Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Request for Comments: List of anime conventions

For the last few days, I've been having problems with an anonymous editor who keeps putting Anime South onto the List of anime conventions. Unfortunately for Anime South, it currently doesn't meet the criteria or the exceptions clause that were established several months ago. The anon first stated that Anime South should be included because they predict that it will have 2,000+ attendees next year. When I shot that down as crystal balling, the anon then tried to state that Anime South was the largest con in the state. That was quickly shot down when I pointed out Metrocon in Tampa, Fl which is far larger. The anon is now trying to state that because there are not other cons within a 300 mile radius, then it should be listed anyways, even though no such exception was was made in the listing criteria.

I highly suspect that the anonymous editor is an Anime South staffer. And though there is a chance that consensus on the listing criteria may change as a result, I really feel that more people need to weigh in on the situation before it deteriorates further. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The stubborn Anime South editor is back at it again. I'm no longer amused by his attempts to twist the wording of the page's criteria by changing ands into ors. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I try and keep up with anime cons as I like to attend them, and i often look for ones in the south so I can plan vacations around them, and i have to say I've never even heard of anime south, if it's as big as he says I surely would've heard of it through one my friends (i have no life and have lots of anime nerd friends who keep me posted on cons:P) so unless he can point out some reliable sources that say that its a pretty big con then it shouldn't be listed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They are a two year moderately sized convention in the western panhandle of Florida. And I do believe you hit the core of the issue. I think the only reason for this mess is because they want to use the list as a form of advertisement. By being on the list, more people are likely to learn about their convention. Unfortunately, they don't understand that is not what Wikipedia, nor the list, should be about. And to that how the Anime South editor is trying to find some sort of loophole in List of anime conventions' criteria so that Anime South can be listed. First by using a prediction that AS will have 2k+ attendees next year, then saying AS was the largest con in the Florida, then implying that the western panhandle is not part of the same state as the rest of Florida because it's in a different timezone, then attempting to change the criteria by saying that a convention only needs to meet one point instead of all three. --TheFarix (Talk) 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Now s/he is removing the unreferenced tag from the Anime South article and adding a speculative sentence of when Anime South 2007 will be, even though I haven't seen a official statement about the date on the Anime South website. It also seems, he is in retaliation mode by adding an unreferenced tag to the Tsubasacon article, an article which I've contributed heavily until a few months ago. But I would really like other peoples comments on the matter. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: Out of options at finding loopholes in the criteria, s/he makes this argument that the list's criteria is irrelevant because of the list's title.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheFarix (talkcontribs) 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Lain FAC again!

Hi everyone, I really don't mean to spam, but I figured it's not everyday that an anime attempts the FAC, so you might want to know that the discussion about Serial Experiments Lain is happening here. Happy holydays to all!--SidiLemine 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have created a navigational box and a few pages so that the WikiProject can keep a track of all the candidates for Featured articles, Good articles, peer reviews, etc. I'm sick of missing out on contributing because I didn't know that they had started. The only times I have been able to contribute is when someone posts a note on this talk page like this one and the Big O one directly below it. Perhaps having these pages will keep us more organized in reviewing articles. --Squilibob 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Serial Experiments Lain has passed FAC, and is now a Featured Article. Congratulations! --PresN 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
YAY! That's another one. IMHO, having 4-5 FAs in the project would be a great help to have it rolling. i.e., it would make easier to say: "take example on ______ , it has what it takes." My next target is NGE, in case anyone wants to know.--SidiLemine 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for The Big O

I've been editing The Big O for the past several weeks, and I'm interested in seeing feedback from the members of WikiProject Anime and manga. Also, the article is still assesed as "Start-class." Can anything be done about that? I'm not saying its A or FA yet, but it'd be nice to have an idea where it stands now.--Nohansen 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated The Big O for GA-status. I'd like to know what you guys think.--Nohansen 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article seems up to snuff now, possibly even FAC material. Please take a minute to voice an opinion here so we can close the nom.--SidiLemine 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anime vs. Manga - Variations

Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to add a section in each article that explains variations between the anime and manga versions of a particular series? or an explanation of where the manga picks up where the anime left off? I have often found myself finishing an anime and then wanting to read the manga to get the longer story. It might not be necessary to add a whole new section in some cases, but think that the idea should be seriously considered in the editing of anime or manga series articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The problem with this idea is that the sections will be a huge magnet for original research. So it's best to leave it out of any article guidelines. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Collapsing with Show/Hide changes

I just posted this on the Infobox talk, but I thought I would post it here too since it also applies to the WikiProject notice.

