Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Help needed regarding Tenchi Muyo

An editor has threatened to stub the Tenchi Muyo article. I believe that this could be very harmful for an already fragile franchise that I love dearly, so I would very much appreciate help to keep the page. Thank you for any assistance. David A (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to do anything. I asked a question. The responses thus far, bar one, are not encouraging. As I said in my comment, Wikipedia is not a fansite; I really could care less whether it is a "fragile franchise" that you "love dearly so". It is either fixable or it is not, and if it is not then it probably should in fact be deleted after a reasonable period of time has passed. I've got a feeling that the same problem exists on a pretty wide scale for articles in which this project has an interest.

If people do not know how to edit (which seemed to be one of the responses) then just list the sources (on the article talk page if need be) and ask for help. Then watch the helper(s) and learn. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up this topic again, but would anybody here be willing to rework the main Tenchi Muyo page into a more acceptable higher level of quality? If am kept very busy managing a wiki with 600000 visits a month, and am not good at writing high standard encyclopaedic articles. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

no, I am now refusing to contribute to these articles on principle. If someone wants help or assistance I am usually happy to help when I can. However after making a fuss about proposals to remove the problematic content, You have repeatedly asked other people to do the work and keep making excuses for you not being able to help. This project is not here to do the work you can't be bothered to do. I could forgive the need for help in making the content better as that is understandable but passing the work off and talking about comitments to your other wiki just annoys me. We already lack the manpower to improve bigger and more important articles to quality status and this is not a charity. If you won't work on the articles. How can you expect other people to do it?SephyTheThird (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SephyTheThird, have you ever heard of the expression cutting off the nose to spite the face? You are basically saying that you are upset that David A cares more about some other wiki than he does about Wikipedia, and as such you going to leave Wikipedia articles in a poor state rather than fixing them. That is just utterly nonsensical. If you are interested in these articles and think they should be improved, then you shouldn't give a damn that someone else is more interested in doing other things. While perhaps David A shouldn't keep complaining about the article if he can't work on it himself, his reasons for not working on the article seem completely reasonable to me. No one is under an obligation to work on Wikipedia, and I just can't understand why you would look down on someone because they are more interested in doing other things than editing articles here. People should spend their free time doing things that interest them, and just because you might like editing Wikipedia doesn't mean anyone else should have to do it (even if they like reading the articles . . . I'm sure there are tons of people who read Wikipedia but aren't interested in editing). Personally I think it was good of David A to point out here that the article was in a bad state even if he doesn't want to work on it himself. Calathan (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's back up for a moment. I originally offered to help with the article, at the very least I could provide scans and a few odd bits of info from common sources. However I think you've picked up on the wrong part of my complaint, how people spend their time is indeed their business. Personally my editing time is affected by the time I'm spending on other activities. I can understand people being busy. What annoys me is that having brought it to our attention we are now being expect D to do the work rather than help, and you know exactly how much this project is struggling already without being expected to fix articles for other people. This is not a quick clean up, this is many hours of serious work involved. Yes the mention of he other wiki stopping them from helping annoyed me, but it's not even the crux of he matter. I think it's perfectly reasonable that people who want to save article get involved themselves and I think it's unreasonable to expect us to do the work for them. That's the issue. I'm not going to spend my time fixing up a page for someone else when I don't have the time to fix up my own projects (although I picked one of the largest topics going). id be very surprised if I was in the minority here.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want you can always help me with article cleanup, I feel that if we get a majority of small cleanup issues resolved then fixing up the articles wont seem so overwhelming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I did take a look at it a few days ago but it's the sort of article where I would rather start from scratch than clean up. it really needs an "expert" on the subject thanks to all of the various spin offs and such. I have no knowledge of the details of the series at all.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if I have brought offense, but managing a wiki demands far lesser standards than Wikipedia does, and in addition, it is an extremely rowdy crowd to manage. I am genuinely not good at all at writing encyclopaedic, rather than fandom, standard articles, and do not know which sources that are deemed notable/acceptable. Even if you do not wish to rewrite it, help to find useful sources would be appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

