Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Re:List of anime series by episode count

Proposed: Reduce the number of series displayed to make it more manageable. Please check talk page and leave a comment. Thanks. Hei Liebrecht 03:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 start/stubs (2nd project)

i decided to bring back the top start/stub articles that readers have been paying attention on. If all of them are improved, we can extent the project by trying to get them all improved even further.

stubs

• Dramatical Murder
• When Marnie Was There
• Terror in Resonance start
• Glasslip start
• Love Stage!! start

start

• Digimon Adventure
• Perfect Blue
• Tokyo Ghoul
• Aldnoah.Zero
• Daily Lives of High School Boys C

FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Popular_pages is a good page for checking the most popular articles. --Mika1h (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the opening statement, or we could do like a monthly community project where we improve that month's top 10 start / stub, with—progression to B-class and higher as an ongoing long term project. So if everyone agrees, we could start that trend this instant since August just barely began. —KirtZ^Message 21:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like that, but i dont want the older articles to get ignored, especially if we ignore them more, the more likely we lose information such as refs that become dead links. So we could make it monthly, but i still intend to make it so we improve our older articles too. Lucia Black (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of a monthly project. —KirtZ^Message 21:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like my main concern addressed aswell before we make a voting. Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Start list doesn't look right per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Popular_pages, are you sorting them by importance or popularity? -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the Start list by popularity:

• 4 Tokyo Ghoul 284196 9167 Start Low
• 9 Knights of Sidonia 207123 6681 Start Low
• 10 No Game No Life 206682 6667 Start Low
• 11 Akame ga Kill! 203459 6563 Start Low
• 17 List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes 162991 5257 Start Low - C class now

Many of these are in process, especially the Sailor Moon one, so don't see a problem getting folks on that one. The others could use some attention. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By popularity. But other than that, i skipped epiode lists. As they are suppose to be in list class. For some reason Knights of Sidonia doesn't appear when i'm looking at it. So whichever is best. I also had to look at certain ones because some of them say they are start or stub but are actually a different class. Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't most of these currently airing? On the one hand, obvious high demand for content there. On the other, recentism bias. --erachima talk 06:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, some of them get reclassified to List because they are List-class in another Wikiproject. And yes, the popular ones in July are recentism-biased. People like to look at articles regarding recently airing shows. ;) That's weird how it selects different shows to be popular, maybe dependent on region or some other range? It's okay, you can go with the original list if you'd like. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I'm barely here, and my priority's always been more on the manga side, so pick however you want. I'm just noting that there's a pretty obvious bias in what it's going to call the most-demanded stub/start pages for improvement. --erachima talk 14:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've previously voiced concerns about this myself. However keeping on top of them as soon as possible is a good way to keep the pages up to some sort of standard rather than falling into a bad state because they aren't being controlled. Also, it's good for adding articles and news stories as they are made available rather than spending hours researching them later (it's quite easy to get per episode reception information these days making for good running commentary). It all offsets the number of large pages which need complete rewrites and substantial investment of time to reach any sort of standard. It's also surprising how some articles of recent/current titles that you expect to get lots of edits actually don't. Ajin: Demi-Human is a good example of that. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've assed Glasslip and Terror in Resonance as start as they are decent enough, I guess. Also, I gave Love Stage!! a shot... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A start now? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I just crossed out the ones that are reassessed, but we can still improve them further, if possible. Anyways...If this wants to be a popular thing, perhaps we could create a table based on it. I'm not familiar with these kind of things, but we could not include the most popular pages, but the least popular aswell. Perhaps some series aren't that notable and could be AfD. I'll look for someone who can help find a way to make it happen, but first might ask for approval. We don't even have to constantly be updating a new list, it'll be updated for us. But thinking ahead of myself at the moment. for now, we got these articles to consider. Lucia Black (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm... Talk:Love Stage!! still assessed as stub despite being crossed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Start-class now. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We still have a few articles that need work. Could someone prevent the thread from being archived for the next few weeks? —KirtZ^Message 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've put a month extension on it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

RS evaluation of anime-planet.com

I know that this site does not meat WP:EL critical for an external link. However, I've noticed it being referenced several times in articles, mainly for plot information.[1] The reviews appear to be user submitted and would fail WP:SPS. I cannot tell if the other information on the site is user edited or not. The only previous discussion on the website was over whether it complied with WP:EL. —Farix (t | c) 13:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like someone rewrites their summaries or at least plans to according to this: [2] The reviews are user-submitted however the video links are provided with a partnership with Crunchyroll. The staff section looks to be "a single admin and a handful of volunteers": [3]. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything to suggest we should use this site. A partnership with Crunchyroll etc (assuming they are officially sanctioned) would seem to benefit the providers as free advertising more than suggest any quality of the site. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it from the "External links" sections and where its reviews have been referenced as part of a reception section. But there are still a number of references to plot elements and staff that I believe could be better referenced to other sources. —Farix (t | c) 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Young" roles

There was a discussion back at Talk:Free! (anime)#Character section comments on whether the "young" voice actor roles (meaning, if a certain character, for example in a flashback, is given a different voice actor than their normal because of a need for a "younger" voice) that used to be in that article should be included. As you can imply by the tense of my sentence, the consensus was to remove them. However, several articles, such as Oreimo and Tokyo Ravens, still have in their character lists at least one mention of a "young" role. So, should articles that have "young" roles continue to be included in articles which have them, or should they be removed? Or should their inclusion be on a case-by-case basis? The arguments against their use are explained by KirtZJ in the aforementioned discussion; however, I am neither in favor nor against the inclusion of such information in articles. I just want to see what consensus there is for their inclusion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It would depend on whether the young voice was used often enough to be worth mentioning. Just use your best judgment. --erachima talk 10:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I had proposed it to be removed because the profiles for the official anime website do not consider them significant enough to include on their main character page, leading me to believe that the "young" character is as about as notable as a guest character. For young ones in major roles (i.e. Dragon Ball) or for character articles, it can be retained. If they stay in a guest/recurring basis, they should be referenced properly with episodes involved, since digging up a Train Heartnet (young) reference can be a real pain and a barrier to getting an article properly referenced towards B or GA/FL class. They can stay on a VA's filmography. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider them notable enough to include in an article if a series has one or two flashbacks because as you said they are a headache when it comes to finding reliable references. I think it's one of those things that the community seems to somewhat ignore because in almost every instance I've seen mentions of "young", none of the VAs (including the normal ones) are sourced even. At the same time, it's usually an IP who adds them, and they may have just been fanning on good faith. Another thing we have to consider is that the "young" thing can quickly become useless spam if a series gets an English release and we end up with at least 4 VAs for one character. However when it comes to improving class-status of an article, I would remove them if they cant be reliable sourced. —KirtZ^Message 17:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncredited parallel universe characters

