Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Collaboration of the Week/Archive 2

anon votes counted?

I can't find a rule about anon users. Can they vote or not? Its better to explain this in Voting. Currently there are two anon votes for Naruto.--Ugur Basak 21:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a collaboration, every user on wikipedia is able to help edit the successful articles, so why shouldn't nominating and voting for articles be allowed for every user? This is a project to improve articles, we should assume good faith, it's hard to cheat with approval voting anyway. Even if there were a lot of anon votes for one article, most wikipedia users can sniff out a sockpuppet pretty easily. If you believe that there is a reason to add a rule not permitting anonymous users, then what about users that are registered and have no contributions? What about the users with less than 25 contributions? Where do you draw the line? - Squilibob 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I ask it because in Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive there is a rule about it (To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user). By the way i don't say "anons must not vote" or else. Thanks for your answer--Ugur Basak 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the talk page for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive and they are debating whether that rule should be removed. It was mentioned that they had problems with sockpuppets in the past as well. If this collaboration ever encounters the same sort of problem, it will help to look at how they handled their problem. - Squilibob 06:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. As i want to ask in above Its better to explain this in Voting', its better to write in voting anon users can vote. So nobody will be confused. I see Anime collaboration's link from Article Improvement Drive's page. Anyway, it will be better to explain they can vote.--Ugur Basak 11:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So something like Anyone may nominate or vote I guess. - Squilibob 09:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is better Squilibob, it clarifies everthing about nominating and voting.--Ugur Basak 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You have raised a valid point about sockpuppets. It may be a good idea to have an appeal system for nominations that attract a lot of anonymous and new user votes. An appeal system would not harm anons and new users from nominating and voting but would also safeguard against sockpuppets. Any ideas anyone? - Squilibob 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Squilibob, this collaboration votings are really difficult. There is a rule on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. May be, we can set a rule like Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. can be uncounted. But we must be careful about, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If we use the rule above, the problem will be this "who will say these rules must not be counted". We must not harm the attraction of new users to this project. What is your opinion about these? May be we must wait for a few weeks, what is going on. And analyze votes, what percent of them (wpot) are fron anon users, wpot are from users that only contribute on voting etc. --Ugur Basak 11:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You've made three excellent references here and I agree with you. Watching for a few weeks and seeing the percentage of anonymous voting and those that only contribute on voting etc. is a good idea. I think some of what you wrote, especially the links you just gave can be included on the project page to prevent sockpuppets if needed because of bad faith. For us to be talking about prevention before anything has happened means that we are prepared if we do encounter such bad faith. So while we continue to assume good faith we can also make a defensive design just in case. Thanks for your opinion on the matter so far, btw. - Squilibob 13:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Its better to discuss what can be done. If other users working on this project join this discussion, it would be better to take decisions--Ugur Basak 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

a rough analysis, for past winner Naruto. 15 votes (16th vote added after it won)

3 active %20

6 semi-active %40 (those new or old users who don't have much edits)

5 new-user or (just edit for nomination) %33 (new users or just edited a few)

1 anon %0.06

As seen above, for Naruto only 3 votes are from active users. The worrying part is %33 of votes are from new users. Lets wait next winner.--Ugur Basak 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the people like me. I'm editing it actively and I didn't even put in a vote for it. ;) - Phorque 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, after giving anonymous voting a chance, which was the right thing to do IMO, I agree with you all that anonymous voting should no longer be allowed. I feel that we should vote to decide this however. I think a week is long enough to decide on this, since it's a weekly collaboration - Squilibob 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to put my two cents in. Although I agree that anonymous voting should not be allowed, there is a question of how new users can help to contribute. I actually created a Wikipedia account with the primary purpose of contributing to the Anime components of wikipedia, but being new to both anime and wikipedia, I wasn't certain how to contribute. I've only voted once, for the List of English Dubbed Anime and did not contribute because I wasn't sure what was going on. I'm still not certain some of the times what is going on, but would like to contribute somehow. It's only recently that I've found time to learn a little more wiki, so am a little more confident in this realm. As such, I don't believe you should exclude new users (like myself). Just wanted to voice my thoughts, thanks. --Miss Ethereal 15:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the following vote is drawing the line at Anonymous voting. If you have made an account then we won't BITE you. All users are created equal, edit counts do not matter as long as you contribute. - Squilibob 02:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote: should anonymous voting be allowed

As per last section, please active users vote on whether anonymous voting should be allowed. Also give us your opinion on how this rule should be worded on the article's project page. This vote will run until next Wednesday 15 March 2006.