The Show/Hide ability that was being used with NavFrame was breaking other tables such as the Navbox on the bottom of One Piece. The collapsibility is hard coded in the common javascript file so that any NavFrame would show by default no matter what unless there was more than 2 on the page in which case it would hide no matter what. We wanted our network_other and publisher_other fields to hide no matter what and so we nested two Navframes for each. We also used display:none as a backup. From what I have read any other NavFrames on a page would inherit the style of the first NavFrame. This would break any navbox that would use the NavFrame as they would automatically hide even if the editors wanted them to show by default. I have changed it so that the infobox uses the table style of collapsing. --Squilibob 10:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the entire point of the One Piece infobox that it be hidden by default? If not then there really is no advantage to making it collapsible from a readership perspective. Good work with the template though. --tjstrf talk 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not according to the talk page. Users were asking why it wasn't displaying properly. --Squilibob 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In article space, if something at the very tail end of a page is not hidden by default then it may as well not be collapsible. Hiding is used for tables of contents, extra long lists, and other stuff that interferes with the page layout or readability when present in full. There is no point to making it hidden if it's at the very end of the page because it won't screw up anything else. But then, I've always hated the One Piece navbox because it's so unnecessarily huge. --tjstrf talk 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Anime convention artilces needing sources

I just went through and tagged almost all of the anime convention articles as {{unreferenced}}, {{moresources}}, and/or {{primarysources}}. This is a shame because many of these articles are good articles. So I encourage everyone to find and include as many appropriate sources as they can. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for bringing this up, I'll start working on it now :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contains Japanese text

I created the Template:Contains Japanese text to mirror that of Template:Contains Chinese text, since obviously the latter is too misleading to use in our articles (even though kanji technically is Chinese text). Should we go ahead and start sticking it in (pretty much) every anime/manga article? It's usually put under the "External links" btw.--SeizureDog 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) if other users like it I'll help you put it in articles --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll be adding this to articles too. --Squilibob 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet another infobox to add to articles. Could we not incorporate this, and the portal link, into the present animanga infobox? --TheFarix (Talk) 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be easy to incorporate into the footer of the infobox, but as SeizureDog said, it usually is placed in the external links section. A separate template could be a good idea though. --Squilibob 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there weren't really any objections except for TheFarix, im gonna go ahead and start adding this to the articles :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've finished putting the tag on all the Former and Current GA/FA articles. now im gonna start working my way through the ranks! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think this is such a good idea. I'd say more, but it's already up on TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 1 -- Ned Scott 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have voted to keep the template, but I don't think adding it to random articles is a good idea. I think the usage needs to be limited to articles with blocks of Japanese text, or articles in which not seeing the Japanese could cause the reader to be confused as to the meaning of the article. Most of these are going to be pages related to WP:Japan rather than WP:ANIME. Bleach (manga) is not a good place to put this template. If you want to put it on Hiragana, I'd support that completely. Dekimasu 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for some external input on Tokyo Mew Mew article

Discussion moved to Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew due to length. Please continue to contribute.

