Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Another request for an interview from the Shonen Jump Alpha

The latest February 27, 2012 of the Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha has an interview with Bleach's author Tite Kubo and might be useful for the wikipedia articles. I managed to find the scripts, but I have no access to the actual magazine to find its pages numbers or author from the interview. Apparently the magazine is conducting interviews with various authors who have their series published by the time since last time I found an interview with Naruto's author Masashi Kishimoto, so I guess One Piece's Eichiro Oda would be the following. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The interview is in two parts. The first part appears on pages 122–124 of the February 20, 2012 issue (issue 4), and the second part on pages 124–126 of the February 27, 2012 issue (issue 5); both parts were conducted by Misaki C. Kido, who also did the Kishimoto interview.

As far as issue numbers are concerned, it seems that SJ Alpha uses the release date as the issue number: issue 5, for instance, is identified as "Issue 02-27-12" on the TOC page.

As for future interviews: Toriko, Bakuman., and Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan are also being released in SJ Alpha, meaning the next interview may go to Mitsutoshi Shimabukuro, Tsugumi Ohba/Takeshi Obata, or Hiroshi Shiibashi instead of Oda (though I would go with Oda being next myself). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have access to the Masashi Kishimoto interview? I found the interviews, but I still lack the pages numbers and the issues from the two parts.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, see above. I have a year's subscription, starting with the first issue (and a couple of the preview issues), so if you need anything feel free to ask me directly on my talk page. =) It's also worth noting that there are features on sjalpha.com that are not subscriber-exclusive; one example would be interviews/bios with a couple of the staff of Tiger & Bunny. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, according to the April 2012 issue of Shonen Jump, there'll be an interview with Oda in the March 19 and 26 issues of Weekly SJ Alpha, and an interview with Shimabukuro in the April 2 and 9 issues. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be useful in Eiichiro Oda and something related with One Piece.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added all the citations for the interviews to User:Tintor2/Sandbox 2-2 in case another user needs it. I'll also try to update it every time possible.Tintor2 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Lupin article question

Is there some consensus or guideline that I'm not aware of that dictates that all Lupin the 3rd articles must be titled Lupin III, regardless of how they are titled in both in English and Japanese romanization? Sarujo (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Lupin the 3rd vs Detective Conan? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just one example, yes. There's Treasure of the Sorcerer King, the Funimation released features, and so forth. My thing is if the title is reading officially something besides Lupin III the corresponding article should reflect that. Then you've got editors who often try to title articles as Rupan Sansei. Sarujo (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are any. I'd go with the officially translated title and treat it like its own work. But on the other hand, I took the main article's name for some of the articles at List of Case Closed films. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Manga demographic category names

Some manga demographic categories got renamed after being listed on WP:CFDS, and I've started a discussion at WP:CFD to move them back. I listed the discussion on the deletion sorting page, but it isn't really a deletion discussion, so I thought I should mention it here too. There also was a related ANI discussion in case anyone is interested. Calathan (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are any of the anime and manga categories merged to begin with? They're different media, often only tangentially related to each other and are functionally analogous to films and novels. We don't have Category:Films and novels with subcategories like Category:Slice of life films and novels, so why are we treating anime and manga differently? Note I have no problem with the Wikiproject being for both anime and manga, just the categorisation. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember them all having been separate before, but then some of them having been combined. I think the reason was that a lot of articles were tagged with the same categories for both manga and anime (e.g. "action manga" and "action anime"), and people thought it was redundant. However, I don't remember for sure, so maybe someone else here remembers better why they were combined. Personally, I think having them separate would be more accurate even if it means that many articles will have multiple similar categories for anime and for manga. Calathan (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You remember correctly; most of these were merged as a result of a series of CfD's in 2007.

As for this particular matter: I actually saw the nominations before the 2-day window had passed, but I've been away from Wikipedia for so long that I thought nothing of it (and it didn't help that it was pretty late when I saw them). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

References issue within List of Captain Tsubasa volumes

List of Captain Tsubasa volumes has a considerable amount of citations in the body, but none of them are visible within the references section. I have been taking a look, but I cannot find the reason for this. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it hit the template limit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'll propose a split in the talk page considering each series has its own handful amount of volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Proposal added here.Tintor2 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Something which might fix this is getting rid of the absurd notion that absolutely every volume needs to be cited. I think it would be sufficient to have one general ref for a section, or only reference those which might be controversial for some reason. Linking to every volume on Amazon.co.jp seems quite absurd to me, and going far beyond what should be necessary. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes a lot of things which aren't absolutely necessary, like lists of volumes and chapters. Curious that it's so often the most useful part of lists like this, the references, that people want to get rid off. Then again, references to Amazon aren't exactly the most reliable. If sources were found containing all the release dates, not just the first and last, I'd be happy to see general references instead of citations for each item. Goodraise 17:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you can reference the volumes themselves for the original publish date as all Japanese books include the day, month, and year on the publishing information page. So, this information should never be controversial or contested unless it's obviously way off base. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Shueisha's site does not contain the dates for the Captain Tsubasa and World Youth series and thus, amazon had to be used to reference its volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I did with what i had at this time as Shueisha tends to kill stuff no longer in print from their website while Shogakukan has even reference to first edition of Doreamon. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Koibana Onsen