I have this situation where the VA voices the main character's parallel universe equivalent and also their's character mother, however, neither of the two voices are listed in the closing credits, and I can't find a reliable source that confirms this (ANN encyclopedia can't be used, and BTVA doesn't show a checkmark for confirmed voices). The editor has insisted it be left alone because they've confirmed the voice matches themselves, and that all the main characters do their parallels anyway HERE. So should the characters be kept or not? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, not based on their arguments given that they are as WP:OR as can be.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:BLP. If it cannot be cited to a reliable source, it should be on the page, period. —Farix (t | c) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the statement there's no need for proof, it's obviously her is so clearly OR that it'snot even up for debate.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's that obvious that Protagonist and Evil Protagonist have the same voice, to the point that nobody thought of crediting the role separately, then we don't need to include the second VA credit in the first place. --erachima talk 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Shot in the dark request (Zombie Powder)

Do any of the regulars happen to own the first volume of Zombie Powder? And if so, would you be willing to scan a specific page from it? There are some decade-old scans out there on the web, of course, but they're so artifacty that I'm concerned there'll be quality issues even when cleaned up and downsized for article use. --erachima talk 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for the original Japanese or English - because you said "decade old"? I might have it in my library, bundled in with my old CLAMP stuff for no particular reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the art I'm after, not the text, so either version will probably work. --erachima talk 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, I want page 36. --erachima talk 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and used the decade-old scan, and as I suspected it's got image quality issues that neither basic cleanup tricks nor downsizing alleviated. afaict it was scanned into the windows XP version of paint as a .jpg and the resulting scuzziness is not correctable short of effectively redrawing the page myself to counteract artifact losses. So if you've got the page, I'd definitely appreciate a cleaner version. Still, better for illustration than nothing for the moment. Also, page is up for WP:GAN. --erachima talk 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion

There is an AN discussion which may interest this project, as it discusses one of its important contributors. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Transformers: Robots in Disguise needs disambiguation assistance

Transformers: Robots in Disguise has been converted to a disambiguation page as a result of the creation of Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series). The vast majority of links to Transformers: Robots in Disguise will need to be converted to the former primary topic, Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series), but this task can't be fully automated as there are likely a few links that should be redirected to one of the other two links on that disambiguation page. WP:AWB may be useful for completing this task. This is now the top unaddressed item on the Disambiguation pages with links, with just over 150 links to clean up. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Help save an article?

The article Tonari no Kashiwagi-san is currently up for AfD. I don't read Japanese, so I'm having some trouble finding sources. I'm not entirely sure that there's enough notability to save the article, but I'd appreciate someone coming in to help search. It could redirect to Manga Time Kirara Forward, but that has a lack of sourcing as well- anyone interested in working on one or both articles? MTKF could probably be placed for deletion since it was mentioned at the AfD for TnKs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google Books didn't turn up anything relevant, nor can I find any reviews that aren't from lowly site users. Tezero (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Digging around in Japanese pulls more or less nothing as well, I'm afraid. Pity ja.wiki is so lax about sources. --erachima talk 05:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It might have helped if it got picked up by an English publisher like Crunchyroll. How is it ranking on Oricon? That might be enough to justify keeping it around if it's making the top 10-30 in volumes? -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We need another way to deal with articles like these. From what I've seen every time an article which shouldnt have been created gets AfD for obvious reasons, the community ends up sympathizing with the page. —KirtZ^Message 02:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Define "the community." Because even there, the reasoning-based arguments from project members are leaning delete. I think AfD participation is just down and it makes the variance in outcomes higher. --erachima talk 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. —KirtZ^Message 02:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(Please take this rant with a grain of salt). The problem isn't the arguments, but as KirtZ mentioned, it's the community. No matter how many reasonable arguments there tend to be in these debates, they are far-overshadowed by weak (if not down right ridiculous) "arguments" that do nothing to justify notability. And even though our arguments on Wikipedia are supposed to be weighted based on their arguments, in my experience, AFDs always end up being decided by the votes, and it doesn't seem like the closing admins even care to read the arguments for a debate longer than 1KB. Does a relatively arbitrary mention in 2 reliable sources constitute the significant coverage stipulated at WP:GNG? Some say yes, and others say no, and that's really the core of the debate. Besides, even if there are an equal number of keep and delete votes, it just ends up as no consensus and we're back to square one, so the AFD debates always favor keeping the article, making it increasingly difficult to make sure that only notable topics get articles. This is why this WikiProject's reputation is so bad compared to other projects. We can't agree on anything, even on a fundamental issue like what topics are and are not notable. But whatever, I'm just venting, since I've pretty much just given up on it. The way things are going, every manga that's ever been published and ever mentioned once in a reliable source is going to get an article, and there is nothing you or anyone can say to prevent it.--十八 03:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"This is why this WikiProject's reputation is so bad compared to other projects."

