Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SallyFord (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 18 June 2009 (→Need third opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject
Anime and manga
v · t · e · rc
Main project page  talk
talk
Guidance
Manual of Style talk
Online sources talk
Reference libraries
 → Books talk
 → Documentaries talk
 → Magazines talk
 → Manga magazines talk
Templates talk
Articles
Departments
  Assessment talk
 → Changelog
 Cleanup talk
 → Category
 → Cleanup listing
  Deletions archive · talk
  Requests archive · talk
Topic workshop talk
   Yellow pages talk
Task forces
Biography talk
Bleach talk
Conventions talk
Digimon talk
Dragon Ball talk
Evangelion talk
Gundam talk
Haruhi Suzumiya talk
Hentai talk
Light novels Joint TF! talk
Sailor Moon talk
Studio Ghibli Joint TF! talk
Visual novels Joint TF! talk
Yu-Gi-Oh! talk
Related projects
Parent
 → WikiProject Japan
Related
 → WikiProject Animation
 → WikiProject Comics
 → WikiProject Film
 → WikiProject Television
 → WikiProject Video games
  → WikiProject Pokémon
  → WikiProject Square Enix
Other
Wikipe-tan talk
Newsletter archive
Character articles
WikiProject iconJapan Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:36, November 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Template:Fiction notice

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:08, 19 May 3009 (UTC)[reply]

For interest sake, the following articles within our scope needs to be reviewed. G.A.Stalk 04:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really should finish the Lupin ANN ency replacement! Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep...though, it will be awhile before I get to the Ls ;-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TBH if the refs are the only problem, it can be "delayed" for a bit I would think. If the refs aren't the only problem, it's less of a worry! Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless its just absolutely hideous, I usually give 1-2 weeks, at the minimum, for fixing any issues that might result in loss of GA status. Long as someone is actively addressing the issue once the review starts, I'm fairly cool about delaying for repairs :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we should revive the ANN encyclopedia replacement project up top, I suspect.... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting tired

User Arhicks00 has been constantly adding unsourced facts to Naruto Uzumaki and Rock Lee, and keeps reverting whenever one user delete it. I tried talking to him in Talk:Rock Lee, but he seems to be ignoring me.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps with that saying that speculation should be used Here.Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left him a 3RR warning. Looks like he may finally be getting a clue as he self reverted his last undo. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. It seems Naruto attacks are prone of events like these. I'm constantly undoing the Naruto Clash of Ninja series and Naruto Ultimate ninja series articles. DragonZero (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the term Narutard...sigh. It's probably inevitable since it's such a popular series. Feel free to take a wikibreak as needed, I have a few of the main Naruto pages watched, I'm sure other people do too. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Im not thinking of taking a break. I was just tired of those responses.Tintor2 (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comics

Could someone expand on my edit to the section on publication formats on the comics article? There was absolutely nothing about Japan there. Thanks, --Cattus talk 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANN Encyclopedia release pages

