Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Start of drafting character guideline

Draft of an outline of chracter article guideline, came up with while lying in bed. The names of the sections are wrong -- I suck at titles:

  • Lead: Summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who they were created by, what works they are from, and why they are notable. The usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material. This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary.
  • Infobox: (Info about {{Infobox animanga character}} to come.)
  • Appearence & personality, History: The in-universe information. This would normally be two sections, but they can be combined if encyclopedic treatment suggests this would be better; attributes/abilities would normally go in the first, but can be separate section if warranted. For these sections, citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
  • Development/production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS. Differences between adaptations would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here.
  • Voice Actors or Actors/Actresses (optional): Voice acting roles of English and Japanese. Some series have Live Action versions. Actors or Actress can be included here. Character songs can appear here as a subsection.
  • Reception/influence: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS. Pop culture references, parodies of, crossover appearences, merchandizing, poll results, sales figures, etc. are all valid topics here, as are reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis. Per WP:FICT, you should have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability.
  • References: The preferred method for sources for information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. For instructions, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. In rare cases it might be advisable to include a "See also" or "Further reading".
  • External links: This section should be the last, containing links to official sites relating directly to the subject (both the Japanese- and English-language sites are acceptable). Other notable and useful sites may be added, but please follow Wikipedia:External Links.

Hack at 'em. —Quasirandom 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree. That looks very good. Comprehensive, yet simple. KyuuA4 07:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
A note should be added about {{Infobox animanga character}} and its usage if possible.--十八 07:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've put in a placeholder above for you to expound upon it. (Plus some other edits.) —Quasirandom 14:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question: where should material like voice actors and character songs go? —Quasirandom 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, those two sections should be adjacent, as plenty of voice actors also participate in music. Whether the character songs should be a separate section or a subsection within voice actors. Not every series has character songs, the Haruhi series is the first set of character songs I've heard of. As a first call, I'm opting character songs as a subsection - but not certain of that. KyuuA4 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we want voice actors from all languages? I thought, from discussions elsewhere, it was decided to limit them to Japanese and English, leaving other languages to be covered by their respective Wikipedias. —Quasirandom 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Just checked the discussion on that above, so I make a correction. Also, a specific section on voice acting can be optional as they can also be briefly mentioned into the introduction. I cite Sailor Moon (character) as an example of handling voice acting, or acting, sections. KyuuA4 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Currently, in the GA-class character articles (which I believe are all Sailor Moon characters...) information on "production" is interspersed through primarily the first section of the character profile. I believe this encourages good prose, ie. "Ami is a genius because Takeuchi intended her to be a cyborg, but Takeuchi's editor objected.[reference]" If these articles were to be refactored to have a "Development" section, it would be small. Encouraging out of universe prose and references is a good thing, but I'm not sure it should have its own specific section. I'm also a bit leery of the "Reception/influence" section, as "Pop culture references, parodies of, crossover appearences, merchandizing" tends almost to trivia, and could, for iconic characters such as Usagi Tsukino or Rei Ayanami, be as long as the rest of the page. Not a lot of characters have academic resources that could be used in a reception/impact section. -Malkinann 00:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, how do you suggest editing the above then? —Quasirandom 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The whole article should encourage out of universe prose. I don't think there should be an "in-universe section". "In-universe" would be Duncan MacLeod was born in 1592 in the highlands of Scotland, when the appropriate form should be Duncan MacLeod is a fictional character from Gregory Widen's Highlander series.
A "Reception" section is needed. It establishes the character's notability outside the series' fictional universe and fanbase. However, pop culture references would be problematic. We would have users pointing out every blue-haired pale-skinned girl as a reference to Rei Ayanami. Merchandise, popularity polls, appearances in other media and the like are what make the section.
I'll be back later with some ideas of my own (if I can think of any).--Nohansen 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"The in-universe information" was a shorthand on my part. I meant not that, these sections are all in-universe (and nothing else) so much as all the in-universe information goes here (and nowhere else). Ways to say that clearly appreciated. —Quasirandom 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "Information revealed about the character through the storyline goes here - it should maintain out of universe prose, and should not be mistakeable for a biography." ??? In WP:SM, we call our "character history" section the "Profile". Perhaps there should be something about not listing every single named attack of a character, in fighting shows? Surely that's a large enough subgenre to warrant a mention. -Malkinann 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of calling it Profile. In fact, I'd even suggest that Appearence & personality, History, Attributes/Abilities, et cet. should be subsections of this, if encyclopedic treatment suggests that they be dealt with separately. —Quasirandom 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

←The following should be considered for the guideline:

  • Lead: Mention that the Japanese text should be added into the lead, but not the infobox.
  • Adding a synopsis of the role of the character in the fictional work
  • Production: Mention that translation/dub notes can be added here
  • The guideline should also require that the scope of the character's role (e.g. the media (types) in which the character appears) is given (And I do not mean a list of episodes in which the character appears – that could be left to the editors' judgment)

Regards, G.A.S 20:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Draft

Round two, incorporating (I hope) the above. Again, I suck at names, so titles are especially fuzzy. Juhachi: Anyplace I can snag guidelines for the infobox? Or can you edit something in?

  • Lead: Summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who she or he was created by, what works he or she are from, her or his role in these works, and why he or she is notable. The usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material. This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary.
  • Infobox: (Info about {{Infobox animanga character}} to come; include: don't use Japanese name here.)
  • Profile: Information revealed about the character through the storyline goes in these sections—note, however, it should maintain out-of-universe prose (see Writing about fiction for guidance) and should not be mistakeable for a biography. This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted (however, do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight). For this section, citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
  • Development / Production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS. Differences between adaptations, both between media and during translation, would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here. The name is flexible, depending on what better describes the content.
  • Voice Actors or Actors/Actresses (optional): Voice and/or live-action actors for English and Japanese productions. (Other languages should be left to their respective Wikipedias.) This can be included as a subsection of "Production notes", particularly if information about how actors approached the role is available. Character songs can be listed here a subsection.
  • Reception/influence: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS. Appearences in other works, poll results, sales figures, etc. are all valid topics here, as are reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis. Per WP:FICT, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability.
  • References: The preferred method for sourcing information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. For instructions, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. In rare cases it might be advisable to include a "See also" or "Further reading".
  • External links: The last section, containing links to official sites relating directly to the subject (both the Japanese- and English-language sites are acceptable). Other notable and useful sites may be added, but please follow Wikipedia:External Links.