Actually I think that's the fault of the often-exorbitant coverage of in-universe minutia and the years-long arguments over content forking. People writing (non-COI) articles about books that exist but just don't matter are a pretty irrelevant problem. --erachima talk 03:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What I was alluding to was the following sentence: "We can't agree on anything". And the AFD debates are a prime example of that, including of course the years-long arguments on various things. I swear, this is probably the largest project in terms of article number that can't get along on a fundamental level, even when it comes to something as simple as formatting, which btw, we just had a pretty nice edit war with at Puella Magi Madoka Magica not 10 minutes ago.--十八 03:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there an Wikipedia:Articles for creation process with a tag to involve this project? Shouldn't newly created series go through that first? I've been assessing importance on some articles based on whether the notability has been documented properly in the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a Hero

So, I Am a Hero is currently 1 kb of establishing notability and 28 kb of unadulterated plot summary. Anyone want to tackle that? --erachima talk 05:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If it establishes notability, no amount of plot summary can take that away. (Of course, establishing notability is an incredibly subjective and wishy-washy, yet rigidly enforced all the same, process.) Tezero (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The current notability establishment is "Won national award" + "declared best thing ever by bluelinked critic", so that's not what I'm concerned about. Rather, I suspect that anyone who decides to try and fix the page into readability is going to be in for a fight with the IP editor who's built the Great Wall of Text there over several months. --erachima talk 05:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily chop the text down (though I've never read it, but I can make some degree of improvement I'm sure), if someone else handles media info.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

After having a closer look I can do a phased reduction once I'm at my laptop and not on a phone or tablet. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagging it with plot. A lot of it can go into the List of chapters/light novels -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Also tagged the ZQN for original research/synthesis. I'd suggest cutting that section altogether. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential reliable source

The ANN writer Lynzee Lamb has her own blog where she writes reviews. Could this count as a reliable source? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly yes but only for opinion, of course. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Uzumaki organizational question

The article Uzumaki needs a second opinion on the GAN, you can post your opinion here. This GAN has been up for a long time, it would be great to get opinions rolling. Lucia Black (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would actually prefer the second opinion NOT come from a project regular. Avoids partiality complaints and gets better insight into whether the page makes sense to an unfamiliar reader. --erachima talk 02:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, there is a question you can help with. [4] vs. [5] as an organization scheme for the media and release information. The WP:MOS-AM standard is "Production" + "Media", I've used "Development" + "Media", Lucia wants "Development" + "Releases" + "Related media". --erachima talk 02:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Either is fine. MoS AM's credibility was brought into question when it is revealed it didn't go through the process needed to make it an MoS. Aside from that, FA's requirement for structure is also basically "as long as its neat and readable" DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Said "process" is fictitious.

That misunderstanding aside, the question isn't which is permissible, it's which is better. --erachima talk 02:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. The process thing was brought up in that large discussion about the MoS and it made sense to me. I don't know what to say though. Are you looking for some vote by the project? What I meant was a straw vote doesn't seem the right way to go, and a discussion about this brought up earlier in the year was inconclusive. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why i believe it is beneficial to have Releases + Related media is because that 80% of the information is heavily focused on the manga. While the other media barely gets any mention. Lucia Black (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have any cards on the table one way or the other; I agree that the GA and FA criteria for organization don't necessitate much beyond being "neat and readable". My impression, though, is that we should separate by medium if the plots are substantially different (basically, FMA rather than Death Note) and keep a general "Releases" section otherwise; I don't know anything about Uzumaki so I couldn't tell whether that's the case here. Tezero (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are alternate endings to the live action and even the video games due to being developed/produced before the original manga is finished. the only one having a separate article is the live-action film, but other than that. The decision was mainly done by what the article focuses on most.

Speaking of Fullmetal Alchemist, there is more anime-tangent media such as Art books and CDs. so that has to be merged to the respected Anime articles. Lucia Black (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Uzumaki's adaptations are one live-action film with its own article, which the page does not attempt to summarize, and a couple video games that are unlikely to ever get pages unless someone from WP:VG decides to be a real completionist about minor franchise-based Wonderswan titles.

My stance on the matter is simply that, as reviewer, I found "Releases" and "Related Media" to be mildly confusing/misleading section titles. I would expect "Related Media" to essentially be a more descriptive "See Also" section, which contained things that were relevant to the series but were not Uzumaki titles. Like if a character from the series had appeared in a different manga by Ito, or if another author set a series in the same city, or if it had one of the third-party "guidebooks" that are commonly written for uber-popular franchises like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Direct adaptations of the work and licensed products generally appear either in a section called "Adaptations" or "Media." --erachima talk 04:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Related Media does imply a looser relationship between the series and its spinoffs. How about just renaming related media to adaptions then? (EX Tales of Symphonia) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I considered that but think it results in badly arranged section headings.

• Releases

• Volume list

• Adaptations

• Video Games
• Film

vs.

• Media

• Volume list
• Video games
• Film

and the obvious compromise option would simply be excessive

• Media

• Volume list
• Adaptations

• Video games
• Film

So, yeah, aesthetic complaint with having a section with a single subheader or having multiply-nested sections, primarily. --erachima talk 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont find it confusing, nor misleading. You mentioned "as a reviewer", does that mean that you're using a different perspective? the media is "related" to the main media, (the manga). And yes, there is a "looser" relationship implication. I'm not really sure a section of "adaptation" is necessary, as the video games aren't direct adaptations, and there is definitely enough to be "loose". Uzumaki however benefits from not having any guidebooks, or other complimentary media. Lucia Black (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer, I attempt to look at articles as someone who's come to the page to learn about the subject. (By contrast to the editor's perspective who's come to see whether the article on the subject matches what he knows about the subject.) Principle of least surprise is significant in that context. --erachima talk 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It sounds more like a "hypothetical" issue than a real issue. I organized the article with the reader in mind which i believe also correlates with the GA criteria. If the editor knows more about the subject, then don't you think that helps the situation? So i don't understand the problem with the previous rendition, even for a reader who knows nothing about the topic. I don't see how confused they will be. Like i said, the article focuses "heavily" on the manga. Down to development and Reception, putting the manga in the same section implies the media is "equal" to each other (which their not).