Generally, the ANN Encyclopedia is not considered a reliable source because the content is user editable. However, one part of the encyclopedia that isn't user editable that I know of is the section about releases (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/releases.php). Does everyone else think that this section falls under the guidelines as a reliable source and should this been mentioned in the Online reliable sources page? --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the ANN encyclopedia references at Kon Kon Kokon three times within the past hour. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did so as ANN is used in Tokyo Mew Mew and that has been a featured article on wikipedia, so I defend my edits here the parts that were edited by Farix INCLUDE manga release info. Knowledgekid87 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyo Mew Mew only uses the news and reviews sections of ANN as sources. However, ANN's encyclopedia section is not considered a reliable source because it is user-edited. While at one time Tokyo Mew Mew did reference the encyclopedia section as a source, those references have since been removed or replaced. --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Shrugs* This isnt worth an all out edit war, I will just change the references as I was only trying to be helpful with the article kon kon kokon (Been watching it awhile).Sorry for the trouble and good luck editing all of those other pages though if consensis agrees with you on the issue =). Knowledgekid87 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note here if you view the titles by: ALL you will find kon kon kokon on the list: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/releases.php?yearmonth=all&anime=K Again though sorry for the trouble I caused, a simple did not know and being stubborn thing I guess.Knowledgekid87 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I could have sworn we had a discussion about the releases page recently, but I can't remember what the outcome was. I think, in general, since it is under the encyclopedia it shouldn't be used either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I will look for ANN pages that are a part of this problem as well, konkon kokon is fixed, I added 3 new references to it, no prob.Knowledgekid87 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at the sources used for the encyclopedia part. Sometimes you can get a nice catch and find a Reliable source among the lot (not alway thought) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcasters and their dates are usually the hardest to find, especially if your looking at anime no longer being broadcast.陣内Jinnai 07:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a way to find schedule for not too old shows on AT-X or TBS and there is cal.syoboi.jp which is debated as RS. For this one the hardest may be to convince Goodraise. --KrebMarkt 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it had been decided that yes, the release page part of the ANN encyclopedia were indeed RS, and had so documented it. I've been using those in my replacement runs, as needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned here in the fourth paragraph in the section by Collectonian, but it was never really discussed.陣内Jinnai 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANN cleanup reboot

A reposting of the remaining FA/FL/GA articles that need instances of the ANN encyclopedia (but not reviews, news, or release pages) scrubbed if we want to keep them at those ratings. We've already had one article delisted in part because of this. Everyone is encouraged to jump in the pool and sign up for one, just one -- because together, we can do it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 8 June 3009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added cites for all of the English air dates of List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, except episode 9 (no The Click that week on ANN :( ). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lupin is done, but the page will need quite a bit of work to keep its status. I found several date errors from the ANN refs that I've corrected, there are a lot of claims that need checking or removing (or have had sources/the claim removed due to being unreliable), and some that didn't have any sources at all. I'd appreciate it if a fresh set of eyes can go through and tag any obvious issues, so I can do some cleanup before the GA Review. Else I won't have the time to bring it up to scratch if it's left till the review. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to find the anime release dates for Suzuka (manga), but no luck on the manga. Furthermore, there are some statements left with the ANN citation that may still be addressed.陣内Jinnai 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serialization or volume release? The volumes are almost trivial to source (I love Kodansha for a reason =D ), serialization... not so much. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serialization. I found numerous sources for the volume releases. At this point it may take someone with access to actual copy.陣内Jinnai 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The serialization dates are almost always printed in the Japanese volumes.--十八 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Japanese volumes of Suzuka, notably volume 1 in this case. Nor do the websites list the serialization dates that list the manga.陣内Jinnai 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for scans of the first volume -- the ones I've found so far didn't include the copyright page. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the chapter list it appears we have conflicting dates and issues. *sigh*陣内Jinnai 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. *facepalm* —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with List of Reborn! episodes

The template from List of Reborn! episodes is showing the summaries from the 4th season of the series even though the 4th season already has a list. Could anybody check it? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Eps 129 and on were incorrectly using "List Of" instead of "List of" for the sublist param :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I wonder if I should change {{Japanese episode list/sublist}} to take the name of the specific season sublist, instead of the main episode list (although that would require a run through the transclusions); that would prevent stuff like that. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah...I think that would be way too much work fixing existing ones for what was a fairly minor error (and really wouldn't have prevented this issue anyway LOL). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I'm thinking of, it would have prevented it... ;) And in any case, now that we have our resident AWB fairy back in action, such a change would be quite quick and painless to propagate out to the necessary lists. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and fiction

Run away!

Surely someone must be able to get some pictures of this to stick in the gundam article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source is RS as a Japanese news paper web counter part. Even better an English article at the start of the build was found: building a 1/1 scale Gundam. --KrebMarkt 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this division of seasons okay?

