviews, even if they don't live up the to ludicrous "reliability" standards. And is doing so actually "abuse?" 208.245.87.2 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article for Aurora Publishing based off of third party sources and would like others to review it. Hopefully, I've archived a more natural tone compared to the previous versions. It should suffice as a stub and survive any AfD attempts. --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good stub. Though I wonder about the definition of shoujo the article gave, as Walkin' Butterfly is marked on the cover as for 16+. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the discussion, but an interesting sidenote: I think Walkin' Butterfly is the first manga (or comic of any kind) serialized by mobile phone I've seen pass Wikipedia's notablity guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged the new sock to the report and removed out the excessive and obvious promo crap they shoved into Red Blinds the Foolish. Someone should check the refs to see if they are RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com notes it as one of the top 10 anticipated announced licenses from AnimeExpo 2008, and Tom Spurgeon gives it a short-take notice in part spurred by Matt Thorn being the translator but also the mangaka's previous titles. This in addition to being noticed in all the major yaoi blogs. Given all these things, and the fact that the English edition was published exactly a week ago, I think we should wait for a month or two for reviews to come out before deciding it's not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: in reviewing the articles, can folks make sure to add in the actual original release info, since it seems the Aurora reps made all of the articles in such a way that it almost implies that they are the first publishers of the works instead of starting with the Japanese release first. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles to sort through

Here is a list of articles pointing to Aurora Publishing. Anyone willing to review these articles and see if any of them have reliable sources that may demonstrate notability? --Farix (Talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Be Honest (No JA article, no Mania reviews)
2. Flock of Angels (No JA article. Mania v1 review, Mania v2 review)
3. FreshMen (No JA article, at AfD, no Mania reviews)
4. Future Lovers (manga) (No JA article, at AfD, no Mania reviews)
5. Hanky Panky (manga) (No JA article, no Mania reviews)
6. Hate to Love You (No JA article, Mania v1 review)
7. Heavenly Body (No JA article, no Mania reviews)
8. Hitohira (adapted into a nationally broadcast anime series) An anime makes it notable.--十八 01:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
9. I Shall Never Return - (No JA article, has licensed OVA adaptation, Mania OVA review, Mania manga v1 review, Mania manga v2 review)
10. Kirepapa (JA article at ja:キレパパ。, no Mania reviews, has OVA adaptation)
11. Kiss All the Boys (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, Mania v1 review)
12. Love For Dessert (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, no Mania reviews, About.com review, PopCultureShock review)
13. Nephilim (manga) (JA article at ja:ネフィリム (漫画), Mania v1 review)
14. Nightmares For Sale (No JA article, Mania v1 review, Mania v2 review)
15. The Manzai Comics (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, no Mania reviews, cannot find other reviews)
16. Queen of Ragtonia (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, not yet published in English, no Mania reviews)
17. Red Blinds the Foolish (No JA article, no Mania reviews, About.com anticipates it, Tom Spurgeon short-take notice)
18. Seduce Me After the Show (No ANN entry, unknown JA article, Mania review, About.com review, PopCultureShock review, passing praise by Tom Spurgeon)
19. Spring Fever (manga) (No JA article, Mania review)
20. Tough Love Baby (No ANN entry, unknown JA article, Mania review)
21. Voices of Love (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, Mania review)
22. Walkin' Butterfly (covered by Honolulu Star-Bulletin, ANN v1 review, About.com v1 review, Mania v1 review, Mania v2 review, PopCultureShock v1 review, adapted as nationally broadcast j-drama)
23. Yakuza in Love - (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, Mania review)

Hi, I tried adding more resources and media to the Kirepapa page, there wasn't any mention of the 3 drama cds that were produced in Japan for this series. I hope it makes it more notable. LittleOrangeAlien (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-English dub names