Keep in mind, one of DragonZero's edits was also related to this in Rozen Maiden which i contested before in the past because other media articles don't use universal "Media" sections (although i believe anime/manga differs greatly from most media when it comes to media-relationship). Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"putting the manga in the same section implies the media is "equal" to each other"

Ah, THAT'S the problem? I've spent this whole discussion trying to figure out what issue you had with the standard organization. Anyway, short answer? Nobody else thinks it implies that, and the manga is listed first in the section anyway. --erachima talk 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the standardization is a little too universal and at the moment its still up to debate, relationship between media differs a little more with anime/manga media. So, yes it is a problem for me. And If i think it implies that, then others might believe so as well. And it does imply that "objectively" (not subjectively). All media unilaterally in a single section, together will make believe that the media is indeed "Equal" to each other. Can you find a way to explain how it can't with just the setup that you're proposing? Lucia Black (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Explain" what? It simply doesn't mean that, and it's frankly baffling to me that you think it's an issue. --erachima talk 05:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking if you could explain how it doesn't imply that the media is universally equal. If it baffles you that i think its an issue, then it should be fine to have the setup from before. But i do believe its an issue, so i will explain further. Objectively it does imply what i stated as a first time reader. The previous set up that had before was organized that the related media was an aspect of the original and that it is tangent aspect, just like "Reception", "Development", and "Release". However, merging release into a universal "Media" section shows something else entirely. Now, the article implies its focused on all three media universally. Its not entirely crazy to believe that the article focuses on all three. And the The main subject of the article is the manga. Its passable IM when theres development/reception information of the anime or if the original media isn't notable. but for Uzumaki, its not the case. (if you want me to clarify why i find that to be the exception, i can, but i think its easy to understand). Lucia Black (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't. Section header divisions imply separation and subtopicality, not some sort of moral judgment about the supremacy or equality of one thing or another.

I'm really not sure how to say anything else on the subject. This is such a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of how organization works that there's really no way for me to talk about it without lapsing into incivility via severe condescension. You're just going to have to believe me here that when I say that your perspective isn't just wrong, it's incomprehensibly wrong I am attempting to put that as nicely and matter-of-factly as I can. --erachima talk 06:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't explain it, i can't understand your reasoning. Section Header divisions does indeed imply separation and subtopicality. But that only hleps my argument, not hurt it. Is manga a subtopic of its own? No....so instead of a media section where the manga is part of the adaptations/spin-off media. Having no "Manga" section and a "related media" section shows that the video games and live-action film is encompassed by the manga rather than being encompassed by a singular subtopic. The article isn't about a "franchise" its about a single media. Lucia Black (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The media section groups release information. All three of those sub-sections consist entirely of release information and therefore should go together. --erachima talk 06:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And if you think about it a little more carefully, having all releases together (both original media and spin-off/adaptations) implies that all media is "equal", and to clarify by "equal" i'm saying that the article is about those three media, but its not, Uzumaki is strictly focused on the manga. Just because the section in question consists of release information doesn't mean we have to universally organize the information together by releases. The "related media" section is also focused on release information but a specific type of release. It focuses on other media that's not the original, because that helps show that "related media" is an aspect based on the main topic of the article (in this case, the manga). But a general media section suggests that the article focuses on all the media as the primary topic.

The organization you want would normally be fine if there was more coverage on the other media such as development or reception, and the article wasn't so heavily focused on a single media. But as you can clearly see, the article is heavily focused on the manga. For example: Adventure Time. And i wont buy that its not anime/manga. There has to be a "reason" why anime/manga has different modes, and i have been analyzing it for some time now. And there is a difference, but its not a universal difference. Lucia Black (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Adventure Time's formatting is, incidentally, terrible. In their case, either of the following would be dramatic improvements:

• Releases

• Broadcast
• Home Video

• Other media

• Comic books
• Video games
• Merchandise

Or simply

• Media

• Episodes
• Comic books
• Video games
• Merchandise

Certainly emphasizes that GA doesn't care how your headers are sorted though. --erachima talk 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A good point with the single subheading thing, I just went back and decided to add TOC limit to two of my articles. If it were me, I'd just use a semi-colon subheading for volume list with Lucia's format. Aside from that, the structure shouldn't be holding up the GA review. If structure isn't the cause of the hold up, I could act as a second opinion (I've done twenty something reviews) if that is fine. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The organizational point shouldn't hold up the GA nom regardless. And I appreciate the offer, but the second opinion request is essentially for someone to verify my impartiality in evaluating the article, which has (not for me specifically, but in other cases I've observed) been an issue at GAR. So it's kinda not helpful to go from 2 WP:ANIME members to 3 WP:ANIME members. --erachima talk 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen WP:VG handle their own media, aswell. The fact that this is divided shows that it is indeed "impartial". what impartiality would you consider? you're using MOSAM, but looking for a group see a side outside of it. Lucia Black (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucia, your argument is based entirely on an attribution of value judgment to our section headers and idiocy to our readers that I find, bluntly, insane. The fact that the article is about the manga is made perfectly clear by the way the article spends 90% of its time discussing the manga, and no person who reads English could possibly be confused about which came first or was the main medium.

In any case, I think the argument's played out at this point, we've made our cases and if some other editor agrees with you that it's worth changing I won't object. --erachima talk 08:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What i present is what other wikiprojects and other mediums present....its not "idiocy". If you truly believe that, i highly suggest you challenge it to every other wikiproject that follows the same setup.