as I've said before, I've got no problem helping people, whatever their ability. The key word is help. If that means education than I'm ok with that. That's how I started - I wanted to improve an article but needed guidance, and I got that article to GA. I'm happy to teach as we go along. Sources I'm happy to give, but only if someone uses them. I'm not scanning things just for someones collection. Cleaning up the writing, we can do as we go and you can learn from it as we go. All I'm asking is that you get involved as much as possible, then I'm happy to help when I can. It's a simple and fair way to do things.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SephyTheThird, you are fine with saying that what you want to do here is find people who are interested in learning to edit Wikipedia better and then helping those people. There is no problem to with you only helping when others are willing to do a lot of work too. What I took objection to is your suggestion that David A did something wrong by not being one of the people you are looking for. Not everyone has the time or inclination to put a lot of work into Wikipedia. Those people should feel welcome to post comments and suggestions, and to make small edits, even if they don't have time to do major cleanup or write whole articles. We should be encouraging people to contribute where and how they can, without any expectation that they will put a lot of work into Wikipedia. I see your reply to David A, which implied that he was doing something wrong and that we should avoid helping him "out of principle", as quite harmful to Wikipedia. David A has made a couple small edits to the article, and Knowledgekid87 was perhaps alerted that the article needed work by David A's posts. That seems like a great contribution from David A to me, and if he doesn't have time to do more, or just would rather do other things, he should feel good that he helped with the article, and not be berated for not wanting to be a more hardcore Wikipedia editor. Calathan (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I seem to remember that a long time ago somebody showed me a list of acceptable notable sources for anime articles in Wikipedia. If somebody could link to that particular page it would be helpful, if I find the time and energy to try to improve the article. Thank you. I just have bureaucrat duties to take care of elsewhere as well, and I am going through a period of extreme exhaustion for the time being, so all of this also popped up at an inconvenient time. David A (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. I hope you feel better soon. :) Are you talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is the page that I was looking for. Thank you. David A (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure

I just want to make sure people agree with this before I spend the time to correct it. At some point Ryulong went to each part of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and added two/three sets of chapter titles; the ones used in the WSJ serialization, the ones used in the original tankōbon, and the ones used in a 2002 tankōbon re-release. Stardust_Crusaders#Chapters is the one with three, the others have two, but where as Phantom_Blood#Chapters has the new tankōbon in separate boxes after the old, Vento_Aureo#Chapters has the tankōbon titles in the same boxes as the WSJ ones. So basically its not uniform and looks like shit. Even tho different titles were used we should only list the original tankōbon's right? Xfansd (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no right answer here. Someone might bite you for it in the future. If it were me, I'd do something crazy like create a list of chapter titles table, then show how the chapters are encapsulated. I did do something like that before List of Maison Ikkoku chapters, but you'll have to forgo the chapter list/summaries section to something like a chapter table for various reasons. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

ComiXology.com

Hey, guys, I've brought Comixology.com (along with a bunch of other sources) for analysis before here. I think I've exaggerated trying to bring too many sources for discussion at once... and probably we should only focus on having anime/manga-only sources at WP:A&M/RS (I mean, NYT is reliable but we don't need to add it there...). So, I've brought this one first because it should be the most clearly reliable among them. With Jason Thompson, Shaenon K. Garrity (added recently to the list), and The Comics Journal editors (Kristy Valenti, Joe McCulloch, Tucker Stone) as contributors, I'd say its reliability is pretty clear. Also, I've already added it to a GA article (Shaman King) and I would like to have it ratified by the community to do not have any potential problem. Also, WP:A&M/RS is a good page for newcomers to know where to look for sources (at least, it helped me sometime ago) and I'd like to keep it in a good-shape. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a section on the site that you're wanting to state is RS? It looks like a retail site now to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, hm, good question; their reviews and analysis are under their own column (e.g. "Manga Salad" for Thompson, "All the Comics in the World" for Garrity, etc). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say the retail information (for primaries), the Columns and Podcasts would be okay for RS. The Reviews are mostly user-generated. The Blog section looks like a bunch of random tumblr pictures, which doesn't have much useful information. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus! My main concern are the columns as most of the information I want comes from there. User-generated reviews and blogs by non-RS people are definitely not RS. Anyone else wants to give an input? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Add your areas of strength

I am not sure everyone is aware, but we have this page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yellow pages, I added myself as I have found im okay with reference cleanup where I can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this located on the main page anywhere? First time I've heard of it and it seems very useful. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is very useful, its in our project's infobox, you can also add the magazines you own (if any) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines and see who owns what. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Infobox animanga‎/Game

An editor has been insistent in adding several new fields into the {{Infobox animanga‎/Game}} sub-component, however, they have refused to discussion the matter here, instead taking it to WT:VG. Their rational behind adding these fields is that they exist in {{Infobox video game}} and therefore must also be in {{Infobox animanga‎/Game}}. The fields that they have included are director, video game producer, game designer, game programmer, game artist, writer, and music composer. My view was that these fields are unimportant and just add bloat to the entire infobox. They have since reduced the new fields to director, producer, and music composer, however, I still don't see the relevance of these fields in the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a curious question but are the two template alike enough for a merge? If the fields are unimportant I agree they shouldn't be used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

They are not similar enough. {{Infobox animanga‎/Game}} was designed to fit into {{Infobox animanga‎}}, the other one was not. As for the changes, I don't see a problem with them. Having the two include similar information is a good thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Case Closed naming

Hi guys! As an FYI I found that the Singapore manga release of Detective Conan by Shogakukan Asia uses the original title and character names (based on the preview on their website). I don't yet plan to do an RM since I don't know where the Singapore manga release is distributed.

