Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Berserk

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

• Berserk (anime)
• Berserk Golden Age Arc

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone willing to do a B-class drive for February?

I can do the assessments and award BarnSakuras at the end but I'm not sure if there's enough interest for this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing. I'm currently working with Eureka Seven little by little but i can also look over other C-class articles.Lucia Black (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted a couple links above which might help better-reference some articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Case Closed episodes reaching template limit

List of Case Closed episodes reached its template limit so I had to remove the OVA section. I'm planning to split the episode list into List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–10), List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 11–20), and List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 21–current) in the future if it isn't a problem. I'm choosing 10 seasons since even at 20, it was a difficult page to load. If there are no objections, I'll be splitting it once it reaches the limit again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just make a separate page for each season, then have a template on each one with links to all of the seasons. This is commonly done for TV series (a page for each season). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There already is. I think the issue is about the overall list article that covers all the separate season list article. I think it might be easier not to have a list article summarizing the other 21 seasons.Lucia Black (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is already divided into sub seasons like that but its hitting the limit anyways. I'm going to have to separate them into 10 seasons each pretty soon. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

im suggesting not having a list that groups all the seasons or any from 1-10, 11-20,21-current.Lucia Black (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, this was in response to Nihon. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe make a list of case closed seasons rather than individual episodes. A table showing premiere and finale along with number of episodes each one has.Lucia Black (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also convert {{cite web}} references to plain text. That would allow for about two hundred additional episodes. Goodraise 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. I still plan on splitting the list up though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont think thats the best choice. There should be something about this, considering the information practically repeats.Lucia Black (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There has always been repetition such as the sublists in List of Case Closed volumes. The only thing differentiating them is the last paragraph in the sublists which detail information on the volumes of the sublist; Such as List of Case Closed volumes (41–60) where the last paragraph is Tankōbon volume 41 to volume 60 encapsulates chapters 414 to 630. Shogakukan released all twenty volumes between April 9, 2003 and January 12, 2008.. I plan on doing the same for the 10 season lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats different. You propose sublist for sublist. And lets slow down a bit, seems like we dont have a unclear consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick this up again on the weekend once I'm well rested. I don't think I'll be reconsidering my idea though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets see what consensus says.Lucia Black (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Making it into 3 lists

My current plan is to move List of Case Closed episodes to List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1—10) and then making lists like that afterwards. If there are oppositions for this, state why. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

1) There is no need to branch this off into a subsection. 2) My main reason is, though the number might be more consistent, it seems all for the sake of organization. I really dont see why we need an overall list of episodes when coverting them as seasons is enough. I have not seen every single episode to date, however im curious to know if there are arcs in between seasons or if they cover the same if there are any. Also i find it unnecessary to go into that much detail of episodes. For example List of Beach Volumes seperates per volume and does not give individual chapters, why not convert it to a list of episode seasons?Lucia Black (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to organize this neatly into a single paragraph so I'm listing my points.

• The reason the "List of Case Closed episode" becoming into three articles is because of the template limit. That is why it has to change.
• Episodes have more depths than chapters and that is why episode lists are currently that way. There was a discussion on this in the past.
• All episode lists always have a "hallway overview" article and I don't plan to change that.

Being probably the first episode list that breaks the template limit, even though the episodes are divided into subsections, it seems most logical to just break up the pieces instead of removing the hallway. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that, but im more worried about if there are arcs that go across multiple seasons or inbetween seasons. The template breaking will happen soon for a series of recent hits such as One piece, Naruto Shipuuden that might end up close to passing the limit. And it really isnt about "exception". Im wondering if they sell multiple sets of seasons together and see if that makes it easier to organize. That and im also wondering how it will look in the navbox template. Im just thinking a change wouldnt hurt and might simplify things easier. The number of seasons seems long enough for its own list.Lucia Black (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize List of Oh My Goddess! chapters article