And yes, the fact that the article is made up of 90% manga shows that article should be organized in a way that highlights that. You're only shooting insults at this point. Lucia Black (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming idiocy on the part of our readers. --erachima talk 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No i'm not....if i am, other wikiprojects are assuming idiocy as well as they follow the same organization. And lets just say for a moment that i am assuming "idiocy" as you put it, providing a clearer way isn't a bad thing anyways. The organization i propose still compliments the topic better. Lucia Black (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they came by their titles innocently enough. There isn't One True Heading Format, after all. The problem here is your specific argument in favor of your preferred format: that readers of an article that is 90% focused on one subject will be utterly and helplessly misled because the subject headings were grouped on the basis of content similarities. That argument unambiguously assumes the readers are morons, is completely implausible, and shouldn't be given any weight. --erachima talk 11:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start off with a TLDR and state that the article structure on the MOS should not be taken as the end-all-be-all. In fact, I often wonder if how we cover related media could not be better in how it is structured. In the past, I've tried to experiment by renaming the "Media" section to "Adaptations" or "Related media" on new articles with the primary work in a "Publication/release history" section separate from the other media, only to have someone come in and blindly citing the MOS as to why that structure was "wrong". —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for flexibility when warranted, but am having difficulty thinking of a series for which the publication/adaptations division doesn't result in either an orphaned subheader problem or one extremely brief main heading. Uzumaki is a good example of the former issue since it necessarily includes its volume list, Fullmetal Alchemist of the latter since its publication history is largely spun-out onto its own list. In either case, trying to sort the media section out by type results in bad article outline structuring.

It works well for non-serial media though. Fate/stay Night, for instance. --erachima talk 20:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by an "orphaned subheader" problem? Uzumaki with the inclusion of the volume list (its too small to split on its own).The problem like you mentioned in your discussion is that the article isn't organized like a multi-media series, its organized like a single media is the focus, at least the one with my rendition. Lucia Black (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't work. Simply take what would fall under the first media sub-section—which is the primary work—and rename it Release/Publication history depending on the medium. Then rename the rest of the media section "Adaptations" or "Related media" depending on the context. I can easily do that for Uzumaki right now. —Farix (t | c) 11:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly how it was organized before. There was a "Release" section and a "Related media" section. Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So.... What was the problem exactly? That someone was misreading the MOS? —Farix (t | c) 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Titling of Nanoha series article

Given the notability of the Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha series as a franchise with multiple iterations in both anime and manga, do you think we should retitle Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha (series) as simply Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha and move the current article with that name, the original 2004 TV anime series titled Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, to something along the lines of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha (2004 TV series), falling more in line with franchises such as Pretty Cure and several video game franchises? I asked in the series article and they reccomended I ask the anime project peeps. Wonchop (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is likely to be an RfC addressing precisely that issue in the near future, I would highly suggest you not make any changes at the moment.

...which I suppose makes this as good a time as any to announce that, according to some preliminary agreement at WP:AN, we will be hosting an RfC on the content forking/franchise article issue soon. --erachima talk 10:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'd know how to go about it if I was to. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Wonchop (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When people look up "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha", what exactly are they expecting? An article on the entire franchise or an article about the first anime series? —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure, but given the recent buzz about an upcoming ViVid anime, as well as the recent films, people would probably be looking more into the franchise than the specific series, at least in my opinion. I guess you just gotta look at that question the same way you look at various video game series. Wonchop (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is already three anime series and several manga adaptions. I don't think the addition of one more anime series is going to change which article users searching the terms "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha" are expecting to find. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, either way, it's still more likely to be the franchise than the specific series. Wonchop (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

How are you so sure? What evidence do you have to support this? —Farix (t | c) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the use of 'in my opinion'. It's not like there's a poll I can look up that specifically caters to this particular dilemma. It's just the general feeling that Nanoha is used to refer more to the franchise, with people being more specific if referring to the series itself. Again, there's a tonne of series that use the mindset. Wonchop (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That other series uses a franchise article as the main topic isn't a good enough reason for this particular case. If I search for "Ghostbusters", am I expecting to find the article on the original film or on the entire franchise? More than likely, I'm looking for the original film. Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha seems to fall into the same category. —Farix (t | c) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's cos it's freaking Ghostbusters, which is far more notable than any other part of its franchise, so it's not really fair to compare it in that manner. Nanoha is more akin to, say, someone looking up Call of Duty. People tend to use the term to refer to either the franchise or the current iteration as opposed to the original 2003 game. Like everything else, it's a case-by-case thing, and in this case, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha feels more like a franchise name than a season 1 name. Wonchop (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Then this goes back to how you are sure that when someone searches for "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha" that they are looking for the franchise article instead of the article on the original series. You have yet to support your claim that they are looking for the franchise article over the original series. —Farix (t | c) 14:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've only got my opinions to go on, but don't forget that you're in the same boat too, so it's probably better we wait for other people to weigh in rather than go in circles. Maybe just wait and see how that RfC whatchamacallit mentioned above pans out. Wonchop (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not in the same boat because I'm not the one calling for a change in which one is the main article. —Farix (t | c) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but you had to step onto the boat to argue against it. Anyway, let's just wait it out for now. Wonchop (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Nanoha is more akin to, say, someone looking up Call of Duty."

{{citationneeded}} --erachima talk 16:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if it helps any, looking up "Nanoha" (not the full title) currently redirects to the franchise. -AngusWOOF (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's useful to know. Since both Nanoha and to an extent Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha can refer to either the franchise, the first series anime, or the character Nanoha Takamachi, the franchise should ideally be the default in this case. Wonchop (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

PreCure or Precure?