Support

Oppose

1. Squilibob 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - My reason is we've given anonymous voting a chance and we have not had sufficient contributions to the nominated pages from the anonymous voters. That is, anonymous users are voting and then not contributing, they're inactive collaborators.
2. TcDohl 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Same reason as above. What we do need is more people that are willing to put in the work for the things they vote for, not just votes for the sake of "not letting the other guy win" or voting for the sake of voting.
3. I don't think it's important that a person who votes also contribute to the article; i.e. I think it's OK if people vote simply if they think a certain article deserves more attention (but can't actually contribute to it themselves). However, I still oppose because anonymous users are generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and don't read FAQs, including the details of this project, which means they will likely choose inappropriate articles to vote for. In addition, it is standard throughout Wikipedia that anon users can't vote. Registering isn't that hard, anyway. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Phorque 05:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - My reason is that anons probably vote because they'd like to see the article improved, not because they'd improve it themselves which is what a vote should really mean (for anyone that voices support).

anonymous voting be allowed was defeated. Anonymous nominations and voting will no longer be permitted.

Shortcut

The shortcut, WP:ACOTW is currently not redirecting to this project. Fix or Remove? - Squilibob 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would add a disamb link at the top of Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight since it's likely people would be confused. --nihon 08:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done that now. I also set up a new shortcut, WP:AnCOTW, since WP:ACOTW links to the Australian COTW. --nihon 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight be under other one "ACOTF" anyway? Shiroi Hane 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They used to be listed under Australian Collaboration of the Week, and set up a shortcut at that time using WP:ACOTW. So, rather than try to wrangle with them over it (since more pages use ACOTW to point to their page), I set up AnCOTW. (^_^) --nihon 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it have been too cheeky to set up ACotW? :P Shiroi Hane 19:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We could still do that. They have two shortcuts, so why not us? (^_^) --nihon 20:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you guys link to this project, but when I'm not home and this isn't bookmarked, but I want to see what's going on, I type into the wikipedia search box AnCOTW and every variation that I can come up with. Usually I just end up being frustrated and just go the Australian Collaboration via acotw and then come here. Is there a better way or can this be fixed? Thanks.--Miss Ethereal 15:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the point of the shortcut. In any wikipedia search box type WP:AnCOTW and you'll come to this project. - Squilibob 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to left IMO, we should rename the project to Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week and then use AMCOTW. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 15:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a lot more appropriate. I second this! --Miss Ethereal 15:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to vote again aren't we T_T - Squilibob 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Manga is the newly selected comics collaboration of the month

Please join in! ike9898 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

I haven't noticed this project since it seems to have been formed when I was away. I apologize for not reading the project page or the talk page, but I have a limited timeframe at the momemt. If some of my suggestions are already in place, please excuse, otherwise please explain why you think the suggestion would not be a good idea. They are as follows:

• Anon votes should definitely not count.
• Only one article should be nominated at a time, not all articles related to an anime/manga series. For example, in the Bleach nomination someone said that the zanpakutō section needed cleanup, obviously they were referring to the zanpakutō article. This means the nomination apparently applies to all 60 or so Bleach-related articles. Who will have time to even read them all, let alone edit? And don't forget that other than grammar errors, only people who know about Bleach can actually verify the minor details.
• In addition to the above, only articles that need help need to be nominated. They should be either stubs, not exist at all, or be completely poorly written. The articles on Naruto, Bleach, FMA, etc. fit none of these categories and it's a shame to have manpower wasted on articles which are already decent rather than create new important articles, such as the History of manga (which should be the obvious COTW without even voting). This isn't just my suggestion though, it's a guideline for both the regular WP:COTW and the Article Improvement Drive. Nominating articles which are good doesn't help. In fact, since Bleach (manga) was nominated, the article actually became somewhat worse IMO.

Other than that, I support the project and think it could pick up, since tons of anime and manga fans frequent Wikipedia.

-- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 18:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

About your first point, We'll vote on this in the above subsection about Anon voting.

Your second point: "Only one article should be nominated at a time, not all articles related to an anime/manga series" Add this rule to the page? I can't see why not

Lastly, we've given the project some time with broad guidelines until now. We've adopted a wait and see approach. Now we see what has happened in the past, there is a pattern emerging that nominated articles that don't need that much attention aren't really improving. Therefore we can now set stricter guidelines. Remember it is a collaboration, we can look at what other collaboration have done for inspiration. Like the Anonymous users voting issue we can set a proposal for changes and then vote on whether it should be implemented. The problem is, and I've said this in the past, where do you draw the line? We have to decide this for voting and nominations. How do we word it on the project page and how do we dispute nominations that do not qualify?

By the way History of manga can't be ACOTW because... it hasn't been nominated! - Squilibob 03:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, as I was going to nominate History of manga a minute ago, I noticed that the project said anime only. Is that final? Because anime only doesn't seem like a broad enough scope to me. Why not include manga as well? -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 05:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also another comment: I think articles which have a ton of sub-articles (e.g. Bleach (manga)) should not be nominated by default. The reason is that they can not achieve featured article standard - featured articles must have all the information on a topic AFAIK. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I just selected a few random articles from Wikipedia:Featured articles and none of them had any sub-articles. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so perhaps we should manage an anime article peer review so that we can improve good articles to featured articles. We should have a list of articles we consider close to feature (ie. peer review candidates) and maybe a list of some articles to demonstrate what a good anime article looks like. - Phorque 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. How would you go about starting and maintaining it? Just another Wikiproject page? - Squilibob 03:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Gaming Collaboration of the Week has a similar structure, but their peer review section died a long time ago from inactivity. - Phorque 13:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but IMO we must first assess the manpower available and then think what projects we can and cannot start. Because, even though the project anime and manga now has a ton more participants than a few months ago, I doubt many of them are more than symbolic participants. And many, such as myself, are also knowledgeable in just a few anime/manga series, basically the popular ones. Considering History of manga was a 'todo' for months and still hasn't been written, I'd say it's a problem to start a bunch of other projects. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true. I think with the few of us dedicately working on the anime collabs, we should focus for now on standardizing pages and expanding stubs and the rules of the ACOTW should reflect this. - Phorque 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This collaboration should only allow anime stubs to be nominated

Phorque 13:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - Past collaborations on larger articles have made little difference. Expanding stubs will be much more productive. Maybe in the future when the project is bigger we will run a separate Peer Review section.

I don't understand completely. The current guideline is Please only nominate Anime articles which need serious work, such as stubs or articles that do not exist. So are you saying that a non-existant article should first be created and made into a stub before nomination? That's fine IMO. Also would apply to articles that need serious work, as they should also be stubs anyway. Correct me if that's not what you imply as including in only allow anime stubs. Or do you just mean large more complete articles should not be allowed? --Squilibob 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I re-read the updated rules and it does actually reflect what I was suggesting now. I think I will boldy try to improve the clarity of the "Considerations" section. - Phorque 08:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's one of many things that need to be emphasised now, I've moved reinstating to its own section too since it has become a significant point recently. - Squilibob 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc in art#Comic books and anime

I hope this is relevant enough to your topic: our list includes manga and anime references to Joan of Arc. For future indexing we'd like to include more information, such as year of release and studio. Please drop by and add or improve our entries. Regards, Durova 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Reinstating

I have been monitoring the page and found that, if a nominee has 6 votes, it is already reinstated until it's eight vote stage. Now, until the two weeks are up, it is NOT reinstated. Just trying to get my message across. Katanin 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever since the collaboration started it has worked this way. For what reason do you want to change it? The rule states clearly For every two votes that a nomination attracts, the period will be extended by another two weeks. So by saying until the two weeks are up, it is NOT reinstated does that mean you want this rule changed? Any rule changes should be proposed and voted upon. - Squilibob 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that means that I want the rule changed. An article is reinstated every two weeks since it's nomination. If an article recieved... let's say 16 votes in two weeks (even though it's somewhat unlikely, it's still probable), will it be reinstated eight times and then have it's voting period extended for a few months (as that's approximately the amount of time 16 votes will give a nominee)?