Whack away. —Quasirandom 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What's with the big emphasis on "Reception/influence"? Characters rarely get "sales figures" (how do you "sell" a character?), reviews, critical essays, or anything like this. This is a stupid thing for articles to require. Forcing this issue is bound to lead to forced creation of really bad non-NPOV sections. I can picture it now: "Newtype said in their review of Naruto that Sakura Haruno is 'cute and kicks ass when she needs to.'" It just sounds like it'll create sections with lots of random comments from random sources. I don't see how that helps an article at all. "Appearences in other works" is one of those things that leads to really bad trivia sections ("Doraemon is spoofed in episode x of so-and-so", x20), which generally should be avoided. --SeizureDog 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, true, but it still might be a good idea to get editors to strive for reception information, maybe with examples that show what to avoid. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's a good thing to strive for, but it's such a tricky type of section that it's probably best to leave it only be a requirement for FA articles.--SeizureDog 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing about not including it is it's essential to meet the requirements of WP:FICT. The wording can (and should) be worked on, but it does have to be there, even pre-GA. Also, there's a similar section in the Series guidelines. —Quasirandom 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarifying myself: Without information establishing the out-of-universe notability of the character, the article will fail the requirements of WP:FICT. The Reception section is the suggested place to collect that information, since to a large extent that more or less is the character's notability. —Quasirandom 03:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT confuses me. It says, "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons)." So doesn't that mean that also long as notability is established within the parent article that the character articles don't require it?--SeizureDog 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That clause confuses me too. If I understood the discussion at the time it was inserted, the key is interpretting that "technical reasons" as a code-phrase for "split out for length reasons." —Quasirandom 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So it'd be ok to say in Sailor Moon "there were over 5000 items of merchandise for the Sailor Moon series" and then not specifically cover character-themed items in the character pages? (ie. that over 5000 items of merchandise of the series establishes notability for the series, therefore the major characters are sufficiently notable to get their own articles???) I don't know that attempting to list character dolls/singles etc. would really be useful for readers - that, and I don't fancy trying to chase up reliable sources for specific items. -Malkinann 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Items sold by the company would unfortunately be a primary source; and sources regarding the items only speaks to the notability of the items. I believe this would be more of a case where you have a lot of common real world information between characters, that instead of covering it in every character's article individually, you can rather fully cover the real world information in the main article, and still keep the subarticles. G.A.S 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand.. how are you meant to 'sell' a character? You can sell a series in DVDs, but you can't do that for a character. Rei Ayanami sells so much merchandise that she is sometimes called the "Billion Dollar Girl".-Malkinann 04:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically, one could sell the concept, or syndicate it, etc. I am unsure whether it actually happens a lot, though. Characters could also provide royalty income for the rights associated to make merchandise, which may be applicable. G.A.S 12:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, buy "sales figures" I meant of the series and of merchendize related to the character. —Quasirandom 15:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding a split for technical reasons would mean something like a list article, not an individual character article. -- Ned Scott 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Depending on real world information and secondary sources, of course. G.A.S 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: notability: I believe if secondary sources speaks a lot for the character's development and production, this also speaks for notability (According to WP:NN; and it constitutes real world information as well (WP:FICT)), so this section should not be underestimated. G.A.S 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Appearances: This is a character article guideline, but it seems that we do not speak anywhere to the media the character appears in!? This does constitute real world information as well... G.A.S 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would think that would be lead and profile. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I associate "profile" more with in-universe information, as for the lead, the lead should be a summary of the article, as such I believe that the information in the lead should be expanded on. G.A.S 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we can change the title, but the summary describing profile says to make the section out of universe, and even mentions making an appearances sub-section. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"Information revealed about the character through the storyline goes in these sections" — see above. Presenting in-universe information from an out of universe viewpoint is completely different from providing out of universe information. By appearances I meant in which works of fiction does the character appear, appearances in other works of fiction (For instance, Homer Simpson being mentioned in Stargate SG-1, should it warrant mentioning), etc. G.A.S 10:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"Presenting in-universe information from an out of universe viewpoint is completely different from providing out of universe information." I'd have to disagree on that, I think they go hand-in-hand. And if you want to know what other shows a character has been in, "Reception/influence" would be a good place to go. -- Ned Scott 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
An example regarding this section might help: Have a look at how Link (The Legend of Zelda) (FA, main page article, also recently reviewed and fixed) is presented. G.A.S 11:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
From Link. Character history and development, mixing In-universe information with out-of-universe information with a chronological frame. That's one way of handling it. KyuuA4 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that even if such oou information is there, it can easily be skipped over by the reader or just blend into the background. Currently there's an experimental reorganisation at Sailor Mercury#Development which may prove interesting to the discussion here. -Malkinann (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Sailor Mercury is currently languishing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Assess#Ami_Mizuno, (since June!) so it might be a good test ground to see how character articles could be improved and (re)structured. -Malkinann (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Side note) There is some speculation as to whether Ami Mizuno should even be at GA level what with the almost complete lack of outside information; see WT:ANIME#Sailor Moon good articles.--十八 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Development experiment

Currently there's an experimental reorganisation at Sailor Mercury#Development which may prove interesting to the discussion here. -Malkinann (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea. The section lays out the origins of the character and certain aspects that went into her creation. I think we could do this for the other characters, though the only barrier would be finding sources...--十八 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the development information is already in the articles, like Sailor Mars being a miko because of the author's experience as a miko, or Sailor Jupiter being originally concieved as the leader of a girl gang. It's just not in a dedicated section. -Malkinann (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant in all of the other character articles from all of the other anime out there.--十八 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was also a bit worried that the discussion of star sign choice and blood type choice would be looked down upon here - the author specifically chose them for the characters and so I feel they are valid subjects in the development section. -Malkinann (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not for all series, but in an astronomical-themed show like Sailor Moon, the star signs had better be pretty important, if the writer's any good. Which, as we know from the success, she is. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Third draft

I think I've addressed all the above concerns, insofar as I could work out a consensus response. Someone, anyone, PLEASE write something for the infobox -- even if it's just a pointer to another guideline. If you guys leave it to me, you'll get something that looks like it was written by Yotsuba Koiwai.

Note that the heading titles are not set in stone -- adapt them as appropriate for your character and context. This is a guideline for the sorts of information to include and the general order.

  1. Lead: A one-to-three paragraph summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who she or he was created by, what works he or she appears in, her or his role in these works, and why he or she is notable. The usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material. This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary.
  2. Infobox: Although this is not a section, the animanga character infobox is a useful and attractive addition to an article. See the template documentation for instructions.
  3. Profile: Information about the character revealed in the story goes in this section—note, however, it should maintain out-of-universe prose (see Writing about fiction for guidance) and should not be mistakable for a biography. This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; special attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted (however, do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight). Citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate here, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
  4. Development / Production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS. Differences between adaptations, both between media and during translation, and between sequels would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here. Use a title appropriate for your section's actual contents.
  5. Voice Actors or Actors/Actresses (optional): Voice and/or live-action actors for English and Japanese productions. (Other languages should be left to their respective Wikipedias.) This can be included as a subsection of "Production notes", particularly if information about how actors approached the role is available. Character songs can also be listed here a subsection.
  6. Reception: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS. Reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis are good sources; appearances in other works, poll results, merchandise (including, if possible, sales figures), statements by other creators that the character was an influence for them, etc. are also valid topics here. Per the notability guidelines for fictional characters, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability.
  7. References: The preferred method for sourcing information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. For instructions, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. In rare cases it might be advisable to include a "See also" or "Further reading".
  8. External links: The last section, containing links to official sites relating directly to the subject (both the Japanese- and English-language sites are acceptable). Other notable and useful sites may be added, but please follow Wikipedia:External Links.