Regarding the Pretty Cure franchise, most of the articles that use the shorthand form "Precure" (eg. everything following HeartCatch) stylize it as "PreCure" (with a capital C) based on its portmanteau origins. However, most of the actual Japanese media, namely the ending sequences for Dokidoki! PreCure, HappinessCharge PreCure! and the New Stage movies, write it as "Precure" without the capitalized C. Would it be better to use that for the universal spelling of Precure as opposed to PreCure? I brought it up on the talk page but it seems to have gone ignored. On a related note, should Yes! PreCure 5 be titled Yes! Pretty Cure 5, since it comes before Toei started using the shorthand name for its series? The only notable argument I've seen against it is that, unlike the other series, the logos for Yes! and GoGo! don't feature an English spelling of プリキュア (which is "Pretty Cure" for Futari wa, Splash Star, and Fresh, and "Precure" for Heartcatch onwards). Wonchop (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It is as far as I know impossible to make Google check for CamelCase variance for the sake of determining what the more common usage is. The only official English version expanded it out to "Pretty Cure" which is also unhelpful. So, in short, no clue. --erachima talk 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey what coverage there is on ANN, Mania, and other know English-language reliable sources and see how they spell it. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well here's some examples of ending sequences that use the "Precure" spelling at least: DokiDoki ED1 DokiDoki ED2 (note how these also say "DokiDoki!" as opposed to the currently used "Dokidoki!") New Stage 2 ED. It is admittedly hard to find official sources since only the first series has had any official English release. Wonchop (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But what really matters in naming is how English-language source refer to it and whether English-language sources use camelcase or not. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on Futari wa's entry on ANN is concerned, ANN are using "Precure" for pretty much all the series, with the odd exception of HappinessCharge being spelt with "PreCure". Wonchop (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The encyclopedia entries are irrelevant. What is relevant is how the series is referred to in the news coverage. Also, what about other sources? What name do they use? —Farix (t | c) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're probably overestimating how many reliable English news sites are willing to report on a Japanese anime for little girls. Siliconera's reports on the games vary in spelling too, using "Precure" for some and "PreCure" for others (one article seems to use both), so like ANN, that seems to be more down to what the editor chooses to put down. Wonchop (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, most English sources seem to spell it either way, since the names are generally presented in either katakana or all caps, but the anime ending sequences do show us how Toei intends for it to be spelled in normal text. Wonchop (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it changes per series. Sometimes it's "PreCure" and sometimes it's "Pretty Cure". What we know is that the "Futari wa..." line were all "Pretty Cure" as was Fresh, and everything that follows "Fresh" is "PreCure", while "Yes...5" is ambiguous because there's no English in its logostyle (other than "Yes").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The issue concerning Yes is if it should be Pretty Cure to match with all other pre-HeartCatch series using that format, or just Precure since there's nothing else to go on (not neccessarily counting the English logo Toei made for pitching purposes, since they also did a Pretty Cure one for HeartCatch.) Any thoughts on the "C" vs "c" debate? Wonchop (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you can use whatever phrase best goes with the individual series like HappinessCharge PreCure!. When mentioning the franchise, group or characters use Pretty Cure. When referring to that specific series as an abbreviation you can use the spelling best associated with that season, or ignore it by using the HappinessCharge part of the short title. If cornered to make a choice, add "sometimes stylized as HappinessCharge Precure!" in the lead so you have both cases covered. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to make reforms (MOSAM fix proposal 2.0)

In this Wikiproject, we organize information regarding media differently. We have a universal "Media" section unlike most articles that end up having a focus on one media while the others don't. The question is why do we organize Anime/manga articles differently from other media articles? From what i analyzed on my own, I had found a few reasons.

• The first is that the there is anime/manga relationship coexist together differently from other media such as any TV series, or any Graphic Novel. Most of the time, there's going to be an adaptation that follows too close to the original that most of the reception isn't independent from the original. The relationship between anime and manga adaptations are so close together at times that it becomes natural that some articles cover both medias extensively despite one of them being the original media. One of the biggest examples of this is School Rumble where it covers both anime and manga aspects in both Development and Reception. This is also common when there's an anime adaptation involved, usually the fastest to get localized to English language speaking countries which means more coverage.

• The other reason is the more unfortunate one. The original media isn't always notable on its own or to be the main focus of the article. An example of this is Blue Submarine No. 6, this is usually due to possibly the manga never having an English release or not having enough coverage such as "Development" and "Reception".

However, there is one situation that doesn't always apply to why we have this setup and that is when the original media is the not only notable, but the adaptations/spin-offs/complimentary media has only a brief amount of information (usually just release) or they have their own article. In this situation, i believe we don't need a universal "Media" section because now the adaptations don't rival the original media, and the original media stands as a notable topic. So what do we do with this? Lucia Black (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Benefits of existing system

As I am, apparently, the "opposing view" in this argument and heavily disagree with the above characterization of the background behind this issue, I'll make a statement.

The MoS is not in any sense holy writ. It is advice reflecting what we've discovered generally works, compiled essentially so that even articles like this will at least have the basic structural skeleton in them rather than being pure unorganized plot summary. If you have a better organizational scheme for the content we currently suggest arranging under "Media", I in no way begrudge you presenting it.

Lucia is, however, quite mistaken when she claims that the Media organization in some sense derives from notability concerns or language barriers in sourcing related to anime and manga. The reason we advise the form we do instead comes from the serial nature of the media: where articles on books can often lay out the relevant publication information in their lead paragraph and not bring it up in the article body at all, articles on manga commonly need to list numerous individual publication dates, magazine serialization details, licensing information, and so forth. This means that, for all but the least complicated titles, a section of the page devoted to pure publication data is warranted. When adaptations from a serial format to some other format exist (whether anime->manga, manga->anime, anime->video game...) it is likewise necessary to give the same data, often at similar length.

This creates an organizational concern, which breaks down into two cases.

The short series.

In the case of the short series, you have an article with minimal spin-outs. This means you have an included list of manga volumes, as well perhaps as the episode list for a short OVA adaptation, in the article itself. This means that your Publication/Adaptation format looks more or less like this:

1. Publication
   1. Volume list
2. Adaptations
   1. Video game
   2. Drama CDs

Needless to say, this looks awful. The Media header resolves the issue by grouping all the "like" content (publication data) together into one section.

1. Media
   1. Volume list
   2. Video game
   3. Drama CDs

The long series

In the case of long series, you have an article with a spun-out volume list, probably a spun-out episode list, possibly additional related pages on things like live-action films and OST discographies and independently notable games and so on. This means the Publication/Adaptation format resembles this (which if you can't tell I modified from Bleach (manga)).