List of Reborn! episodes is divided in seasons per the names from the DVD's names. However, the third DVD series is composed only by episodes 66-73, and it was added as part of season 2. Should season 2 be moved to List of Reborn! episodes (seasons 2-3) and the consecutive sesasons be moved also? (season 3 to season 4, and season 4 to season 5). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Go and do it. Shoot first, ask questions later. If I were you, I'd remove this whole thread. It's on the wrong page anyways. Goodraise 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im an idio... I accidentally moved season 2 to 2-2, and I cannot revert it or move it again.How can I remove it or undo it?Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got it for you. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Dinoguy. By the way, should the title be season or seasons?Tintor2 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons, since it's covering two of them (I didn't notice the lack of a plural "s" the first time around and had to re-move the page =P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Now season 3 should be moved to 4, and 4 to 5, but it avoids from doing that.Tintor2 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4 to 5 was done, but I cant do the one from season 3 to 4.Tintor2 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic categorization by infobox

Generally, it is frowned upon for a template, such as navboxes or infoboxes, to categorize an article. One of the few exceptions are maintenance categorize and some userboxes (See WP:CAT). So I though that we may want to remove the content categories from {{Infobox animanga}} and directly add these categories to the page. This can be accomplished with a quick AWB run, though it would be a good idea to turn off all other fixes. --Farix (Talk) 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the auto-categorization is really a problem in this case. There aren't any situations I can think of where an article would transclude one of the components, but the auto-added category wouldn't be appropriate for it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't think of an issue, except sometimes we may need to manually add ones if it was released in 2 different formats, such as OVA made into a film or maybe if special OVA episodes were added to a season set.陣内Jinnai 03:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novel vs Light novel

Is there any particular reliable source that we can use to determine if a novel falls within the light novel category? --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, uh, I can see the reason for the source, but it should already be obvious whether a novel is a regular novel, or a light novel based on the illustrations included and its target readership. But anyway, the first thing I thought of was Seven Seas Entertainment and their light novel line. Their press release from a couples years ago doesn't really define what a light novel is, but the related ANN news report defines them as easy to read novels that are geared towards teen-aged readers. They often feature manga style art and are serialised in monthly magazines in the same manner as many manga.--十八 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about old stuff that isn't easy to find? I'm talking about pre-2000s novels, which more than likely can't be seen to check the type of illustrations they have. Even if they did, it would be a subjective point of view based in the person that sees the illustrations, wouldn't it?. Right now, the only way to identify the type of novel would be finding information about a magazine serialization. Also, if they aren't serialized, how do we know their target readership? Jfgslo (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the light novel imprints are targeted to specifically male or female readerships. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As TheFarix says, is there a source that states which imprints are for light novels, which for novels and particularly which readership? For new novels, it's easier to identify them since they are on the news, but if they aren't, I don't think it would be obvious whether a novel is light or not if we are unable to see the illustrations, which would be the case for most Japanese-exclusive novels anyway. A source (preferably Japanese) that has that information would be helpful, specially for pre-2000s novels. Jfgslo (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zatch Bell! Characters

List of Zatch Bell! minor characters was tagged for merging to List of Zatch Bell! characters in December 2008, as is the norm with these minor character lists. Per discussion at Talk:List of Zatch Bell! characters#Merge proposal, the only two people to oppose gave no real reasons for doing so. This month, the minor list was prodded[1] which I endorsed[2], so of course my resident follower User:DreamFocus came behind and deprodded[3]. I think redirected the minor list to the main list per the discussion[4], but he is, of course, continuing to undo this. Additional views at the original discussion and eyes on both articles appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed it and I have moved over 1 character from the list that might have potential for more notability. The rest seem entirely background characters or 1-2 shot characters.陣内Jinnai 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV.com

Can TV.com be cited as a ref for airdates? For example, using this as a ref for List of Peace Maker episodes.Extremepro (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the entries are user contributed, so it can probably not be used. Goodraise 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV.com is unrealible as anyone can register and add information which is then scruntised by the person who si editor to decided if it should eb added or not, there no garantee on information there at tv.com--Andy Chat c 11:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, TV.com is even less reliable than IMDB, especially for anime. If you check the RSN noticeboard, you'll probably find a few threads on it going into longer detail, but as noted above the short reason is because it is primarily user edited.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need inputs

Hi,

There are some war editing on Pandora Hearts over the right names & terminology see Last 50 Edits. I started a discussion to reach a consensus to resolve the issue Talk:Pandora_Hearts#Naming but only two persons did give their inputs and while others continued waring. I have now enough evidence that the official English will stick with the Japanese 8.5 guide book names [5].