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I'm posting here regarding an issue that came up over at the List of YuYu Hakusho characters over November-December 2008 involving the characters' names in the Filipino dub of the series. The way I understood it based on this WikiProject's guidelines regarding character names and other editors' opinions/actions, I thought that dub names were not to be included unless there is a valid reason (e.g. the notability of the name/s) for doing so. However, fellow editor Sesshomaru pointed out that the articles for the Dragon Ball characters include some of their non-English dub names, and that there is no outright policy against the inclusion of such names in articles. What is the standard or policy regarding this matter? And if there isn't any, I'd still like to hear the community's suggestions/opinions for the sake of clarification. --SilentAria ^talk 05:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the English release names and the original Japanese names should be included. Fillipino, Tagalong, Spanish, etc etc etc shoudl not be included. This is the English encyclopedia, and, as far as I know, beyond a 1-2 sentence mention in the main article and appropriate episode/chapter lists that the series was licensed in those languages, we do not include details on those releases here. For here, its purely trivia and trivial information that doesn't belong unless, as noted, it is extremely notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions (use English) states that alternatives should only be included when they are common (in English). Should there not be any English publication, but say a Spanish one, we should still use the romaji of the Japanese according to it as well as that is the established practice for untranslated material from Japanese.じんない 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason we include the English language names are because those are the names that the English readers will be most familiar with. But we don't list the names used by other languages. Just how many names do the characters in Sailor Moon have? Tonnes, but we only give their original names and the names used in English publications. --Farix (Talk) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but SilentAria asked for a policy/guideline, so I listed one to back it up.じんない 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, everyone! :) --SilentAria ^talk 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 successful

Tag & Assess 2008 has officially ended. I would like to personally thank all of the participants. My thanks goes in particular to Goodraise and Juhachi, who assessed 1,080 and 1,000 articles respectively.
—G.A.S^talk 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So, when do we start the T&A 2009? XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, 2009 is for cleanup after the last round. Next T&A is 2010. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For the moment continued monitoring of B-class upgrades should do the trick:)

T&A2008 was necessary due to (1) the fact that we had no assessment department before and the existing assessments were sometimes quite optomistic, (2) did not use importance ratings before, (3) the introduction of C class, and (4) the fact that biography work group articles were not categorised as such. I do not expect such drastic changes during 2009 and as such, no T&A will be needed. Well, not unless someone wants to check if all stubs have the correct stub templates applied:P.

G.A.S^talk 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw none was planned a little while after posting this. :) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the Biography Workgroup, I'd like to mention that if anyone has an particular knowledge about Osamu Tezuka or Hayao Miyazaki, please feel free to contribute the the articles. The Miyazaki article in particular is close to GA, and both are Top Importance. Sorry for the plug... Thanks again to everyone who participated in Tag & Assess 2008! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units

This list needs to be split into series-specific lists in order to have any hope of being manageable. I would love to help, but I don't know the names of all the Gundam unit models, nor do I know which ones belong in which series lists. Anyone who can help with this is encouraged to do so. Discussion is here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there not already enough spinout articles for Gundam? Almost all those on the mecha are pure fancruft and it feels like this might be more creep to add yet more.じんない 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep the cruft-slinging to a minimum? Calling things you don't like "cruft" does not help anything and doesn't do anything to improve things. Having series-specific articles covering the mecha found in them (as that's what Gundam is all about, really) is just as legitimate as having a character list. The mecha are just as much characters as the human characters in the Gundam series. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I take offense to that. Gundam has been historically known for creating hundreds of articles when left unchecked. The term "cruft" is justified.--Remurmur (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As there haven't been hundreds of Gundam series, let alone Universal Century series, I think your concerns are unfounded here. I'm not advocating the creation of articles for every model of Gundam, but rather ONE list article per series which covers any of the models in that series. Hardly hundreds, and hardly unchecked. There is nothing to take offense at here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My offense is simply to your offense of the word "cruft". --Remurmur (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I said I was offended by the word "cruft". Rather, I was asking people to not start calling things they don't like "cruft" as it doesn't lead to a productive discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is your spiderman suit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't catch the reference, WP:SPIDER. --Farix (Talk) 14:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a list of mecha -- yes. Having a few mecha pages, giving the number of Gundam series, probably. Having almost every other gundam have its own page just to list its stats and completely failing to even attempt to ever try passing WP:GNG, no.