If this is acceptable, and the gaping hole is filled, I think we have something that can go to the main page. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The header "Reception/influence" looks daggy - I've tested it out at Sailor_Mars#Reception.2Finfluence. Is there some guideline about embedded lists that we could link to when we say that characters with named attacks shouldn't have them all in a big list? I was sure that there was one, but I can't lay my hands on it. -Malkinann (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
We'd better give it a shave, then. Or a better name, anyway. (Did I mention I suck at titles?) The only embedded list guideline I know about is Wikipedia:Embedded list -- that the one you're thinking of? —Quasirandom (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha - maybe just plain "Reception", then? Currently, WP:FICT is under dispute - will this affect the anime/manga MOS? I read it as treating "sales figures" as separate from merchandise - my concern is that finding a reliable source stating sales figures for character merchandise would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. -Malkinann (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And yes, that guideline was the one I was thinking of. -Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right about the name -- how's the edit above? Sales figures for merchandising is good if you have it, but if you don't, you don't. As for the disputes over WP:FICT, I'm waiting for the feathers to fall before figuring how it affects us. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently at WP:SM we're using "Reception and influence", but what's in a name? My thought was that the very existance of merchandise for a character may confer some notability, so I asked at WT:FICT. May be worth keeping an eye on. -Malkinann (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do. BTW, I was trying to word the guideline to say this is allowable information, not required or even necessarily suggested. If this was unclear, we need to wordsmith this a bit. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Relax, I know that you weren't trying to make that compulsary. Suggest that we reword "sales figures of merchandise," to "merchandise, and if possible, sales figures of said merchandise" - the discussion so far seems to be that, barring toyetic shenanigans (where the toys created the media), the very existance of merchandise can help to support notability. -Malkinann (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How about the rewording above? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys, I warned you what would happen if someone didn't step in with infobox instructions. Ya want something better, replace it. Otherwise, pending any further tweaks, I'm copying this to the main page next week. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the infobox section now. I think it's better to refer people to the documentation there rather than duplicating it here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Demographic

I think we need to have something in the MOS-AM regarding how to determine which demographic should be listed for any given subject of an article. Examples of commonly misattributed demographics include Azumanga Daioh and Yotsuba&!, both of which have been incorrectly called "shōjo" by uninformed publications, groups, or individuals. The unwritten rule in the past has been to go by the magazine in which it was originally published, which means both of these are seinen.

Additionally, I think we should have a list of accepted demographics. Here's a start:

  • Josei: marketed to late teen and older females
  • Kodomo: marketed at young children of both genders
  • Salaryman: marketed at the commuting salaryman (and, more recently, salarywoman)
  • Seinen: marketed at late teen and older males
  • Shōjo: marketed at young females
  • Shōnen: marketed at young males

These are the most common, though there are also manga targeted at housewives, too.

We need to keep in mind that demographic refers only to the target demographic, not to the actual readership as there are always anomalous readers who do not fit into the target demographic. These anomalous readers tend to equal only a small percentage of total readership, though, when compared to the full readership for any given manga.

Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest an additional target for otaku oriented magazines. Quite a number of magazines aren't really sold to the traditional broad age groups, but are specifically geared towards a hard core fanbase. Proving this is the tricky part - I can say that Shonen Ace is not a shonen magazine but an otaku magazine...but without proof, Samurai Champloo is still going to be absurdly stuck with 'shonen' because the manga ran in a magazine with a vestigial 'shonen' in the title. Doceirias (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
All of which points up that we need to source the demographic of each magazine. If we do that, we can clone out the citation to the demographic listed in the various series that ran in each one. (My prepositions are piling up -- time for more coffee -- but I you can work out what I meant.) I suspect that with that, and a brief mention in the MOS here, that should suffice, without a list of only-these-acceptable demographics. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Actual readership is generally undefined - as once a work is in market - anyone can read the material and are therefore not limited to a projected demographic. Now, as Quasirandom mentioned, sourcing will be the best way to handle demographic categorization, as the "makers" are basically the ones authorized to make such a decision; or at least, some kind of publication can determine "which" category a work belongs to. As for keeping the list limited to just those 6 or so, I'll have to disagree. For example, what about old people? Just an obscure example. Anyways, as I've said in the manga discussion, it's best to handle this kind of categorization loosely, instead of strictly. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I never said it should be limited to the six I listed. As it says above, it's just a start. I do think we need to have a list of acceptable demographics that are broad enough and have articles about them. I'm pretty sure all the ones above have articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, I think it's high time that the target demographic rule per magazine be finally implemented, since it's the only verifiable method of classifying a series. Often it's the original anime articles that face the greatest scrutiny, in my opinion we should classify it by the serialization of its manga adaptation unless there's a timeblock specifically targeting a particular demographic, such as Fuji TV's Noitamina. Let's implement this rule soon. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the place to start on this is in the Project Talk page, where more people read and we can organize the effort. At one point I compiled a list of seinen magazine articles without sources for the demographic, as that's the demographic with the most contraversy. Let's see if I can find it. *rummages around* *rustle* *thud* Ah, here it is. Most of those have links to the official pages, in Japanese.
For documenting to how to source it, a mention in here in the Infobox section, or in the infobox template doc, should suffice. Possibly we could even add an argument to the template, demographic_source -- though that may be more rigid about it than we want. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested this before, without generating much enthusiasm, but it's worth mentioning - when we're not sure what the demographic is, why not leave it out? Better than than force an original anime or a light novel adaption into a demographic based on the cash-in manga adaption, which is usually little more than a forgotten footnote. Someone mentioned Noitamina above; the article says most series are shojo or seinen, but Mononoke was an original anime, Moyashimon is seinen, and their Spring series, Library Wars, is based on a light novel. Noitamina's mission statement also specifically points out that their selections are stories that can be enjoyed by everyone. My point is this: demographic is often a very fuzzy concept, and one that seems to be losing relevance as companies discover the benefits of cross-marketing books to multiple demographics. (Ballad of the Shinigami getting a shojo manga adaption, for instance.) I don't see the need to shoehorn a title into a demographic when the people making the show have not done so. Doceirias (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Layout addition suggestion

Hello, I was wondering if {{anime-links}} could be mentioned in the section 9 of the Layout section, sort of like {{anime voices}} is in the fourth. It appears to be gaining some popularity, after all... --Koveras ☭ 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I question the inclusion of AnimNfo.com as a source of reliable information. While there are entries for a large number of anime series, the content leaves very much to be desired. Most entries are a title, a genre, and perhaps when it ran. I've rarely found it a useful site, and would recommend removing all references to the site. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was convinced of its usefulness, when I've found a link to an alternative official Madlax website there which ANN didn't mention. :) My point being: there are some information there that ain't on ANN or IMDb, hence, it can be potentially useful. Noone is forced to add the Annfo link to a particular article, if it doesn't contain any unique info. :) --Koveras ☭ 08:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of non-English/non-Japanese information