• If it's only distributed in Singapore and Malaysia I don't plan to do an RM unless there is consensus in this thread to do so.
• If it's imported into India (or Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) or the Philippines or Australia and New Zealand I would like to do an RM

See: Talk:Case_Closed#2015_Break - Until Shogakukan Asia's adaptation (and if there are any Singapore adaptations of the anime, please let me know!) all English versions (released in North America and the United Kingdom) used the Case Closed name and most of the dub names (some VIZ dub names differed from others). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The official Shogakukan Asia page says the books are distributed in: Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Thailand, and Indonesia. From my understanding all of the products are in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Viz media one is still more prominent and came first. Shogakukan Asia was formed in 2013.[1] Both Viz and Shogakukan Asia are tied to Shogakukan anyway. [2] Here is the distribution network which focuses on Southeast Asia: [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also a Singapore anime dub.. I would like to find more sourced info about it, but I'm having some trouble. :( - Supposedly the company that dubbed it is Voiceovers Unlimited Pte Ltd WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Oh you mean the Animax dub of Detective Conan/Case Closed? You'd be hard-pressed to find info on said dubs: though if I recall correctly, the studio which did most of Animax Asia's dubs was from Hong Kong, not Singapore. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I notice there was content at http://www.animax-asia.com/programs/detective-conan but it doesn't seem to be archived at the Internet Archive... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: There's a video on YouTube from "Voiceovers Unlimited" (Account name) which includes the ending credits: In the video it says the company is Voiceovers Unlimited Pte Ltd - There must be a place where this information is published... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So far, I have found no information saying that either the anime nor the manga using the original title or character names is distributed as such in India or Australia/NZ. Therefore I am not asking for an RM at this time. However I would like to have the acknowledgement that the Southeast Asian version is known as Detective Conan in the article lead. Even though it is a minority, as per WP:LEAD the lead must summarize the whole article, and as per WP:Systemic Bias we should not shortchange our Filipino, Singaporean, and Malaysian readers (also those in Brunei and English speakers in Indonesia and Thailand) by ignoring/shortchanging their version of the series. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked a question at the "Systemic Bias" WikiProject regarding the article lead: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Case_Closed_.28Detective_Conan.29_and_titles_in_various_English-speaking_countries WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See the proposed lead discussion here: Talk:Case_Closed#Proposed_lead WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ghibli Museum sourcing issue

Looking at google books [4] I cant find the reference for "Miyazaki & Kitazawa" (2006) that is being used in the article. Any suggestions? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the Ghibli Museum guidebook, of which there are several editions by year.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know who it is by or what I can use for more reference info? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I was able to rescue the dead links but it would be nice if I could address the duplication of that one source which is overcited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I linked it to that source, so it's all good. the Miyazaki & Kitazawa one, but yeah the main website and its articles are a big mess AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is all I need thanks. I will just add one source link for Miyazaki & Kitazawa. Yeah there is maybe one source that is doubled for the performances but the links date quickly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nyan Koi!

All right. I'm thinking about expanding Nyan Koi! to at least a B-Class article. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If we could get some more reviews to show notability it would be great. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Aurora Publishing

I plan on turning Category:Aurora Publishing into a template. My reasoning behind it is that a large portion of Aurora's articles are notable enough for inclusion as they have in depth reviews but remain orphaned articles. Aurora chose to publish mostly one shots or short manga series, as a result most of the authors/illustrators of these manga are not notable enough for articles of their own. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Idea B Another thing I could do is make: List of manga published by Aurora and merge all of the stubs into a well sourced list article. Any thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A list would be good as you can give more details that a template cannot provide. But since the main article is too short you can handle it into something like Seven Seas Entertainment#Publications. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That works too, okay I will just go with that then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Anons adding WP: Fancruft to Inuyasha