As for the list itself, size is not an issue for lists. See WP:SIZE#Occasional exceptions. If both lists cannot meet WP:N, then there is only need for 1 list.じんない 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the notability mudslinging, can we please see a good effort to make this list encyclopedic? It's beyond awful at this point, and I want some assurance that the quality of this list is somewhere past "X Gundam has weapon Y and armor Z" in-universe terminology. I don't see this as legitimate as a character list, and want to see how this is presented in a good encyclopedic manner before we give carte blanche here to create more of this stuff. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The first step is to go to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units and drop the dead weight. Then add descriptions of the significant mobile suits/armors featured in the series, beef up the lead, and then create sections about the model kits and other appearances outside the franchise, conceptual development, and influences. This is not going to be an easy cleanup and will take time. I just hope that people aren't going to get impatient and start sending things to AfD again like with D.N.Angel character mergers. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't this just be split/merged into the respective series articles or character lists, and then individual mecha lists (re)split when size becomes an issue or they can demonstrate independent notability? That seems like the best way to cut the cruft IMHO... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was suggesting. Something like List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile units, List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam mobile units, etc. It seems to me that would be the most intuitive way to list them, and the best way to prevent this "cruft" people seem to be so scared of. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that I like Farix's suggestions for content/sections:

• Major units (I think this section should include mention of any derivations, but not anything beyond a mention unless there is a significant reason for more info)
• Model kits
• Books
• Conceptual development
• Influences

Anyone have any further suggestions for sections of the page? How about the order in which they should appear? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find anything for reception or critique section on the models, that should be added. Merchandise section as well.じんない 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to present the current best mobile suit article (in my opinion): Gundam Mk-II.

This should be used as a baseline for how any article on an individual mobile suit should look. It's well-formed, doesn't list a zillion variations, has a nice infobox, and has info on real world stuff aside from models. Jtrainor (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Still looks pretty bad. Should have a completely separate "conception and design" section, an "appearances" section with all the in-universe appearances in various series under different headers and an "other media" section within the appearances section to detail the out-of-universe appearances. Past that, should have a reception section on any critical commentary. That and the prose is pretty bad as well. This is a start, but it's definitely not an ideal model for other mobile suit articles. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. That article is by far the best Gundam article on the wiki right now, and is better than easily 90% of fictional item articles in general. It's not FA status, I'll grant you that, but it's still pretty decent. I seriously challenge you to find a Gundam article that's better. Jtrainor (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be the best Gundam mecha article. It may even, as you say, be among the top 10% fictional item articles out there, but it still does not conform to the WP:MOS-AM guidelines and does not meet, at this time, meet WP:GNG.じんない 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would actually pick Gundam (mobile suit) as a much better example. However, the original Gundam is an exception to the rule that most of the mobile suits are not notable enough for a standalone article. --Farix (Talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Jtrainor) Uh, best Gundam article? That's hardly a big accomplishment. Within the top 10% of all fictional articles isn't even a big accomplishment either. Come back when you get something to GA, thanks. Part of the problem with these Gundam articles is that no one has written one in a decent encyclopedic fashion yet, and is the primary reason why they find themselves at AfD so often. That's why I'm very hesistant to support creating more lists on these Gundam mobile suits when no one has given an iota of hope that they will be encyclopedic in any fashion. We don't want to see them at AfD in a few months because of this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gundam (mobile suit) looks like it has enough to warrant notability and does seem closer to what such an article should be, however, it is hardly a stellar example. I would suggest useing the anime/manga character guidelines as that is largely how a mecha functions in the narrative - albeit with a human mind in the form of a pilot.じんない 08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that comment of yours to be extremely rude at best, Sephiroth BCR. You should be happy anyone at all is willing to put such effort into a Gundam article. Expecting everything to meet FA status is quite unreasonable. The primary focus at the moment should be improving Gundam articles in general to the point where they a) don't look like crap and b) can beat an AfD, THEN worry about making them perfect. Jtrainor (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth said GA, not FA. Frankly, I'd like to see a Gundam article at least hit a high C. That being said, if we want an example of a stellar Gundam article, why not just make one? Pick one that looks like it can pass GNG, and work on getting it up to snuff. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the best comment I've seen here so far.じんない 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Robotech characters should be renamed and reformatted