And so, I officially propose the rule change until the two weeks are up, a nominee is NOT reinstated.

Katanin 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Rule change until the two weeks are up, a nominee is NOT reinstated

Support

1. Ok I support, if only because it will make keeping track of the dates easier. Although I do hope this won't make people "hold back" on voting to keep a nomination alive. - Squilibob 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
2. It makes keeping track of the dates way easier. I also support this for the reasons I stated above. Katanin 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, the previous explanation made it sound like a nomination could stay for months with this proposal, but Squilibob explained it more clearly and I support, it's a logical new rule. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, if I understand the proposal correctly, this could keep a struggling nomination alive for months. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 08:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand the concept of the rule. The rule won't change how long a nomination is active; Just that it could only be reinstated when the two weeks are up and not before. Katanin 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Which means that, even if the nomination gets enough votes on the first day, it would have to wait 2 weeks to be reinstated, and then 2 more weeks before it can be taken off. This means that every nomination that passes the initial vote quota will remain for at least 4 weeks, isn't that right? -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's what's happening anyways! Let's say that a nominee, on it's first day, get's 2 votes. It's voting period is extended for two weeks from the day it was nominated, not from the day it received the votes. Katanin 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The way it currently stands is that when a nomination gets 2 votes it gets extended two weeks from the nomination date immediately setting a new deadline for two more votes to again extend this deadline. If a nomination gets a lot of votes in the first two weeks its deadline gets extended for many weeks. The way this vote will affect this is that if a nomination gets many votes in the first two weeks then it only gets extended another two weeks regardless of whether it got 2 votes or 200 votes. The current rule keeps a struggling nomination alive for months which is the issue, this new rule would stop that from happening. There is a disadvantage in that if a nomination gets a lot of votes in one fortnight and then less than two the next fortnight, it will be removed. That's what we're voting on. - Squilibob 00:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote passed. Reinstating will now be done on a fortnightly basis instead of reinstating once a nomination received additional votes.

Closed to featured status

The considerations for nomination section in the project page says:
If you believe that the article is close to featured status but would fail a peer review then this is also grounds for nomination.
I have a serious problem with this. It means that good articles will be nominated just to 'improve' them to featured article status, but they will neither improve nor benefit in any way (I think this was proven in Bleach (manga)). An article close to featured does not need a COTW, it needs one user who have good knowledge of both the article's subject and featured article requirements, and has time to improve the article by him/herself. I think we should take down that sentence. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Considerations for nominations section no longer allows such articles as per Ynhockey's proposal. Now three of the four current candidates are not what I would call stubs. So we have to decide on what constitutes an article that needs serious attention and collaboration. The three nominations in question are Eikoku Koi Monogatari Emma, Zatch Bell and Elfen Lied. Should these nominations be removed as per the current rules? --Squilibob 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zatch Bell and Elfen Lied should definitely be removed. The other one, probably. I think we should also add a heading such as ===What should not be nominated=== to the project page, explaining that articles with a large amount of content which are well-written don't belong. We can give Elfen Lied as an example even. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, in place of Considerations for nominations section or to be added to it? --Squilibob 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the rules

Due to the recent discussions and votes going on, I'd like to go ahead and change the rules to that of which we have decided upon. The votes will continue so that others may have their say and if anyone objects to the pages then the page can easily be reverted. - Squilibob 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Could I further suggest that we feature this somewhere to suggest somewhere to put articles that aren't candidates for the COTW but need attention nonetheless (eg. articles that aren't stubs) - Phorque 05:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah good idea, added it to Considerations - Squilibob 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Cycling to the next AMCOTW

To change the collaboration notice link you only had to edit Template:AMCOTW article but to change the image you had to edit the actual collaboration notice template. You now may instead add a different image to the page Template:AMCOTW article/image. That should make things easier since this will be changed on a weekly basis. --Squilibob 05:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Elfen Lied

In light of our new policy on only nominating stub-like articles or articles in serious need of attention, I am removing my nomination of Elfen Lied. It has been on the list for a long time and has actually improved a lot since then. I'll put Elfen Lied on the to-do list. Hope nobody minds terribly. If you really want it to get better come along and edit it with me! =)