1. Publication
2. Adaptations
   1. Anime
   2. Films
   3. Musicals
   4. Trading card games
   5. Video games
   6. Light novels
   7. Other
3. Discography

Now, what's the issue here? Well, you have tiny orphaned sections for the things that aren't adaptations, not to mention you had to shunt the discography off to its own section since it's not an "adaptation." The Media arrangement again offers a better alternative by grouping all the "like" information together into a series of similarly-lengthed subsections with {{main}} links and basic publication info:

1. Media
   1. Manga
   2. Anime
   3. Films
   4. Audio
   5. Musicals
   6. Trading card games
   7. Video games
   8. Light novels
   9. Other

The fact that the current recommendations work well across a variety of articles is a particularly compelling reason not to change it without a better alternative, as it fits well with the project's desire to avoid process creep. There will of course be occasional exceptions, but these two cases are indicative of the majority of content we cover and I am aware of no alternate organization which improves either case as a general rule, much less both. (If you want an example of an exception where I would argue a division such as that supported by User:TheFarix might be better, see Hellsing, which since it has three differently-titled manga and two animated adaptations, is an abysmal mess of nested subheaders under "Media" but would naturally split into healthy sections dealing with the different manga and the different anime.) --erachima talk 21:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

We Modify our MOS to allow some variation. When an article that falls in our scope is heavily focused on the Original media (Reception and Development consists of only the original media), we organize the article into "Development" (Production if its an anime), "Release" and "Related media". What this allows is expresses the "related media" as another aspect of the main topic (original media) in similar way of the other sections, but the other way shows that a universal "Media" is an aspect of the main topic itself belongs to and if the original media is included, it will suggest that the original media isn't .

If there's significant development and release information but the sections are too small individually, then they can be merged to "Development and release". For TV series, a "Broadcast and release" section might suffice. As you see, these changes move closer and closer to other wikiproject's style of organizing. Which might be a good thing.

If you're worried about making big changes to most of our articles, don't worry. Their not many cases in which it does. But there are a significant number. Even then, its a small organization issue. Keep in mind, this wikiproject has already welcomed this type of organization before. It just so happens that its more welcomed in anime-focused articles. i found the reason for that to be because in most cases, we find situations where its the original manga that doesn't have enough information.

This doesn't mean that the old way is gone either. We will still keep the universal "Media" organization that we have been doing as there are valid reasons to use it (as i mentioned above). Lucia Black (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I am all of greater flexibility as far as article organization and structure goes. The MOS is suppose to be descriptive of the excepted normals on Wikipedia, however, it should not be interpreted as excluding any other alternative article organization and structure. Unfortunately, the latter is exactly how some have been approaching it. The problem lies in that the MOS, as is, is largely based on our more recent Featured Article and Good Article nominations. Trying to promote an article with an alternative organization and structure than the one described by the MOS makes a successful FA or GA nomination more difficult. On the other hand, you can't really justify a major overall of the MOS regarding organization and structure without first getting a few successful FA or GA nomination using an alternative. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

Oddly enough, the MOS does state that the organization and structure is a recommendation and that organization and structure should "be flexible and responsive to unique or exceptional aspects of individual subjects". Perhaps the solution should be reword this clause to give it more emphases. We may even need to reformat the entire section by removing the sub-headings, to give this clause a higher profile because it is clearly being overlooked. This should help reviewers to accept alternative organization and structure, which can then be used as the bases for a more extensive rewrite of that section.

If there is one change I would make to the wording of the MOS is that it recommends that media lists, either episode, volumes, and etc., be moved to a stand-alone list article. While these lists help "fill out" the article during its early development, they are almost always split off at some point before a FA or GA nomination. The bonus is that it would also be describing current practice instead of proscribing it. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well my proposal was to help understand why we use these type of sections and why alternatives can be used. So even when we offer flexibility, the decision to use alternative would be to make sense. For example: at the moment, Rozen Maiden is designed with the primary focus of the manga. But the article's content is more focused as a multi-media series. This is where explaining would help more. Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the layout for Rozen Maiden as the article talks about a multi-media series and does not focus on the manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since I heavily dispute the premise of this discussion, I've inserted a section explaining the reasons for the status quo. --erachima talk 21:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep status quo I really like the way our layout is, unless the article is to be split up into separate articles for anime vs manga then they should have the media section per School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew's FA status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• What didn't work was having all the individual subsections under Media for Anime, Manga, Drama CD, Musical, Video game, Playing card game, Anime movie, as each section would only have one or two lines to discuss it, and were related to the primary media anyway. A character song supports the anime adaptation. The radio show is used to promote the anime. The feature film is done by the same studio as the anime. Example: Nisekoi -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC), updated 22:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to which media deserve a subheading and which are best shunted to "Other", that is a matter of editorial judgment which will depend entirely on what there is to say on the specific topic, and well out of the scope of this discussion. Though I'll note that in the Bleach example, everything that has its own subheading also has a corresponding {{main}} article. --erachima talk 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erachima: Your arguments are based off things i believe you misunderstood. for example: I never proposed an "Adaptation" section. just a "Related media" section. Not all media are adaptations. sometimes they are complimentary media such as artbooks, guidebooks or other merchandise. What my proposal does is give proper "weight" to certain things, if an article is structurally focused on a single media, then the format we use should reflect that. With that said, Your example forces a Release/Publication list under it, but that will only happen at certain times. specifically if there isn't enough to warrant a list, then it can be kept int he main article. Another issue, is that not all "Publication media" is "equal". Certain ones are closer to the main topic of the article. and thats what you don't understand.

Furthermore, "longer" series example of Bleach that you're quoting from, has an inconsistent grouping aswell. As AngusWOOF stated some media is more related to other media.