I believe List of Robotech characters should be renamed List of minor Robotech characters because if the main characters have sufficent information to justify a solo article it seems unecessary to put the same information on the List of Robotech articlces. I believe that this article should be renamed and reserved for minor characters.

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That would completely incorrect. Minor character lists go over to AfD quick fast and in a hurry. A character list should have ALL of the characters, not just the minor ones. Those that may have notability for a stand alone article should still have a short summary leading out to that article in the main list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. See WP:SUMMARY. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but a quick look at the individual character articles shows that none of them cite any third-party sources. They are simply regergitation of plot details, which is what indivdual character articles should not be. If there aren't going to be any third-party sources, then the character articles should be merged back into the main list. --Farix (Talk) 14:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MangaCast

Should MangaCast (http://mangacast.net/) be considered a reliable source? I just ran across it today on some of the Aurora Publishing articles. It's currently being used as a reference in Broccoli Books, Vinland Saga, and Zombie Powder.

The impression I get from the website is that it is a podcast and blog by a group of individuals. I do not see any evidence that any of the podcasters and authors could pass WP:SELFPUB. --Farix (Talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...my first inclination is to say it is not a reliable source and is little more than a group blog. One of the contributers, Jarred Pine, is an AoD reviewer and I am almost certain Ed Chavez is too. However, I don't think that's enough to call the site as a whole RS, as the only reason I know it is being a long time AoD regular, and their reviews are already available on AoD, which is RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My impression is they're on the thin edge of reliable, if that makes any sense. I try not to use them myself, but leave references using them unless I can find a definitively better source. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's mostly a platform of consolidated articles from various resources. It might be better to just go directly to the original source than cite MangaCast. LittleOrangeAlien (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement on List of Soul Eater characters

I don't know if this is the right page to get help, but it is the project page. An IP has just marked List of Soul Eater characters for possible copyright infringement due to plot revelations and spoilers from the anime and manga series, which is licensed in the US, Canada, and Japan. I believe that Wikipedia allows this and Wikipedia:Spoiler says it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because it spoils the plot. However, I cannot edit the page until an admin gets to it. The IP felt the article is dishonest in its revelations of plot and character development and put the copyright infringement notice in the article just below where [they] believe material starts to spoil the plot. (Quoted from Talk:List of Soul Eater characters#Copyright Infringement) ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oy. Contrary to popular belief (on parts of Wikipedia and elsewhere), there's a substantial body of case law in the United States and other countries that a summary of a work's plot, even a detailed one, does not constitute copyright infringement (but is instead a derivative work). Spoilers exist on Wikipedia and are not a legal issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP is incorrect. If plot summary/character lists were copyright infringements, we would lose so much on this site, it'd be ridiculous. However, if those character blurbs are directly copied from some source, it would be a copyright violation. I'll try to talk to the IP now. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help! ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I'm the #1 contributor to the article, and I can tell you the information was not copied from another source.--十八 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Juhachi (talk · contribs) has reverted the IP and I'm attempting to start a dialogue. I doubt, however, that the IP will respond or be able to justify the tag, so Juhachi's action is for the best. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again. Thank you for the help; I had no idea what to do ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For future references, if you see an application of WP:SNOWBALL, or WP:DE, then be WP:BOLD and revert.--十八 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Juhachi, the IP's issue is that the page reveals substantial amounts of information about Soul Eater's plot. While this is not a valid concern, I don't believe it's disruptive editing. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the IP wasn't trying to be disruptive, it still is, since you and I and everyone else here already knows the IP's claim's have no basis, and the sooner we end it, the faster we can get on with your lives. No need to draw something out when the end result will be the same.--十八 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I take that back. It's quite odd how he notified other IPs but didn't notify Juhachi... The user also seems to be on a dynamic IP, having edited from both 203.218.85.229 and from 67.42.98.38. (My mistake, I misread the history). By the way, I think what you did was right; I just don't think it's disruptive... DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there have been people saying that an abridgment is enough of a derivative work to be a copyvio though per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Fair_use. ViperSnake151 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am the IP which originally marked the subject article for copyright violation. I had originally thought that the summaries of plot and revelations of the character personalities, abilities, etc. constituted a copyright infringement as stated in the Law of Torts or Public Wrongs, and 17 USC §106. However, the Law also states that should a plaintiff come forward and complain about the content, they must prove that the content is damaging enough to hurt sales, essentially, or that the work must be basically a colorful imitation of the original. Since neither can be proven, in this case, I release my concerns.