I see 3 possibles courses of action. The first is to wait for the official English to make its way to the fan base but some scanlation/fansubs won't stick with it preserving the confusion. The second is to put comments citing where and how was decided the various names. The third is put the whole article into semi-protection for a short while forcing every IP editors to read discussion page.

Any piece of advice is welcome

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what YenPress says, it seems reasonable to go with the guidebook names (plus, they are the "official" names at this point). To deal with the edit warring, I'd pop in a comment at the top, or maybe one at each disputed character. Give anyone changing one revert, then if they keep at it, revert as vandalism. If it continues, then yep, semi-protect. Unfortunately, we've had the issue with quite a few on-going series (even finished ones were people just don't like the English names). Doing the comments, plus semi-protect as needed usually helps slow it down some. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put in action those advices. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually look and see if the terminology section is needed to understand the rest of the article. If the rest of the article can do without it, then ax the section. If there really is a need to explain a term, then explain the term where the term is first used. The thing about terminology sections is that most of the time, they are either trivia or of interest to fans who already know about the story. In other words WP:FANCRUFT magnets. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden agenda: mid-term objective is to merge elements of terminology & chain section into plot & characters sections and re-organizing the characters section in a less in-universe fashion probably broken between protagonist/antagonist/others characters. The character section was in worse shape a while ago with blog writing style, Orignal Research, Excessive Plot. Reading a character described as Tsudere type raised the Red flag in my head. --KrebMarkt 13:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 of List of School Rumble episodes

There have been problems recently with whether to list season 3, which contains 2 actual episodes as OVAs or a season. There were mock episode summaries released for each episode by TV Tokyo, however only the last 2 were ever released and those were with 2 volumes of the manga (1 for each). Normally anything not released for TV and a movie is considered an OVA, however, these are listed as season 3 episodes.陣内Jinnai 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some outside opinions? It's been happening much more frequently recently on the main article School Rumble, at least once/day, if not multiple times.陣内Jinnai 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reliable source for reviews -- in French

KrebMarkt has pointed out the existence of this book, which does for manga licensed in French what Manga: The Complete Guide does for English. As such, we can use to for material for Reception sections, and if we can't otherwise verify it, licensensures. For reference: {{cite book | first= | last= | editor=Nicolas Finet | title=Dicomanga: le dictionnaire encyclopédique de la bande dessinée japonaise | publisher=Fleurus | language=French | location=Paris | isbn=978-2-215-07931-6 | year=2008}}. 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I added it in the book part of the project reference libraries.
Comment: There are 10 editors who participated this dictionary and each article is nominatively attributed to its writer. I was too lazy to mention the 10 of them in the reference libraries. I picked that one up after remembering that this dictionary lead editor was guessed on France Info in July & August 2008 for weekly chronicle on Manga/Manwha for dummies or so. --KrebMarkt 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a general editor listed? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead editor Nicolas Finet as it was written under his direction. Yea i got your point but each article writer is identified --KrebMarkt 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the template reference above with that -- standard is to include both editor and contributor. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need third opinion