Phorque 09:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a so-so idea to remove it. It still needs manga information and I think you would need help with that. - GatoGirl 12345

Order of candidates

Should the candidates be listed in the order they were nominated or in the order their reinstatement time limit expires? --TheFarix (Talk) 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It was listed in the order they were nominated, but time limit seems fine to me. What do other people think? --Squilibob 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think that keeping them in the order they were nominated would be easier --TheFarix (Talk) 21:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anime to Anime and Manga

I've briefly proposed this before, but it didn't seem to gain much attention so I'm making a new talk section. Basically, I think this project should include manga and be renamed to Wikipedia:Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week (AMCOTW). Here are the reasons:

• The project that runs this COTW deals with anime and manga, not only anime
• The scope of anime only is very small and therefore manpower is even more limited - and we really don't have much manpower
• Not a great reason, but the abbreviation AMCOTW is easier to guess and remember than AnCOTW

I won't be able to reply for at least the next two days, sorry for that, but please vote or post suggestions and hopefully we'll reach a consensus by the end of the week. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Phorque 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - I say this because the project is still small and many articles encapsulate manga anyway. I wouldn't be willing to split my interests between two collaborations (or be willing to maintain two for that matter). I think most of our articles are primarily because of manga anyway... animes are usually only an adaptation afterall.
3. TcDohl 05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Katanin ^(talk) 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
5. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Squilibob - Why not have two collaborations, one each for anime and manga? They are two entirely different forms of media, print and animated. Pages that have enough information on both anime and manga of the same topic won't be stubs and can't be nominated anyway. I suggest trialling a separate Collaboration and if either one does not gain enough support to continue running, then merge anime and manga into one collaboration. --Squilibob 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

   I think maintaining two collaborations creates a serious manpower problem. We barely have enough people to run the current one. What are your thoughts on this? -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

   Like I said, if either does not have enough support then simply merge them together. --Squilibob 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Miss Ethereal 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) - For Squilibob's reason. If this is merged, as it probably will be, then the name and abbreviation for the collaboration should be changed to reflect this.
3. Per Squilibob's comments. --日本穣 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Changing to support

Vote passed. Collaboration will be changed to AMCOTW with the inclusion of Manga related articles. --Squilibob 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous nominations or votes

This is just a reminder that AnCOTW will not accepted nominations or votes from unregistered users. That includes users of pseudo-accounts that do not actually exist. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I was really ticked off at first but could you place a considerations for nominations for people that do not have an account? Or just a section on this discussion page? Because Prince of Tennis really needs it. -GatoGirl 12345

Why does it tick you off? We've already discussed why anonymous votes aren't a good thing. Besides, it won't kill people to just register. Prince of Tennis is as worthy as the votes relfect anyway. That's how the voting system works I believe. - Phorque 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should coniderations be made when people can freely and easily register an account? --TheFarix (Talk) 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you're so keen on a Prince of Tennis collab, why don't you nominate it, GatoGirl? -Phorque 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

She did, however, she doesn't use a registered account. --TheFarix (Talk) 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was ticked off at first because I thought the nomination was really good and it took a while to make. It ain't anonymous but on the other hand, I never really liked signing up no matter what the cause. And signing up just for this and nothing else? I'll pass at this point. I'll just help that article myself. I just nominated because I think you need more than just a few people for the article. -- GatoGirl 12345 8:17 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories vs. Lists

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga.

Legend of Galactic Heroes nomination

Once again, we have a massive article nominated for COTW that doesn't fit the criteria we recently stated. This looks like a cleanup job more than anything else.

We're only going to work on non-existent or stub-like articles. If nobody has a good objection or justification for it being there, I'm going to move it to the to-do list, same as I did for Elfen Lied. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 09:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The absolute length of an article shouldn't be the only criteria that an article can be nominated for, but content (or lack thereof) should also be considered. LoGH is essentially a serious of huge lists. If those lists were removed for the article, the article would be a stub. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article nominations

Does it only limited to articles about a particular anime and manga or can it be an anime or manga related article? The reason I ask is because I would like to nominate AnimeNfo.com as a candidate, but not sure if that will fall within the scope of this COTW. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The way we currently have it worded is that the article must be directly related to anime or manga. You could argue that animenfo is directly related so I can't see why you can't go ahead and nominate it. I think that a general "anime database and review website" article could be made that included several of these types of websites and the features of each could be listed. The article would have a decent amount of content, potentially and it would definately be directly related to anime and manga. There isn't an AniDb article that I could find and Anime News Network is just as small as animenfo. --Squilibob 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost archive

We somehow lost our archive someplace. I was able to salvage and restore it. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Manga nominations?