HOWEVER, I must reiterate that the boundary between too much and too little information is a fine one, and I leave it up to Juhachi and other contributors to make that judgment . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.98.38 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

animanga templates broken

There's an error somewhere in the animanga templates. It's killing the section headers for the various subtemplates. I think it's in template:infobox animanga/header, since the error affects the headers for templates that load after it... can someone look through the wikimarkup of the various headers? If you purge cache any anime/manga page right now, they'll show up with the errors displaying weird junk at the top of articles. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that's where the problem was. I don't know what exactly TheFarix (talk · contribs) attempted to change, but I've reverted it for now. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was attempt to deal with an annoying wikimarkup error with titles that have double exclamation points (!!) or any other wikitable syntax. Apparently, I forgot to make the same alterations to the components, which suffered from the same error. The components have now been fixed. --Farix (Talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh so that's why I see titles with bangs sometimes have <nowiki> tags around them. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Req picture tag & merge tag

Hi,

I browsed the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga and i found way too many Req picture tag along the merge tag. There is no point to get the requested picture for an article that will be merged eventually. Req picture tag should no cohabit with the merge tag unless it's the parent-article of the merge.--KrebMarkt 18:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can go through them and give a list without the merge tag; and/or remove the Req picture tag using WP:AWB. Which would you prefer?

(To everybody) Is there consensus to remove the merge req-image tag where it is is the case?

G.A.S^talk 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the merge has a clear consensus against it (or the merge is done), its merge tag should be removed. Otherwise, I think it should stay till the merge is actually done. Req image should be removed if the article has clear consensus to be merged or already has one. I suspect (hope) most with both are ones that have already been merged and the talk pages just didn't get updated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction above, inadvertently said the wrong thing. G.A.S^talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefere an automated solution. Maybe alter the template to put articles with both tags into a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga instead (perhaps: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga for merge). But that might just be the part of me that likes to code... -- Goodraise (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a elegant solution. G.A.S^talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to update the articles in question to remove the req picture tags. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important here to make the distinction between articles which are merge targets from other articles, and articles which are suggested to be merged to other articles. The first would be a valid use of the req image tag, the second would (probably) not. I've been meaning to split the merge tag to be able to distinguish between these (and to link to related articles), but haven't gotten around to it yet. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for catching that potential issue. But a second Merge-target parameter? ... Most target articles would be list of or main articles, so they should be relatively easy to pick out from a subcategory (per Goodraise) to remove the merge tag (and add the target article to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP -- remember our discussion a while ago?). G.A.S^talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a first merge-target parameter? That's news to me... The changes I have in mind would be the addition of merge-from and merge-to parameters, that would accept as input one or more article names, and would be mutually exclusive to each other and the generic merge parameter. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to filter Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga with the content of Category: Anime and manga articles to be merged so the number receivable request for picture will be low.--KrebMarkt 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's essentially what I suggested above. Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear enough. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it won't mess with destination-article of a merge & article tagged for merging-discussion then i'm for that solution.--KrebMarkt 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of those article are automatically included because the image parameter of the infobox was not set. I've thought about doing the same thing with {{Infobox animanga/Header}} instead of manually setting each article that lacks an image in the project banner. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, the talk pages might be a bit of a problem, but mainspace should be a safe bet to include images (since the category contains both namespaces) :) G.A.S^talk 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation assistance pls?