The article Inuyasha (character) has been edited multiple times by anons. When I reverted the edits and left a warning in their talk page a user named User talk:Sbrady538 readded all the fancruft the anons gave. Could this be a suckpoppet? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I requested protection for the page. Given the IP's behavior it shouldn't be a problem. If the edits persist afterwards by a suspected sock puppet then we could take further action. We'll have to wait and see for now. More eyes on the page would be helpful. —Kirt^Message 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Hi. Are scifi-universe.com and krinein.fr reliable sources? --Cattus ^talk 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, what are their credentials? Their staff members are recognized among the industry? They are cited by other reliable sources? This stuff, you know. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak French but you could try getting a more broad opinion over at WP:RSN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. Thanks for both of your comments.--Cattus ^talk 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You might want to ask KrebMarkt (talk · contribs) about the French source. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly Kreb hasn't been here since October 2013. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello long time not see you all ;)

If you want to use those sources in manga / anime related articles then my opinion is that both of them miss the mark as Reliable Source.

First scifi-universe.com is not focused in manga / anime but rather in sci-fi. This alone isn't an issue however their last staff review of a manga is 2 years old (cf http://www.scifi-universe.com/critiques/recentes/manga) and the reviewing staff doesn't assess why their reviews matter when it's about manga.

Bottom line there are better sources to asses facts related to manga. There staff reviews can't be given much weight => not to be used to pass WP:BK #1

Second krinein.fr A manga oriented website. It has tenure, recents staff reviews. However you notice by browsing others sections of the website that there no news article since december 2014 (cf http://manga.krinein.fr/access/actualites/), the same for dossier section (http://manga.krinein.fr/access/dossiers/). The manga review section is solely done by one reviewer since at least mid-2013. This look like much a semi-pro website that lack manpower to keep all its parts active. This website can't be RS based on those facts.

If possible you should use better Frenchs websites like manga-news for Reliable Source.

I must very rusted to write this short paragraph in one hour of time :(

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

List of manga magazines

I just did a major overhaul of the manga magazines published in Japan on this list. Here is my proposal:

• 1. Get rid of all the magazines listed that don't have articles (Or redirect the ones that are similar (Be x Boy and Be x Boy Gold for example) and make the criteria like it is at List of anime conventions.

• 2. Split off the magazines published outside of Japan into a separate article, this will ease up some space and make it so the article isn't WP:TOOLONG.

Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:TOOLONG does not apply to stand alone lists. So the main question is, do we want List of manga magazines to be a comprehensive list or a navigational list (WP:CSC)? For the former, not every entry on the list needs to be notable. And since I don't foresee to many "fly-by-night" magazines cropping up, I think following WP:CSC#3 is the way to go. The main issue is sourcing, especially relating to the magazines' demographics. I'm already having to deal with the ever-recurring demographic dispute relating to Champion Red. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess a list is a good way to show the existency of some less-known magazines so I oppose removing the redlinks. Also, WP:CSC: "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." CSC#3 is probably even a better option and would include redlinks too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No red-links aren't discouraged but we have to keep in mind WP:N, red-links if I read WP:RED right are meant not to just sit on a page for an indefinite amount of time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Twitter questions ans original research

I've noticed a trend of English voice actors being asked about their voice roles in recent anime series on Twitter and their responses being included on Wikipedia. I have pinged the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard about whether this practices constitutes original research or not. Topic is located at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Asking questions on Twitter. There may also be relating WP:BLP issues do to the low-quality of Twitter. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese episode list templates merger

With regards to the above linked discussion about the proposed merging of {{Episode list}}, {{Japanese episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list multi-part}}. Are we making these sorts of changes now? Frankly, our Project just has a ridiculous amount of Japanese Episode lists to be able to endorse such a grand merger. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 23:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can undo it. Nothing's been officialized as far as I know. If the merge does go through, a bot will do the replacement. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Very premature and I've undid both instances. There is absolutely no reason to switch {{Japanese episode list}} with {{Episode list}} at this time. In the event the two templates are merger, which does seem will happen with the current comments, the parameters will remain and the merger will be as seamless as possible for both. —Farix (t | c) 23:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opposed the merger, I see no gain in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Anime Expo

So it's to the point that we need more eyes on the Anime Expo article. Editor will simply not cite or update sources, even primary sources, to prove where they got the information for 2015 guest updates. Every effort to reach out including Talk Page has failed, will simply re-add the information I removed still uncited. Esw01407 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a 3RR tag to the editor's talkpage [5], I also note the lack of edit summaries in addition to refusal of the use of the talk-page. If this keeps up I would recommend going to WP:ANI per WP:CIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)