I've just become aware of a rule created here that advises editors to exclude most information pertaining to anime and manga releases in languages other than English and the original Japanese. From checking the archive, I see references to previous discussion (and a link would be appreciated) and the explanation that this information was "cluttering" articles and "that's what the other language wikis are for."
To my knowledge, this directly contradicts Wikipedia's normal standards, and it certainly is something with which I strongly disagree. If information is notable, it's notable. Our articles are written for a worldwide audience, and they aren't supposed to be filtered to include only the information that directly relates to people who natively speak particular languages. If someone wants to learn about a subject, he/she should be able to visit Wikipedia in his/her preferred language and view all of the notable facts that people have taken the time to add, not merely the ones that pertain to his/her culture. Different languages of Wikipedia exist to enable communication, not to segregate information along linguistic lines. —David Levy 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Information that a release exists is included in the infobox, but details regarding various other language releases is suggested (it's a guideline, after all, and one which most people here agree with) to be put into articles in other language wikis. Including voice actor information and other similar information for every language release of an anime or manga series in the English language article is not effective and causes serious clutter issues. Some of these series have been released in 20+ languages, and including all of that information here is insane (I can't imagine what a character list would look like with information on 20+ voice actors for each character). It's much more effective to have those interested create the articles in the other languages in order to propagate the series information across more language wikis, and include that specific language information there than to seriously bloat the English language articles with information regarding releases not likely of interest to the average English language reader of the article. Most English language article readers are likely only interested in the original language information (Japanese) and the English language information. This was discussed and the overwhelming consensus was that this was a very good idea in order to keep the articles under control. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What is someone who only reads English supposed to do if he/she wants to learn information about a production's release in another language? While I don't doubt that many of our readers are interested primarily in the English/Japanese versions, that isn't a valid excuse to prohibit the inclusion of (or remove) notable, encyclopedic information about an article's subject. Furthermore, the guideline's wording ["information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga"] applies to far more than just voice actors (for whom you're discouraging the creation of English-language articles, by the way). It disallows, for example, the inclusion of information about alterations to the actual stories that might have occurred.
You cite space constraints, but Wikipedia is not paper. When an article grows too large, the solution is not to remove notable, encyclopedic information from the site; it's to split it off into a separate article (e.g. List of Dragon Ball Z voice actors).
No offense, but I'm absolutely stunned by this situation. The idea that we should be deciding on our readers' behalf that notable, encyclopedic information isn't of interest to them (because of what languages they read) is quite troubling. —David Levy 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see clarifying the guideline so that it allows for notable information regarding other language releases to be included in the articles (and that's something I would encourage, too), but including everything that might be included in another language article (unless it's the source language article) seems to me to be excessive and unnecessary. Unless there are significant or important differences in another language release, there is absolutely no reason to include anything from languages other than English and Japanese as the other language articles will likely contain the exact same information except for voice actors. If someone wants to know the voice actors from another language, they generally don't need to be able to read the other language to figure out who the voice actors are, even for languages not using Roman characters. The format for presenting a cast is pretty much the same everywhere. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
1. The point that you seem to be missing is that for our purposes, information about an article's subject is either notable or non-notable. The idea that it's non-notable here but notable at another language's Wikipedia contradicts our encyclopedia's standards (as does advising people to remove information from our Wikipedia and add it to others). "English-speaking people probably won't care about this, but French-speaking people will" is not a valid consideration. We're building a comprehensive encyclopedia in the English language, not an encyclopedia for people with English-language interests.
2. You didn't answer my question below. Where is the "overwhelming consensus" to which you referred? When was the community invited to comment? —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
So far, this is the only previous discussion that I've found. Is that the "overwhelming consensus" to which you referred?
"We don't want the English wiki becoming a conglomeration of everything from every language wiki as that defeats the purpose of having separate language wikis." Wow. What on Earth gave you the idea that the purpose of having different languages of Wikipedia was to segregate information? —David Levy 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a good chance that the discussion was held in WT:ANIME, as this page used to be on the project page before being split off as a piece of the MOS. Check the archives there. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will look there (though it might take me a while to find), but it seems as though your WikiProject has formed its own consensus contrary to that of the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Project decided to restrain the information to English/Japanese versions because some editors were adding Spanish, German, French, etc voice actors and cluttering the articles. I know of three instances where this was "discussed" before:

Also, looking at what happened to the International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew article, I don't think splitting off information into new articles articles is the answer.--Nohansen (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It has precedence in Wikiproject Films as well. They will only list film release dates for when it was originally released and countries where english is magorly spoken. They don't list every country in which it was released. Showers (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's less problematic (because a film's international release dates are relatively trivial), but discriminating on the basis of predominant language is inappropriate. (I would suggest that original release date should be listed by default, with others included only if particularly notable due to other factors.) —David Levy 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's still a parallel: for a set of information, privileging two pieces -- one for the original creation and one related to the particular encyclopedia's language. (Personally, I suspect that this issue relates to a disjoint in policies and guidelines at a higher level, over which reasonable people can reasonably come to different conclusions.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I believe that the setup in question also is inappropriate. —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. You've pointed me to tiny discussions (one of which I'd already seen) in which a handful of (often the same) people participated. One was nothing more than a single editor telling someone that "we don't" do something (implying broad consensus of which I've seen no evidence). When, if ever, was this issue advertised for discussion by the general community?
2. WikiProjects don't get to overrule the basic standards on which Wikipedia is based, let alone by creating Wikipedia guidelines. If information is notable, it's notable. For our purposes, there is no such thing as non-meta information that is notable in one language and not in another (though it certainly is possible for the various Wikipedias to arrive at different conclusions regarding what is and isn't notable).
3. Clearly, International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew was a deeply flawed article. In no way does its deletion establish that legitimate articles of this nature cannot be written. —David Levy 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No one here is saying that notable information can't be included (and as I wrote above, we can certainly clarify the guideline to make that more obvious). What is being said is that unless there actually is something notably different or of note in another language release, the articles will likely be almost identical anyway, with the only difference being the list of voice actors. If someone wants to make a separate "List of voice actors in X", they can feel free to do so, but the article will likely be deleted by some over-zealous editor who doesn't like sub-articles. Limiting the voice actors to only the Japanese and English language releases ensures the list won't become too huge, thereby avoiding all the hassle of creating a separate article only to have it brought up for deletion by the aforementioned over-zealous editor. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Again, notable = notable. If a piece of information isn't notable, that's fine. But advising editors to add it to other Wikipedias' articles is the determination that the information is notable there but not here. That's inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. For our purposes, the information is either notable or non-notable.
2. In noting that the different languages' articles will contain the same information, you seem to imply that this is a problem. It isn't. Ideally, that always would be the case. Again, Wikipedia exists in multiple languages for the purpose of facilitating the dissemination of information to people who read the various languages, not for the purpose of segregating information based on determinations of what readers of those languages want to know.
3. The "guideline," as currently worded, prohibits the creation of a separate article listing such information about releases in languages other than English and Japanese.
4. I find it odd that you would reference "over-zealous" editors who seek to remove notable information from the encyclopedia (given the fact that this is precisely what you advocate). Pre-emptively prohibiting (or even discouraging) the creation of such articles on the basis that they might be unfairly deleted solves nothing. —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Did you read what I wrote? I clearly stated that notable information is welcome to be added, and if the guideline isn't clear on that point, we can adjust it as needed. What about that did you not understand?
2. Nowhere did I state that it was a problem for various language articles to contain the same information. What I did write was that they would likely be identical save for voice actor information. Again, I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing.
3. Yes, and I very clearly wrote that it can be adjusted as necessary to make it more clear. I don't have any problem with a separate article being created, nor do I have a problem with the guideline being adjusted to make it clear that creating a separate "List of voice actors in X" article if there are enough other languages to make the necessary.
4. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never once said that notable information should be excluded (quite the opposite, in fact). You coming and flinging false accusations around is not helping your case any. Instead, simply state your opinion on the matter without falsely accusing other editors of things that are not the case. If you think creating "List of voice actors in X" articles would be a good idea, why not just come out and say it instead of launching into a huge diatribe? All of us are open to new ideas, and correcting possibly incorrect ones. Guidelines are meant to be adjusted, and given that these guidelines are fairly new compared to many others, it's likely they will need to be adjusted multiple times. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Yes, I read what you wrote. Indeed, you suggested editing the guideline to clarify that certain exceptions existed, but I dispute that these are exceptions (and that the advice in question—when interpreted as intended—is valid).
2. Unless I misunderstood (and I fully acknowledge the possibility), your argument was that there was no need to duplicate lists of voice actors already present in other languages' Wikipedias. Was that not what you meant?
3. You expressed your opinion that writing such articles isn't worth the hassle. I'm merely disagreeing with you.
4. In case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that you were acting in bad faith. I was referring to your assertion that "the purpose of having separate language wikis" is to segregate information by language. Whether you've realized it or not, you have been advocating the removal of notable content from this site (by moving it to other Wikipedias). Perhaps you didn't think of it that way, but it's true. Please understand that I'm not questioning your motives. I merely believe that you've made an honest mistake. —David Levy 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see what information you think should be added. I can't really think of any information not already included in the infobox that would really be notable. Or at least, notable in English. The number of languages a work has been translated into helps establish notability of the work itself, but the details of those translations is rarely notable outside of the language that translation is in. I wouldn't expect the Spanish wikipedia to list information about the English language release either. Doceirias (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
By our standards, "notable in English" is an invalid concept. I don't know what the Spanish Wikipedia does, but your WikiProject appears to be imposing a "guideline" contrary to what the English Wikipedia does. —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what definition of those standards you're using. Common sense would suggest that it is very possible something can be notable in one culture and not another. There's no reason on earth all Wikipedias should be identical. You also do not appear to understand the difference between a guideline and a policy. A guideline, by its very nature, is something that can and should be broken when a reasonable exception is found. Again, what exactly are you wanting to add? If it's actually notable, go right ahead. But if you are just adding a list of voice actors for the French dub, then I'm afraid that isn't notable, and would be removed on that basis, regardless of the guideline. The guideline does not exist to prevent the exclusion of notable information, merely to discourage the addition of non-notable information. Doceirias (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. The English Wikipedia does not exist for the benefit of a particular "culture." Again, it's intended to serve as a comprehensive encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia containing information deemed particularly interesting to readers of English. If this information is truly non-notable, it shouldn't be added to another Wikipedia. That this is encouraged suggests that it is notable (and I certainly believe that the cited examples are). As I pointed out, such information needn't be included in the main articles; to avoid generating clutter, it can easily be split out into other articles.
2. I'm quite familiar with the nature of our guidelines and policies, but I'm not certain that you are. You're correct that guidelines "can and should be broken when a reasonable exception is found," but this is true of policies as well (albeit less likely to occur). The problem is that what I'm describing is not an "exception." It's how we do things.
Also relevant is the fact that guidelines are backed by community consensus. Again, I request that someone please direct my attention to the discussion in which the community was invited to participate and agreed that this should be a guideline. —David Levy 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. I do have to apologize for assuming you were a fanboy with an agenda. I didn't read your user page until after making my last post. But I think the fact that you're an admin is actually more frightening; how do you have so little understanding of the way Wikipedia actually works, and so little knowledge of the ongoing arguments about fiction pages? Keeping my own opinion out of this, there is an ongoing and massive battle between people who want to add all information in as much detail as possible, and people who would prefer to keep each subject down to one concise page, with no sprawl. In the interest of compromise, certain concessions have been made on each side; and this is one of those. Again, it was proposed earlier in the thread that the working of the guideline be adjusted to reflect a legitimate concern, but you seem to have ignored that in favor of trying to get the guideline removed entirely.
2. The English Wikipedia does exist for the benefit of a particular culture - that culture shared by native speakers of English. Something notable in Arabic is not necessarily notable in English, and something notable in English is not necessarily notable in Arabic. Speaking a language carries with it the assumption of a shared culture. This is just how notability works. Doceirias (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. This has nothing to do with a desire to overload articles with information. Again, when this occurs, the solution is to relocate notable information to new articles, not to remove it from the encyclopedia. Certainly, I've encountered plenty of "cruft" (which I don't advocate retaining), but that isn't what we're discussing. Please don't conflate these two separate issues.
2. Again, please point me to the discussion in which the community decided that this is a good idea (thereby establishing its guideline status).
3. "The English Wikipedia does exist for the benefit of a particular culture - that culture shared by native speakers of English." No offense, but I'm afraid that it's you who "lacks understanding of the way Wikipedia actually works." —David Levy 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdentind to start a new thread) Backing up a bit, I suspect this is an issue not only for this but other WikiProjects -- any that deals with creative works that were composed in another laguage, be they comics, film, books, or whatnot. I have a suspicion that since this WikiProject deals exclusively in translated works, the guideline is showing up as codified here, although similar guidelines are more or less followed in practice in other WikiProjects. Poking about at a smattering of foreign language film and book articles, in practice, the original release date and releases in English are mentioned, but unless there is something notable in the layperson's sense of the word about another language release, such as an award or documentable influence of a major work, those pieces of information are usually not mentioned, even in Featured Articles. The other releases may be notable in the technical Wikipedia definition, but they are nonetheless not included. Please note the different meanings of the word "notable," are being used by different people in the above conversation, resulting in confusion and squabbling.

I suspect, but cannot prove since I wasn't around for the original discussion and frankly I'm too sick to dig for it, that the guideline here was a compromise between two conflicting larger guidelines, the notability guideline, which insists that there is no linguistic boundry for notability, and what Wikipedia is not -- specifically the indescriminate collection of information clause -- which insists that there are cultural boundries for notability. This cultural boundry is one that this Project encounters all the time: fans want detailed information about all aspects of what they (and likeminded folks) are fascinated with, but if you include to much, it's labeled fancruft and trimmed away, by editing or deletion. That, right there, is a cultural boundry of notability in action, seen daily in AfDs all over.