Can anyone give a translation assistance at Aria (manga)#Manga? We have the complete chapter titles in kanji, but the English translations for the series have gotten only so far. Romanji readings would be an added bonus, but English is the higher priority. (Yes, we need to spin the list out -- we're still under construction here.) I should probably mention that existing translations through volume 3 are the official ones. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:TangentCube, we've got romanji. Yay. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped out -- we now have translations of all but two chapter titles and romanji for all but one. I appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Length of manga volume summaries

Okay, I know we talked about this at some point, but if we documented it, it wasn't in WP:MOS-AM or {{Graphic novel list}} or anyplace else I can think of. What did we decide on a guideline for number of words to use for a tankobon volume summary in a manga chapter list? And can we document this in our MOS already? (Along with the episode summary length guideline.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never did come to a consensus. Personally, considering they are at generally 200 pages (or more), I feel it should be higher than the episode range, though not quite at film length (400-700). List of Bleach chapters (current FLC) for example, has summaries around the 150 range, which I find too short and detrimental to covering the basic plot points. List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters is a recent chapter FL with fuller summary, averaging 300 words per, with first and last being a little longer. So I'd go with 200-400 words per volume, which is a nice number in-between. (for the curious, the novel MoS gives no guidance here at all, with TWO plot sections per novel and no length guidance on either) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was a bit higher than I was remembering. (And, yeah, it's reasonable for first and last volumes to have more to cover, what with intros and wrapups.) Is it time to reopen the discussion, based on data we now have from our manga FLs? (Lessee: List of Yotsuba&! chapters most are ~100 words, except the most recent which is ~200 -- but that's a notably plotless series and most chapters really can be summarized in a sentence.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably would be good to revisit at this point. Not sure what the others are averaging, though I think less is fine is the plot is simplier like Yotsuba&!-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, looking at our 10 (ten!) featured manga lists, most of them have plot summaries in the 150-200 word range, with some occasional longer volumes, with three series outliers: Yotsuba&! running shorter at 100 words, Tokyo Mew Mew running longer at 300 words, and Marmalade Boy also at about 300 words. This includes mostly some rather plotheavy shounen series. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...me suspects the shorter ones were going by the same guideline as the episode list with the lack of other guidance. Guess we know which to FLs I did :P Alas, I think some of those plot-heavy shonen series are suffering from shorter summaries, as they aren't very useful and really make the series seem simplier than they are (IMHO). I know I've been withholding a support on the Bleach FLC because I could more easily see the major plot points missing that I felt were important due to the shorter summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm included to go for "between 100-300 words, with 150-250 words being ideal." Thoughts? Anyone? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Me still say 200-400 :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, setting hard limits is generally not a good thing. If the series is plot intensive, then you require longer summaries. If the series isn't (as most shōnen series are), then you have shorter summaries. It should be pretty self-evident when plot summaries are too detailed or too sparse. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard limits, no. Guideline targets, yes. Just there are guidelines for movies and television episodes. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think around 200 words is good (this is the length I write for the Black Cat manga volumes), so I think I would agree with Quasirandom. However, as Sephiroth points out, each manga (and even each volume) can vary significantly, so it really depends... Maybe ~200 for average plot development, and ~300 for significant plot development? -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself am currently drafting a chapter list, for Kuroshitsuji specifically, and my volume one summary is about 200. I agree with Quasi and disagree with hard limits, but agree with guidelines. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed draft