As we all know, the article is currently a mess due to the inconsistency of chapter releases. I propose we split the list in two evenly one side having all the names of the chapters and the other side merely mention what number of chapters it has such as "Chapter XX - Chapter XX". This wouldd look much cleaner and easier to read. But then again, im also considering the chapter releases be separated from the english release considering it has their own titles and organized differently.Lucia Black (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in what I have in my sandbox. – Allen4names 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Basically looks nearly identicle to the chapter list template, but instead of both english and original language sharing the chapter list. It splits in the middle. One side has the full titles listed, the other side only mentions what chapters they have.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks great Allen. You shouldn't be so quick to turn it down unless you are willing to do the effort in making the table. We're all volunteers with no obligations. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe i turned it down quickly because theres not much of a difference compared to the one we have now. I just came here for consensus to do it because it will be a big change and it was previously discussed. Lets not make this about us, lets keep it about making the best organized list without making it look complicated and intricate. What do you think of my proposal?Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see what you have in mind as I have no idea what you intend to do with the volume information. I suggest you set up a sandbox version with the first twelve volumes (seventy two chapters). I made a tweak to the chapter list style in my sandbox that may be of use. – Allen4names 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The one you have doesnt have the re release of oh my goddess chapters in its original format under the original japanese ones. The same way the average chapterlist template works only a line going down the middle of the chapter list.

No.	Original release date	Original ISBN	English release date	English ISBN
00	XX-XX-20XX	0000000000000	XX-XX-20XX	9781000000009
001. 002 003 Title: XXX chapters 1-5
The story was moved forward and characters were developed.

Only difference is with the middle line through the middle.Lucia Black (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The following table should give you a better idea of what I have in mind, and yes I know the styling and table are incomplete.

Chapters	Japanese		English (first release)		English (second release)
	No.	Volume information	No.	Volume information	No.	Volume information
The Number You Have Dialed Is Incorrect Isair of the Anime Mania A Man's Home Is His...Temple? College Exchange Goddess Those Whom Goddess Hath Joined Together, Let No Woman Put Asunder Single Lens Psychic: The Prayer Answered Lullaby of Love The Blossom in Bloom	1	September 23, 1989 ISBN 978-4-06-321009-5 Chapters 1–9	1	Wrong Number June 5, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-669-4 Chapters 1–8	1	October 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-9 Chapters 1–9
Apartment Hunting Blues			2	Leader of the Pack August 7, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-764-6 Chapters 9–14
An Honest Match This Life is Wonderful Love is the Prize System Force Down My Older Sister!	2	March 23, 1990 ISBN 978-4-06-321013-2 Chapters 10–16			2	December 7, 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-3 Chapters 10–16
I'm the Campus Queen What Belldandy Wants Most			3	Final Exam October 2, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-765-3 Chapters 15–20

Is your use of {{Graphic novel list}} here an example of what you had in mind? – Allen4names 02:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. I already saw it. The problem with that one it does not look any better than the one we have now. And yes similar to that template only the template doesnt split the list columns. In the middle. Do you still not know what i had in mind? Basically what we have already in the current template when it comes to dates and ISBNs and chapter list be split. One side shows in dtail the list of chapters (japanese and english re-release) the other side (english original release) have summarized.Lucia Black (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Remind me of something I have been working to get rid of so I oppose your idea. – Allen4names 03:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Am i sensing some Bias here? It seems rather uncivil.Lucia Black (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

im just going to be bold about it, because im starting to see some bias reasons appear and shouldve catched on earlier.Lucia Black (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that what you did with your last edit was just a mistake. – Allen4names 16:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Claymore

Hello, you guys might want to keep an eye on the Claymore pages (chapters, episodes and main). A user named Jamieclaymore has edited it a lot lately and this might not always be improvements on the pages. 86.87.73.104 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This does look like an issue. We'll see what we can do.Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sailor Moon discussion

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

Bleach Season 9

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

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