I need someone else to look into the activities of SallyFord (talk · contribs) in relation to anime podcast articles. Particularly with Anime Pulse and Geeknights which she attempted to tag for speedy deletion. Sally has a long history of disliking the former article. I also think that there may be a WP:COI here as she claims to host a rival podcast. On an unrelated note, she seems to be retaliating against me on an article about the outdoor drama, Honey in the Rock after I removed a speedy deletion tag she placed on Geeknights. First by challenging its notability,[6] despite that four newspaper articles are already listed in the reference section, and then adding unsourced information about an unrelated improve group in Chicago.[7] --Farix (Talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at them there is defintely a WP:COI in the user sallyford, but you might have one to but to very much lesser extent, there defintely a rivalary (maybe not particular with yourself and the other user) but with the different podcasts, anime pulse is defintely not spam. That is my opinion on it but speedydeletion tags are defintely not required on any of them.--Andy Chat c 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also involved in those issues with SallyFord (talk · contribs). Who has a grudge toward Anime Pulse and other rivals podcasts but doesn't enough courage to send them to Afd. She does have enough to do disruptive edits [8][9]. I'm tired of that user behavior: bad faith edit, writing slander toward rival podcast and misuse of policies & guidelines. --KrebMarkt 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these podcasts are not notable according to the spirit of Wikipedia. The Anime Pulse article is poorly written and very unfocused. Is the article about the company or the podcast? If this article is about the company then it's blatant spam. If the article is about the podcast then a lot of the info on the page has to be rewritten. Geeknights is also another podcast with notability issues that no one has addressed for months and should be deleted. It seems TheFarix is at least involved or related to one of these podcasts and compromising the rules of Wikipedia etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That user should then send those article to Afd and spare us slanderous & bad edits. That user should also accept fairly the Afd decisions afterward. --KrebMarkt 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by retaliation. Retaliation does not equal disagreement. I had questions about the notability of Honey in the Rock. I never heard of it. Upon further investigation, I was wrong to put a tag on it. In theory it does have some merit to be an article on Wikipedia. Through my investigations, I did find more info about Honey in the Rock as well as information about H —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, how the hell do you figure I have a conflict of interest with either podcast article? I have no association with either podcasts or podcasting in general, other then regularly listening to OtakuGeneration, Anime World Order, RightStuf's, and AnimeNation's podcasts. Second questioning their notability doesn't give you license to undermine and vandalize the articles, as you keep doing with Anime Pulse. The fact that Geeknights has wone the Parsec Award and Anime Pulse the Podcast Award prevents them from being speedy deleted. Nor is the fact that the Anime Pulse article is unfocused make it a candidate for deletion. If you think they are not notable, send them to WP:AfD.
I said might never said you did, none of your edit suggest you do just wha ti was reaidng in talk pages and your original post above suggest to me whatever SallyFord podcast is she favour more you might have something against it, but since your a long time editor and a very good one i would probally go with more you aint. Apogolise for coming across worng.--Andy Chat c 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for retaliation, yes I very much believe you are retaliating against me with your edits to Honey in the Rock. You had no interests in the subject area other then seeing it listed on my user page as an article I created. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is totally untrue and deep down you should know that. Not only did I spend time to review the notability of the Honey in the Rock article, I spent time researching about the subject and adding content to it. The article is a stub, and I'm trying to expand on the Honey on the Rocks article. I think you're projecting and it really doesn't help matters. I don't know what OtakuGeneration, Anime World Order, RightStuf's, and AnimeNation's podcasts have to do with anything. Are they competing podcasts? Then by admitting that, you just admitted your conflict of interest. The awards AP and Geeknights won are not notable. If that's the case, every podcast on the planet would be notable. Disagreement about content does not equal vandalism. Just because I question some of the content of an article does not mean it is vandalism. Wikipedia is not meant to be a podcast directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how simply listening to a different podcast is a conflict of interest, I suggest not throwing around bad faith accusations based on such ridiculous reasoning. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is unsound logic. For example, someone likes baseball but doesn't root for the home team.
@SallyFord can't you stop doing contestable edit on Honey in the Rock ? The world of Naruto is a fictive universe there is nothing as a Japanese there. --KrebMarkt 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everyone nitpicking all my contributions? Is Naruto not Japansed? Why does he speak japanese then? I think it makes it clear that Naurto is japanese. How many blue-eyed and blonde japanese people do you know? Also, I am colored blind... so just giving a quick mention that his hair is blonde shouldn't be contested.