"When writing plot summaries for anime episode lists, follow the same length guidelines as you would for television series episode lists. For manga lists, the length of a single tankōbon volume's summary should generally be between 150–350 words, with longer lengths reserved for a series or volume with more complex plots or multiple self-contained stories. Remember, it should summarize the main plot points, not every minor detail and scene. For film articles, use the length guidelines for general films."

Going for a compromise with the word limits. I don't like "plot-heavy series" but can't think of a better way to word it right now. Any suggestions? Comments on the whole thing? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"series with more complex plot lines" similar to what film uses in explaining its upper limits? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there -- that's good. Thanks. Edited above. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like how it implies a hard limit ("should be"), but I can't think of any better way to phrase it... Other than that, it looks pretty good. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Made a few more tweaks as well, since we're really talking about lists rather than the main plot and that needs to be clearer. Also added reasoning. Smack around as desired :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good tweaks, both of you. More! Let's bang this into the ground a consensus! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have : more complex or numerous plot lines instead of just more complex plot lines that give some margin to summarize series with episodic nature where every chapter is a self contained plot+resolution itself. For the rest that draft have my support. --KrebMarkt 20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"more complex or episodic plot lines"? I can't think of a good, unambiguous, concise way to work in the idea of self-contained chapters. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"More numerous, self contained plots or is an anthology of multiple stories (not including side stories in a main series)" maybe with examples? Also, should we note that side stories shouldn't be included in the plot summary?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe "...more complex or multiple self-contained plots"? Probably want to either keep it shorter, and let the editor interpret it, or split it into another sentence with examples. With the side stories, it should depend on how much of the volume it takes up. Some side stories can be pretty long, while not contributing to the plot, and I think should then be included. Short ones spanning a few pages can probably be omitted though. Maybe add side stories after the main plot summary as an additional note? -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I confess I find most of this thread less than illuminating. That said, I'm currently summarizing a series were each volume is essentially five independent short stories -- episodic to dah max -- and finding it a challenge to stay under 300 words per. Possibly what we're aiming for is "more complex plots or multiple self-contained stories"? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go with that. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Crazy idea: new copyediting department

Whoever watches this talk page will know, that we have a certain lack of copyeditors. I'd like to suggest a new department to organize and coordinate copyediting efforts within this project. I have drafted such a department's main page in my user space. Reading that is probably the best way to understand what I have in mind. Anyways, this is probably just a crazy idea. Feel free to slap me around with it. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I would say that we definitely need a copy-edit department, I believe that we do not have enough copy-editors to justify another department — we can probably integrate this with the cleanup task force though; and split it off when/if there is a lot of activity.

A comment on the draft: most of our B-class articles would be ready* for GA-class after a proper copy-edit. (*Subject to the main editor's judgement.)