I thought that there would be some Manga articles nominated from those who voted for it to be a part of the collaboration. >_< --Squilibob 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Most manga-only series are not very popular, and there will probably be very few such nominations (if any). The reason I suggested for it to be part of the collaboration was because anime and manga are almost inseparable subjects and running a Japanese animation collaboration, which is almost entirely based on manga, involves a lot of cherrypicking. It also gives the impression that articles should be nominated for their sole anime value, while in practice, most (or all) our manga-based anime articles include canon from the manga which did not make it to the anime. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 13:51, 01 May 2006 (UTC)

More Collaborators

Anyone got any ideas on how we can attract more people to the project? We haven't been gaining any new interest lately --Squilibob 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem isn't the lack of collaborators, rather the lack of commitment from collaborators. (Though the lack of collaborators isn't encouraging either.) For the past two collabs I've been cycling through the collaborations, and though I don't mind doing it at all, my main concern with this is that it was after the week's been up. When I archive the articles that were collaborated on, I also noticed that oftentimes the individuals who nominate the articles don't collaborate on them at all. I would have assumed that if you nominate an article, that you would at least make an attempt to improve it. All the anime series that have been nominated so far, I've never seen, though I may have nominated it because I thought it required more attention than other nominated articles. But I've tried to contribute to most of them. I also thought this was the main reason that this collaboration elected to have only registered users nominate/vote on articles - to eliminate the unknown user who would not contribute. I don't have any suggestions for how this collaboration can garner more interest, but it would be better if people who nominated the articles would contribute if they can. -- Miss Ethereal 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I guess we should allow for it, however, because sometimes an article doesn't get succeed straight away and a person who nominated an article two weeks ago is likely not to notice it was elevated after such a gap in time. --Squilibob 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving to left
There are a couple things which need to be taken into account first:

• COTWs in general are suffering, look at WP:COTW, it's probably worse off than it was at its beginning stages.
• Many voters vote only because they think the article should get more attention than other nominated articles, and want it to become the collaboration, not necessarily wanting to contribute to it at all. I sometimes do this, and personally have a principle against extensively editing on a subject I have no idea about, so you won't see me contributing to the collabs much. Other than occasional proofreads and such.

And while I don't think we can come up with some miraculous way to uplift the collaboration, I do have a suggestion: the nominator, or someone else who knows a lot about anime websites, should review each collaboration and come up with a few websites which may have info on the nomination. Moreover, links to some general anime info sites should be posted on the project page. This will help users who would otherwise not contribute due to a lack of knowledge actually add information.

Just my 2 cents. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub Articles

I was wondering what the definition of a stub article is... from the wikipedia's definition of stub I would have thought that Midori Days was a stub article... but Squilibob indicated in their comments that it was not. Could someone please clarify this for me? Thanks. --Miss Ethereal 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A stub is an article that lacks essential information. When you look at an article ask yourself "What essential information should be in this article?". For Midori no Hibi I would say a Story synopsis, which it has, a character profile for the main characters, which it has, and I'd touch on the love triangle between the main three characters, which the article has done. Disagree with me if you think it really is a stub. Read WP:STUB for the Wikipedia guideline. --Squilibob 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

List of English Dubbed Anime... what the?!

What happened to List of English Dubbed Anime? I realize that it must have been deleted, but obviously I missed that and it only came to my attention when I saw the red link. There goes at week's worth of collaboration. But what happened? Was there some sort of consensus reached as to why it was deleted (like how when it was nominated as AnCOTW there were suggestions to turn it into a category)? I would just like to know from anyone out there who may know what happened with this article. Thanks. --Miss Ethereal 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was turned into a category. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English dubbed anime --Kunzite 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Template on Article or Talk page?

Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)