I had more to say, but I'm going to bed. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the point I was clumsily trying to make above; hopefully it clarifies the argument for both of us, David. Doceirias (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Now if I could only remember what the other point I was thinking of. :-P And it would probably help the discussion enormously if we could dig up the discussion of the guideline in question -- there's a whole LOT of wheel-spinning going on, without it. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I've repeatedly requested that someone please point me to the community discussion in which the "overwhelming consensus" (as Nihonjoe described it) that led to this guideline's creation was established. Thus far, no one has obliged. —David Levy 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it was probably one of the discussions you've seen. There is a strong tendency for changes to happen with a couple of people campaigning for them, and nobody else objecting. Doceirias (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I was told that there was "overwhelming consensus." I've yet to see a single discussion in which the community was invited to participate, let alone one in which any sort of consensus was established. —David Levy 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is, any consensus there was is probably one of silent approval/disinterest. See the small number of people actively participating in this discussion. Anyone have any idea on how to bring the discussion out of the baffled stalemate? I definitely agree with the principles on which David is basing his arguments, but I suspect he is guilty of a logical fallacy. Yes, anything notable in one language must be notable in another; but given that we have people actively trying to merge the list of Death Note characters into the main article, making a separate list to include information of minor notability is simply impractical. We have to pick and choose a bit, regardless of principle. Doceirias (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1. A consensus of silent approval/disinterest among the members of a WikiProject is neither overwhelming nor the basis of a guideline. Guidelines reflect consensus within the Wikipedia community, and it appears that the Wikipedia community wasn't even invited to comment.
2. People are just as likely (if not more likely) to oppose/revert the outright removal of information from the site as they are to oppose/revert its relocation to separate articles. The latter, meanwhile, is far more likely to reflect consensus and less likely to fuel major conflict (given the fact that it's our standard solution to the problem of overgrown articles). —David Levy 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1. I never said it was. I'm not sure what you mean by the community not being invited to comment; it was discussed on one of the project pages (since I remember reading it) - do you mean it was discussed only within the project?
2. You've lost me again. The removal of information that is notable in principle but of secondary importance to an article that is unlikely to be anything more than a list would undoubtedly be challenged by people like the user attempting to merge Death Note pages. There would probably be a less bitter information since voice actors for foreign dubs is inherently not important to the majority of people editing the English Wikipedia.
3. The more this discussion sprawls the more confused its getting. What exactly are you trying to achieve? If we go back to the beginning, maybe we can get somewhere. Doceirias (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1.Yes, it appears that the remainder of the community was never notified of the proposal (so it was discussed only by a handful of WikiProject members). We have a forum specifically intended for the discussion of proposed policies and guidelines, but it evidently wasn't utilized.
To be clear, I was addressing Nihonjoe's claim of "overwhelming consensus," not anything that you wrote.
2. Suppose that an article about an anime series contains a list of voice actors from several different versions other than the Japanese and English releases. If this list is removed from the article, we can either split it out to a different article (thereby retaining it within the English Wikipedia) or we can completely eliminate it from the English Wikipedia. Wouldn't someone who values this information prefer its relocation over its outright elimination (and therefore be more likely to challenge the latter)?
3. I sought to determine this guideline's validity (or lack thereof), and it appears that community consensus has not been established. Therefore, I now seek to revise it to bring it in line with our standard procedures. —David Levy 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
While I do think anyone likely to care about that information would be capable of reading it on the appropriate language Wikipedia (if I recall correctly, the discussion that got the guideline created was when someone had added foreign language credits to the English language page on the grounds that there was no page for that series on the relevant language Wikipedia. It was suggested that rather than add it here, he should create the page in the language those credits belonged to) - if we've successfully established that the guidelines was created by a handful of people thinking it sounded like a good idea, maybe it's time to take the guideline to the village pump and have it worked over by a larger number of people. Doceirias (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If you'd like to do the honors, I'd be fine with that. —David Levy 06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Question. Has there been an incident where an editor removed notable non-English/non-Japanese information and cited the WP:MOS-AM as the reason? "Notable" as in the Death Note-related murders in Belgium. "Notable" as in countries that banned Kite. "Notable" as in something other than who voiced Shampoo in the French version of Ranma.--Nohansen (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, then I don't see the problem. As long as we keep truly "notable" information (like the Manga Murder), I say excluding non-English/non-Japanese voice actors is a small price to pay for keeping the articles clutter free. I mean, c'mon! The Lion King article doesn't list every single foreign language voice actor... Why should we?
And by the way, The Big O's article in French Wikipedia (a translation of the English article) doesn't list the English voice actors.--Nohansen (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. That "small price to pay for keeping the articles clutter free" is one that we needn't pay (because we can simply relocate such information to separate articles, thereby preserving it within our encyclopedia while eliminating the clutter). But again, I'd be happy to read the discussion in which the community agreed that this "price" was reasonable and warranted a guideline.
2. We shouldn't list "every single foreign language voice actor" within The Lion King, but one or more separate articles for this purpose would be fine (and I'll respectfully caution you against confusing systemic bias with deliberate omission).
I don't know what the French Wikipedia's standard practices are. —David Levy 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently removed the Korean voice actor information from the Azumanga Daioh character articles, and cited WP:MOS-AM in the edit summaries. If, as David argues, that the Korean voice actors are no less notable than the English voice actors, this would count. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-English language guideline adjustment discussion

The guideline currently states the following:

Information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga should generally not be included in the body of articles on the English-language Wikipedia. Instead, this information should be included in the articles on the appropriate language-specific wiki, and an interwiki link should be added to the English Wikipedia article.

Adding country information in the "other_xxxx" sections in infoboxes is acceptable. Only English-language and Japanese-language country information should be included in the associated "xxxx" sections of the infoboxes.

Based on the concerns raised in the section above, how about something like this (changes in red):

Information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga should generally not be included in the body of articles on the English-language Wikipedia unless that information is in some way notable. Editors who wish to include this information here are strongly encouraged to also include this information in the article on the appropriate language-specific wiki, and an interwiki link should be added to the English Wikipedia article if one does not already exist.

Adding country information in the "other_xxxx" sections in infoboxes is acceptable. Only English-language and Japanese-language country information should be included in the associated "xxxx" sections of the infoboxes.