G.A.S^talk 11:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, again, I go back to my original problem with A-class review: we don't have enough decent copy-editors to make this a plausible process. If anything, I dislike having to copy-edit material that I'm not familiar with, and I would think I'd be one of the people such a department would want to include ;-) If you need a copy-edit, check out WP:PRV. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to tap into the resource of sub-decent copyeditors. This project has quite a few people who can copyedit, just not good enough to pass a FLC or FAC by their copyediting alone. That leaves us with a lot of articles (or rather lists) stuck with everything ready for featured status, except for criterion 1a. If we could get these editors to copyedit each other's articles we might be able to make up for our lack of "decent copy-editors". -- Goodraise (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, in theory, but also agree with G.A.S that we just don't have enough in the project to support a whole department. A segment of the cleanup task force would be great. :)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to be part of a copyediting team, but I tend to be picky about the copy edits I take on because I do enough of that for a living -- though more developmental/content edits than copy edits these days, as frankly I'm better at 'em. IOW, if I'm not familiar with a series, I usually shy away from copyediting its articles. I like the idea of making this a part of, or at least associated with, the cleanup team. Also, to be honest, I've never been involved in anything past GA except a single FL. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since that's two who said they tend to avoid material they are unfamiliar with, I'm curious as to why? From my perception, copy editing for grammar, etc doesn't require familiarity with the work, and I know for me, if I'm not familiar with something, I'll be more inclined to spot gaps in information that other readers unfamiliar might have that should be included (particularly in those plot summaries). Some of the best CEs I've gotten have been from those who weren't that familiar with the topic and therefore ask questions to get the gaps filled in.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of copy-editing (at least for me) is gauging the necessary depth of coverage of the plot summary, and I'm reluctant to do that with series I'm unfamiliar with (as I'm unaware as to what constitutes a major or minor detail). Yes, there are copy-editors who are more capable than I who are able to concentrate solely on grammatical issues, but they're relatively rare nowadays. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As Sephiroth says -- it's hard to judge what's undue weight (or lack of it) on a detail if you're unfamiliar with the subject. This is especially difficult with the sort of writing done for Wikipedia, as opposed to professional non-fiction writing. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about being more capable than Sephiroth, but I am one of those rare people who can copyedit an article focusing solely on grammatical issues. That being said, I usually only copyedit when it strikes my fancy, and then I don't usually touch plot summary. On the original topic, I'd have to agree with most everyone else here that a CE taskforce is interesting in theory, but at this time it would be better off as a part of the cleanup taskforce due to a lack of decent copyeditors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Futaba Channel Redux

Since it was noted here the first time, I figure project members might be interested to know that Futaba Channel has been restored and is now back at AfD a second time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futaba Channel (2nd nomination), however the original comments from the first AfD were not restored. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Kuroshitsuji characters

I'm having a problem, although when compared to the big picture is probably minor, on List of Kuroshitsuji characters. Mr.Grave (talk · contribs) and I have run into a disagreement about the headers. When I drafted the article, the headings were st up as seen in this revision. Mr.Grave, however, feels the page should be set up this way. The first time Mr.Grave wanted this page set up like this, he just simply changed it, no explanation. I undid and explained my reasoning. He reverted. I posted a section here on the talk page about the matter and how I wanted the headings set-up and my reasoning for it, as I was willing to discuss it and, as Mr.Grave has made no edits to a talk page even after I informed him about them, I alerted him to my message on the article's talk. As no comment or reply was made, three days later I stated I would be changing the headings as I outlined in two days if no comment of any type was made before then. Yesterday, after the two days were up, I stated on the talk page the two days were up, and I was going ahead. I made my changes and then alerted Mr.Grave to the edits and told him to direct any comments to the talk. Today, he has reverted my changes to the headings and told me to stop doing what I was doing. It is very hard for me to get anywhere with the situation as Mr.Grave refuses to discuss the problem with me anywhere. I am going to alert him to this post here as well. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

His refusal respond is not showing that he has any desire to edit in a cooperative fashion. I've left him a 3RR warning since a quick scan seems to show he has done it. If he reverts again, I'd file a 3RR report. Beyond that, your version is closer to what seems appropriate than his, though unless everyone at Phantomhive Estate is both a protagonist and a main character, I'd probably have Protagonist, Antagonist, and Supporting (and Minor if needed) instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Mr. Grave is trying to organize the subject from an in-universe perspective. While practically, its just changing the names of the headers; the naming indicates that the subjects are being grouped by their in-universe affiliations rather than a real-world perspective such as protagonists and antagonists, like we're supposed to be doing. I'm gonna watch the page and see we can't iron this out. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a WP:RFPP is in order so as to get Grave to actually discuss the issue on the talk page instead of using edit summaries (i.e. edit warring) to get his point across. --Farix (Talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)