He is a character from a Japanese series. This does not automatically mean Naruto himself is Japanese. For example, Allen Walker in D.Gray-man is from a Japanese series, but the character is of British origin. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does he speak Japanese? For the same reason he speaks english in the english localisation. Content is generally voiced for the region its intended for.... As for his hair color, it's neither important to the plot nor are their any sources in the article to suggest the color has any special meaning in terms of creation and development. Remember, information must be sourced in reliable sources (especially in a B-class article like that). It's certainly not a defining characterstic as your attempt to include it suggested. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@SallyFord Stop digging your own grave with your questionable edits on Naruto Uzumaki. --KrebMarkt 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's like Revert City. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed and after 2 3RR warnings, I've reported her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it only shows evidence of ganging up on one editor. @Dandy or Kreb. Let me ask about this. Have you heard about Wikipedia's new UpDog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it shows people looking after important articles. Several of the editors you disagree with have long historys of writing and contributing to high quality articles. Whereas you seem to be ignoring every single piece of advice given and looking for arguements to make. And learn to sign your posts! Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Only proves power trips of certain "editors". According to Wikipedia's new policies in UpDog, it states all users have rights to edit any article regardless of editorial history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said oyu can not edit, but when you are being disruptive and nto listen and vandlism articles then you edits will be reverted. You clearly are new and do not know most of the polocies you state because what you state is not what poloices you state say. Instead of engaging in edit war go to talk and discuss the problem you have witht eh article, instea dof tagging go to talk and say ther ethis porblem with the article and people will not get so mad at you--Andy Chat c 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) No idea what this "UpDog" you keep claiming is, but it obviously has no real basis within Wikipedia and it certainly does not declare new policies here. And no, all users do not have rights to edit any articles regardless of editorial history. You vandalize, you'll get blocked. You edit war, you'll get blocked. If you are under a topic ban, you will get blocked. You act like an ass just to act like one, and you will be warned not to edit the article and if you continue anyway, you will be blocked. Editing is a privilege, not a right.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to tell me you don't know anything about the new UpDog? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 15:35, June 17, 2009 SallyFord
(outdent)I don't. I'd like an explanation. A search of wikipedia for UpDog returns nothing relevant. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the first several screens of g-hits on "UpDog Wikipedia" (without quotes). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try Urban Dictionary: [10] Goodraise 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
大したことはないものをあなたとは何ですか？
I saw that when googling, and figured that was about the jist of it...totally non-existent BS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, it seems clear that SallyFord is either acting in bad faith or acting from an extreme lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies. At this point, an AN or ANI thread may be necessary to examine her actions (and the potential sockpuppeting issues noted on the Anime Pulse article talk page). At minimum, it seems clear she needs to be topic banned from that article and any other anime podcast articles due to the clear lack of neutrality and continued inappropriate hostility and continued personal attacks against both other editors and the articles themselves. She's already had two 3RR warnings over that article previously, so no real excuses here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I go to camp to clean up before the summer season and this just snowballs. Yes, I do think it's high time for an AN topic as this editor really does need to be brought to the attention of other administrators. SallyFord has a history of acting very hostilely towards other editors she disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose for deletion?

I was thinking the page List of FLCL characters should be deleted, after the important characters have been merged to the article FLCL as they aren't notable enough to have their own article and many of the characters listed are pretty minor. DragonZero (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be redirected instead, since content was merged to FLCL per GFDL. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) It certainly needs clean-up, but I'm not unconvinced that as a whole, the cast of characters is non-notable. I mean, the ratio of reviews of FLCL that mention the wacky, unique characters as part of the show's appeal is pretty close to 1. Many of them go into some detail about this, which to me says the cast is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Before this is merged or redirected, some serious effort should be made to show that the list is not appropriate as it lacks notability as a whole.陣内Jinnai 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jump.shueisha.co.jp closed

Shueisha closed the Weekly Shōnen Jump site. I think the webarchive got it covered though, so the refs just need to be updated. Just a head's up. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some days ago, the booknavi site closed, but it returned. Could it be that Shueisha's sites are in mantenience.Tintor2 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&oldid=297072617"