A new manga article, author: Kenjiro Kawatsu, publisher: Hakusensha. Recently proposed for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Spammer?

User Elena.movileanu has just added the site http://mangakaotaku.com/ to the external links section of a number of articles. As near as I can tell it is a manga-themed affiliate site with a lot of automatically generated content - their Ken Akamatsu page is basically the wikipedia article fed through a mangle ("In his teens, Akamatsu applied himself to Film Study..." to "As part of his teenagers, Akamatsu utilized him self in order to Motion picture Research" for example). Shiroi Hane (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I've got rid of all the links. One had also been added to Osamu Tezuka (in the wrong place) by User:31.153.11.66. I can't do anything about the account other than put another warning on their page. Shiroi Hane (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Try bringing the site to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Even the seemingly active "forums" are fake; the "topics" are questions taken from Yahoo Answers and passed through a thesaurus (compare [1] and [2]). I've seen sites build entirely of content scraped from other sites to generate page views plenty of times but I've never seen a forum entirely populated by bots talking to each other before. Shiroi Hane (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is spamming. I gave the user a stronger warning. If they do it again, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They will then block that user. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Idea/Suggestion

Is it possible to create a Special:Random function to work in this portal? So, the random page function would retrieve only anime and manga related articles. It might be useful to people curious about anime and are casual readers looking for something interesting to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepe263 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology sections

Last month, I started a discussion on whether or not terminology sections, such as the ones at Shakugan no Shana, Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Strike Witches (whose terminology section currently has an OR tag and an In-universe tag), should be kept or not, but the discussion died without any form of consensus. Now, I'm reviving the topic, but instead of asking if they should be kept or not, I'm asking what the people here actually think of such sections. This discussion aims to answer the following questions:

• Why do some articles have such sections in the first place?
• Are such sections encyclopedic?
• Can terminology sections be considered fancruft, trivia sections or dictionary entries?
• How terminology sections' content can be merged into other sections, and which particular sections (whether Plot, Setting etc.)

This discussion is not intended to be a proposal to remove them, but to see which particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines can apply to them, or how they should be written if there is sufficient support to keep them (such as if they have to be written from a real-world perspective, or if the section needs sources). This way, consensus on some guideline on them can be reached. Such sections are fairly rare anyway, so if they are removed, it probably won't be much of a loss, but still. Hopefully, consensus can be reached this time. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

My reply would be:

• Articles have them since an editor based them off another article, the editor or fan feels it is significant and should be separate from the plot.
• I haven't seen a terminology section that was encyclopedic yet.
• Possibly. It would require an expert in that article to edit the plot so it can flow smoothly while incorporating terminology for non-experts.
• It should be merged to plot. I actually don't see a lot of articles with a setting section.

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

S · A: Special A has a setting section. Not that it is a good one anyway, and that series does not even have special terms or such. To my knowledge not even BLEACH or Naruto have terminology sections, but that's beside the point. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think their is potentially a way where we can keep terminology sections while being encyclopedic. Most editors find terminology sections easier than incorporating into a setting section. Merging to plot would be good usually, if its not a complete fantasy-based world. For example, Durarara!! mainly sets in a real-world setting and has very little terms. So theres just not enough to create a terminology section to have a setting section. But the information of terms (enough to lead ppl to think a terminology section is needed) would mainly be background information. I think, not all terms should be merged to the setting, but if a new term is introduced, then we give it some explanation in the plot if its that relevant.Lucia Black (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Square Enix publishing sales

Here's an archived citation I just made listing sales for FMA, Black Butler, Soul Eater, and Bamboo Blade among other titles published by SE. I don't know how WP:ANIME normally incorporates sales info, so I'll just leave it here for anyone who knows better than I. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.square-enix.com/eng/group/index.html#comic2 |title=Businesses - Square Enix Holdings |date=2011-03-31 |accessdate=2012-03-25 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/66QfthNsj |archivedate=2012-03-25}}</ref> Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)