I'm not sure how to word the encouragement to create a "List of voice actors in X" article in such a way as to make sure it's very clearly sourced and made clear it's a sub-article relying on the main article for a significant amount of notability. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't completely related, but what's the deal with "Lists of voice actors in 'X series'"? If we have a "List of characters" where the voice actors are credited, do we need a "List of voice actors" too? I'm just asking...--Nohansen (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The text should be rewritten to remove any suggestion that the information in question is unwelcome in the English Wikipedia. Instead, users should be informed that in the interest of maintaining manageable articles, it is advisable to split out such text when the original article becomes problematically long (and not before). For example, if information pertaining to only one language other than English and Japanese is included, it isn't practical to perform a split yet. This should be addressed on a case-by-case basis (and discussed on the articles' talk pages when disagreement arises).
And yes, it couldn't hurt to note that the usual verifiability and notability criteria apply. —David Levy 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The first section of the MOS-AM (other than the Scope) specifically covers notability and verifiability. I don't think it's necessary to keep harping on that point. As for the information in question, it is unwelcome unless it is notable in some manner. The rewritten section specifically covers that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't necessary to address verifiability and notability, but it couldn't hurt to remind users that splitting information out of an article is a means of organizing encyclopedic content, not an excuse to keep content that isn't suitable for the original article (apart from the aforementioned organizational concerns).
Indeed, non-notable information (a subjective determination, of course) should be removed. But again, for our purposes, information about the article's subject cannot be non-notable at the English Wikipedia but notable at another language's Wikipedia (and I'm still waiting for you to cite the community discussion in which "overwhelming" consensus to the contrary was established).
You said that you don't oppose the creation of "List of voice actors in X" articles, but your proposed text precludes this. —David Levy 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring the last paragraph I wrote when I created this section. Let me repeat it for your benefit: "I'm not sure how to word the encouragement to create a "List of voice actors in X" article in such a way as to make sure it's very clearly sourced and made clear it's a sub-article relying on the main article for a significant amount of notability. Thoughts?" Exactly how is that excluding it? I specifically asked for input on how to phrase a section about that.
And again, exactly where did I say that notable information should be excluded? If it can be shown to be notable, it SHOULD be included. You've been misinterpreting or ignoring everything else I write, so I want to make sure that's incredibly clear for you. I have never once said there was consensus to exclude notable information. In fact, if I remember the discussions correctly, the discussions indicated that notable information was fine to include and that there would be exceptions to the rule (as there always are with any of the guidelines here). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. I'm not ignoring that paragraph (from which I quoted a phrase). I'm commenting that the revised wording still implies that the inclusion of such information is an exception to a rule that generally prohibits it. We always should include notable information and exclude non-notable information, so there's no need to single out "information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga" (except possibly to recommend that it be split out to separate articles when the original articles become too long). Your proposed wording appears to imply that only extraordinary non-English/non-Japanese information (and not such facts as voice credits) are permitted anywhere within the English encyclopedia. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but I believe that it's reasonable to constructively criticise your proposed text. (That's why you posted it, right?) I'm not trying to insult or offend you in the process.
2. You didn't say that "notable" information should be excluded, and you might not have thought of it that way. Nonetheless, you advocated the removal of information from the English Wikipedia and the addition of said information to other languages' Wikipedias (because "we don't want the English wiki becoming a conglomeration of everything from every language wiki as that defeats the purpose of having separate language wikis"). I don't know how to interpret the quoted statement as anything other than the assertion that the various Wikipedias are intended to facilitate segregation of information (which must be notable, as it otherwise wouldn't be appropriate to contribute it to other Wikipedias) by language.
3. Again, there can only be "exceptions" to a rule if there is wide agreement within the community that it is a rule. Please point me to the community discussion in which the "overwhelming consensus" that led to this guideline's creation was established. —David Levy 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed multiple times over multiple years. Just look through the various archives mentioned here and you'll find them. Until you came along, no one was bringing this up as an issue for the last long while, and anyone who asked about it was told by several different people that that information was generally not included here as no one here thought that who voiced something in Brazil, Germany, or South Korea was even close to notable here. If we were to make a "List of voice actors in X" (as you suggested), then I'd be all for including that information. I'm still of the opinion that most voice actor information from non-English and Non-Japanese dubs is not notable here, but you obviously disagree with that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Rather than talking about the abstract, let's discuss this issue with something a bit more concrete. I have a relevant article in mind, List of non-Japanese Doraemon versions. How about we talk about this article's suitability to the English Wikipedia?

Secondly, if we want to include foreign voice actors in case people want to know (for example, they might be curious about the devils behind FUTAENOKIWAMI! AHHHHHHHHH from Rurouni Kenshin), I have a suggestion. Much like how we hide publishers and networks that aren't English or Japanese in the infobox, we can make a collapsible box that contains all the voice actors and put it beside every character in the character lists. How about it? _dk (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. I do think a link to the appropriate other language article would be useful, too. Can you easily add a column for that, or perhaps link the Location to that article instead? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Another thought: why not use the same table format for all different regions and locations? It would make it easier to keep track of the same information in different countries/languages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. A column for a link to what? If you mean interwiki links to Doraemon in their respective language's Wikipedias, isn't the left column on the main Doraemon article good enough for that? And I believe the person that made the tables didn't have enough information to do that for other places. _dk (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the main article will have them, but it doesn't hurt to have them in this one, too, especially if trying to show the information from multiple language articles. And yes, you understood what I meant for the additional column containing a link. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For my box idea, I mean something like this. _dk (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea (with language names substituted for national flags), but I seem to recall that the use of JavaScript in articles causes accessibility problems for users with incompatible browsers (including some screen readers) and sites that mirror our content. —David Levy 08:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Collapsible templates are all around Wikipedia and I don't see people complaining about them, so I think it's okay. This is more like a prototype anyways. I used national flags since cluttering was an issue...we can always use abbreviations though. _dk (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with the technical concerns, so it would be important to consult someone who is.
National flags wouldn't work because they represent countries, not languages.
But again, I really do like this idea. I hope that it's something that we can use. —David Levy 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
National flags could work because some countries have their own dubs. Dragonball Z has been dubbed in Spain, Mexico and Venezuela with different casts (effectively having three different Spanish dubs). Animax Asia airs some anime in English that hasn't been licensed in America or the UK (like the Black Jack TV series). But to further complicate things, Harlock has aired in Spanish and Catalan.
I'm not saying I support this action, but it's something to consider.--Nohansen (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
While national flags obviously wouldn't work in instances in which the same dub was used in multiple countries, we could use them to differentiate between/among country-specific dubs into the same language (such as the one that you cited). —David Levy 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"First format"

The animanga Manual of Style says "article introductions should be primarily about the first format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work." I understand this is to discourage stuff like "[Naruto, Monster, Genshiken] is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name"... but in cases where a manga or novel (based on the anime) came out before the anime, does this rule still stand?

I bring this up because of Shigofumi: Stories of Last Letter and an article that, being the first one that I got to GA, is very dear to me: The Big O. The Shigofumi anime is considered the original work, despite the novels being produced first. The Big O manga came out three months before the anime premiere to build up interest in the TV series, the manga being based on Sunrise's anime.