@Knowledgekid87: did you read the full proposal? its very important to understand what the change is even about. The proposal will not affect Tokyo Mew Mew nor School Rumble. Both those articles cover other media extensively. For example: Tokyo Mew Mew has reception coverage of both anime and manga. School Rumble also has reception on both manga and anime, but not only that, it has development from bother media as well. Its important to know that not all articles have as much coverage of their own respected media. The proposal only affects However it will affect one feature article and that is Madlax which only consists of a TV series and a light novel (apparently, don't find any coverage on that, it will have to be added in quickly). So that particular article can be a simple re-organized to a "Broadcast and Release" + "Related media". Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: Yes I read it, my question would be where do you propose the information go then? If the information is not notable then it can always be combined and renamed under one sub-section. When you say "However, there is one situation that doesn't always apply to why we have this setup and that is when the original media is the not only notable, but the adaptations/spin-offs/complimentary media has only a brief amount of information (usually just release) or they have their own article." what and how many articles do you refer to? Sounds like a cleanup job more than a need for a MOS change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note but why would you want to re-organize Madlax? The article looks fine to me as a FA article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucia's stance is, as best I can tell, based on an unprecedented reading of WP:UNDUE as it applies to subheading structure. She thus thinks Madlax is unacceptably organized because a particularly imbecilic reader might confuse the organization of publication info about the DVDs, Soundtracks, and Artbooks as aspects of a single topic ("Things that were made") as implying that they were somehow equal, rather than merely different, aspects of the topic. --erachima talk 23:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would rather hear Lucia's response but if that is the case then all the reader needs to do is read the article, being a FA article for 7 years does say something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• The distinction between "Related media" and "Adaptations" is far too hair-splitting to be salient. The precise phrasing of section headers will always vary between articles, but as a matter of organizational structure they are equivalent proposals. In essence, "Related media" incorporates soundtracks more easily, "Adaptations" is more informative, but neither addresses the organizational problems that "Media" solves. --erachima talk 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I gave my reply in Knowledgekid's talkpage because its all repetitious. Overall, my proposal is an "addition". the problem is current MOS is too absolute. And we have this MOS for a reason, but we have to analyze it further. And what i found shows that there is a reason to keep the universal media section, but there are reasons to not use it. And again, this only helps move closer to other wikiproject manual of style, and thats a good thing. Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actor vs. Voice actor vs. Voice actor, actor in infobox occupation

In going through the VA pages, I've noticed some of the articles have prioritized the voice actor's non-anime careers, putting stuff like their live-action television and movie roles up front. I know the VAs want to be known for more than just the voice acting, but when most of their notable work is voice acting, it's hard to list something else as a primary occupation. While listing "Actor" works for those who started in live-action like Johnny Yong Bosch or have become much more notable in live-action like Leigh-Allyn Baker, it doesn't quite work for Jessica Boone whose theatre experience, while nice to know she's worked in lots of productions and organizations, yet are not Wikipedia-level notable. Tara Platt's page prioritizes her live-action roles, calling her an actress, but most of those roles are minor/guest characters, none of which show in the lead paragraph. Kari Wahlgren has one starring movie and two appearances in a TV series, so now she's a full on actress amidst hundreds of VA roles?

So what should the occupation be?

• Voice actress, actress
• Actress
• Voice actress
• Actress, voice artist (as with Nancy Cartwright's page)

And on the Japanese side, a lot of seiyuu have a "singer" designation, although they don't show any albums or hit singles. Perhaps their character album makes it onto Oricon? Also if they are on a radio drama CD, are they a "radio personality"? -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement about what's their job and what's resume padding, describe them as reliable secondary sources do. --erachima talk 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is an issue between Ryulong and me (again...) in Talk:List of Persona 4: The Golden Animation episodes#Cover about what image should be used. The key visual or the DVD cover. I decided to use the DVD cover because that's actually discussed in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't forum shop. Tintor2 made a bold edit, was reverted, and instead of bringing it to the talk page like he should have he edit warred.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The revert pretty much had no reason. Also, you brought it to a wrong a talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping doesn't really apply here as this is a project matter and I think Tintor was looking for more of an input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Project notifications should still be neutrally presented. It could have been "there is a discussion on the image to use for List of Persona 4: The Golden Animation episodes" without mentioning which side he was on here necessarily.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We need another FA article

Think we can do it? I think it is about time we made one of our GAs a FA to not only boost morale here at the project but to also give Wikipedia another really great article. Which article though would be close enough? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe so too, but i don't want structure to be the main issue. most of our articles have one fatal flaw and that is high quality sources. some of the more media tends to be found only through retail sites. Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard answer there is to take the lazy route and write FAs on series nobody ever really cared about. Something like Baoh that's by a super-famous author and therefore drew sources but was itself thoroughly unpopular and therefore drew extremely few sources can be brought up to a "finished" state very easily. That's why most of Wikipedia's Featured Articles are on short and specialized subjects. --erachima talk 03:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was improving Uzumaki with FA in mind, but what i believe is stopping it is not enough high quality sources. Lucia Black (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sonic X is on its second PR right now (props to Lucia for filling out the first). I plan to put it up at FAC not long after my current one is done, which should be very soon. (I do have to finish rewriting the Plot section and copyedit a bit, but that's about all, besides whatever anyone brings up at the PR.) I will say that I agree with erachima about that being an easier route; this show was from a major studio and based on a major license yet got very little coverage; I had to dig for hours and hours just to find bits of reception and development. Ideal subjects for FAs are the opposite. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

...Actually, if we're okay with a more high-demand subject about which more has presumably been written, what about Astro Boy? (Failing that, another, lesser-known one of Tezuka's creations.) Tezero (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternately Pluto (manga), if you want something that involves less reading of Japanese-language literature journals. --erachima talk 05:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We can look at other GAs too. Lucia Black (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Benefit of starting with a non-GA is that if it doesn't play out we still have a new GA. --erachima talk 08:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)