Does this mean I will have to rewrite the whole Big O article? Say it isn't so!--Nohansen (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the original work was the anime, it should definitely then be cited first in the introduction. There are several instances of original TV anime series (e.g. Escaflowne) whose manga or light novel adaptations have been released prior to its broadcast date, due to various reasons pertaining to the series' production and promotional hype, etc. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should change that to "original format" instead of "first format." Doceirias (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with this. I have wanted to keep the Shigofumi article about an "anime with light novels based off it" rather than the other way around, though I wasn't able to due to this "first format" business. Even when I brought up the fact that Little Busters! had a manga adaptation a year and a half before the game came out, and that the game is still obviously considered the original work, that still didn't work for the Shigofumi article.--十八 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I already changed the guideline. Since the anime being the original work is a verifiable fact, there should be no reason for that article to end up any other way. Doceirias (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement site. While it may be ok to include the creators' take in the article, the article's arrangement has to be decided in accordance with a real-world perspective, after all, an encyclopedia is about the impact of a subject on the real world. Why do you think third-party sources (unrelated to the creators of the subject) are requiered for notability? Because they demonstrate the impact of said subject on the real world, and that impact is what makes a subject notable. Following that premise, we should have the first product as primary subject of the article because is the one that had contact with the real world first — in an encyclopedia the real world takes precedent over the subject itself and its creators; this is more clear in articles about fiction. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But that's the kicker: there are some series/shows where the first published item is not the original item as the first published item is used to advertise, promote, or build excitement for the original item. It's like novelizations of movies (that aren't already based on something else): the novelization often comes a few months prior to the movie coming out, but it's the movie that's considered the original, and it's the movie that is the main focus of any article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not the point. It doesn't matter what product is considered the original, even less if that consideration comes from the creators, as they're not a third-party source. The readers, the audience, the reviewers which are the third-party sources we use most of the time in articles about fiction - they are the real world, and their first contact with the product is not with the "original" product, but with the first one. So we should arrange the article that way. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
An encyclopedia has to be accurate. Verifiably accurate, but accurate. Third party sources that make an incorrect assumption about the work because of faulty/lazy research - or are just outright making things up - do not outweigh first party sources that contradict this. I could see relying on third party sources in the absence of clear sources proving otherwise, but in the case of Shigofumi, we have several sources proving that the anime is the original work, which means we have no choice but to make it the primary topic of the article's lead. Anything else would be failing in our responsibilities as an encyclopedia. Doceirias (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But I'm not talking about what is cosidered original and what not. The fact is that, real-world wise, the first product is the first product. Arranging the article that way is as natural for the lead as it is for the infobox. In the case of Shigofumi, I have no problem stating that the anime is considered by the creators as the original product; that's also a fact. But these things are unrelated. Arrangement by putting the first thing as first is natural because is consistent with the real world: the first Shigofumi out there in the real world was the novel series. This is fact, and part of the real-world perspective an encyclopedia must follow. EDIT: and I don't see any issues with accuracy; having the first format first doesn't contradict the fact that a following format is considered the original. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what Nihonjoe said; this is an encyclopedia, and we need to base things on the primary work, not the adaptations - even if those adaptations come out first. Doceirias (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kazu, you're still not listening to my argument. If you honestly believe what you are saying, are you prepared to rewrite the articles for Little Busters! and Touka Gettan to be primarily about a manga even though the visual novels are the original work? The fact remains that the Shigofumi novels wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Tomorō Yuzawa drafting up the premise for the anime in the first place.--十八 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's put Little Busters! aside, as this is an article about the visual novel itself, with the related media as related media. This is evident just by looking at the article's name (the related media series (manga, novel) have different names). Tōka Gettan is a different case though, but just by looking at it it's clear that we don't really have to rewrite that much: it's mostly correctly arranged already. Look at the infobox and then look at media. Honestly, we just need to do some re-wording on the lead to reflect the articles' current arrangement and that's it. And yes, if we reach concesus I would do it mayself. Edit: about Shigofumi- tha may be a fact, but the novels are still the first shigofumi out in the real world. Edit2: reading Little Busters! a bit more carefully, I'm starting to think that it should be re-arranged too. It would be a lot of work but I'd be willing to do it. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you right now that I would strongly suggest against editing Little Busters! in that fashion. You are up against a wall of consensus here Kazu, and no one else seems to agree with you on this one. The point of the guideline was to make sure that articles on anime/manga weren't adaptation-centric, but you seem to seriously want to go against that guideline.--十八 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep going on about the real world, but I genuinely don't understand why you want a novelization to be mentioned before the work the article is about. Obviously, the novels coming out first should be mentioned, but the article is about the primary work; the entire point of this guideline is to keep the article from focusing on adaptations at the cost of the original work - which articles can be prone to do, since adaptations often end up being more popular than the original. We're going to see a lot more work being done on the manga for Ikebukuro West Gate Park, for instance; it was released here, while the original novels and the TV series (which is better than either) have not. But it is important that the novels are the first part of the lead, even if the actual article is not very balanced at all. That way, at least the framework is in place for future revisions. The same situation applies, regardless of the actual timing. To use Nihonjoe's example - what you are essentially proposing is that the lead to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace calls it a novel by Terry Brooks. It came out first...but it would make no sense to start the lead with the secondary property. Doceirias (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

On a related note, the Manual of Style asks for "official English titles for article names". What about when there are no official English titles? Take these two cases:

  • Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. It has been suggested that the article name be changed to When They Cry because that's the official English name for the anime. But as Higurashi is mainly a visual novel series, it hasn't be changed.
  • Hajime no Ippo. The article is named Fighting Spirit (manga), but there is no "Fighting Spirit manga". The Hajime no Ippo manga still hasn't been released in English speaking countries. Only the anime is known as Fighting Spirit.

Which is better?--Nohansen (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the article's scope in question. As you stated, only the name "When They Cry" applies to the first season of the anime series, while every other incarnation retains the original title, and seeing as the main article is structured to have the games as the main focus, the title of the article remains Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. Now, if say we had a separate article for the first anime series, then that would be named "When They Cry" do to the article's scope. Similarly, I think Hajime no Ippo should probably have the original title whenever anything but the anime is concerned.--十八 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up once before on the Project's talk page but others said it was a debate on semantics, that since the article was about both the manga and the anime the anime title could be used. But I don't know... I believe that if an article is about the [manga, anime or visual novel] it should be named after the [manga, anime or visual novel], even if an adaptation has been released under another title.--Nohansen (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A similar issue is with the article Dazzle (manga) which has an anime out with the original title Hatenkō Yūgi, but the article reflects this by saying the "anime retained the original title" and that only the manga was licensed under the title Dazzle by Tokyopop. A similar situation could be applied for any number of articles, Hajime no Ippo included.--十八 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Live-action movie adaptations

What infobox template do we use for live-action movie adaptations?

Using Template:Infobox animanga/Movie automatically adds the Category:Anime films. That might be useful, but Nana, Honey and Clover and Boogiepop and Others (just to name a few) don't have animated movies. They're live-action films and not even based on anime, but on light novels and manga series. Could someone create a component for live-action movies, or remove the feature that adds the "Anime films" category?

By the way, Template:Infobox animanga/Drama also places articles in the "Anime films" category. Someone must fix that; it should be Category:Japanese television dramas.--Nohansen (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the category on the drama box with the correct category, but I think someone more adapt at complicated template-code will have to alter the movie box to display the anime films category some of the time, and another category for live-action films for the rest of the time, similar to how it works with the novel box versus the light novel box.--十八 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles/Archive_2&oldid=1140255014"