Japanese names vs 'official' US ones

Is there actually any policy or convention on the subject? Someone editing Princess Tutu just changed everything from Ahiru to Duck. Now granted, Duck is the official English name, but it seems almost the same argument at color vs colour -- the choise of the person who originally wrote the majority should be respected. I haven't payed much attention to anime articles to the extent of seeing a pattern, but for instance Sailor Moon gives the Japanese names without even mention of English names until later. Pokémon (anime) on the other hand, which is a similar situation (anime not original media, broadcast as a dubbed kids show before any video releases) has the English names as the 'main' ones. It's interesting to note that at least on the net, Sailor Moon characters are very familiar in their Japanese names, while Pokemon they aren't -- the former I would say is the case of Tutu as it had a large following from fansubs (like SM). Anyone wanna share thoughts on this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Overriding guideline is to use the most common form. As to what that common form is, you'll probably have to argue it out among yourselves. Some pages use Japanese names exclusively, others use commercial names exclusively, and a couple have a strong consensus to go with weird mixes. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the Name (名前 Namae?) format. We should use official English names and titles as much as possible, while still giving the original Japanese names. I perfer using official names over what fanboys happen to prefer.--SeizureDog 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Sailor Moon is a bad example. Usagi Tsukino is Serena in the dubbed anime, Bunny in the translated manga; Stars has never been licensed and the entire series is now unlicensed. Using the Japanese names seems more common sense because of these facts.--Squilibob 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Sailor Moon dub was interesting in that it used idealogical translations for names. The name Serena is heavily linked with the moon goddess Selene, and Bunny=Usagi. Why they went for a translation of the first name in one and the last name in the other, no-one knows. I can't say I really support the idea, but in a way translating a name like Recca Hanabishi as Pyr Explaudere when localizing is even more accurate than keeping it in the original form would be.
I wonder what's going to happen to the One Piece pages now anyway? Name choice there has always been a hot subject. With the death of the dubbed anime, there is really no excuse for claiming the commercial names as being "more widely known", so it's now a choice between Viz and a bunch of web fans. --tjstrf talk 06:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
err...don't the ViZ names also count as being "commercial names?" --`/aksha 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's see here. First off, the Name (名前 Namae?) is fine for the character list...but what about the rest of the article? I'm partial to Ahiru, but only because I saw the fansubs first (not to mention watch it in Japanese, so I heard the word). But I dunno how others see it...the person went and changed every 'Ahiru' to duck (and even removed an explnation as stated on the DVD why they didn't leave it alone in the translation). I'm thinking of reverting it all, then using the Name (名前 Namae?) thing (before it was just Ahiru/Duck). IIRC, all the other names are only possibly different because of romanization issues -- only names of characters who had animal names were changed at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The rule is to use the most common name used by English speakers. In this case, it is highly likely that "Duck" will be the most common name. As for One Piece, I don't see how the names will change even though 4Kids is no longer dubbing new episodes. The same goes for Sailor Moon. Just because a series's English license has expired doesn't mean that the names revert back to Japanese.
And to correct one misconceptions, the English version of the Sailor Moon manga still used Serena as Usagi's English name. However, Mixx gave her the nickname of "Bunny" to better reference to rabbit symbolism. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll also add that this can't be compared to color and colour, which is the same word in the same language, but with a different spelling. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the US dvd release of Princess Tutu is a failure (per the report on ANN's website which is linked from the talk page for Princess Tutu), wouldn't it be more likely that Ahiru is more commonly used by US fans, since Tutu actually had a good following when it was fansubbed? Kyaa the Catlord 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You know my "when in doubt" rule when it comes to common names. And that would favor the English names. This is also in keeping with policies WP:NAME#Use English words and WP:ENGLISH --TheFarix (Talk) 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What's in doubt? ADV admits that sales for Princess Tutu were so bad that they considered stopping production. This would suggest that even those who enjoyed the show in the native language were unwilling to support ADV's liscense and the changes they made. The translated names are not popular amoungst fans, so we should use the more widely used "Ahiru" for her rather than ADV's ill-conceived edit. Kyaa the Catlord 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
For the case of Princess Tutu, I would use the original names. Viz manga and ADV anime is in limited circulation such that the causal person would more probably first knew the series, and its characters, in its romaji name. --Samuel Curtis-- TALK 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no way you can proove that ADV's release sold badly just because they decided the translate the main character's name per fairy tale conventions. It's not something arbitrary at all. It was explained by the translator Shoko Oono (who is a professional translator for many anime titles) in the commentary on the first DVD. --EmperorBrandon 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCON: Naming is descriptive not prescriptive. --Samuel Curtis-- TALK 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That guideline's still not going to help in some cases. Mostly because of the indeterminable use of names offline, and the endless arguments about what counts as "the most official". I would say an author Romanization is "the most official", because the author is the final authority on the work since he invented it. Others would swear on Zero's grave that the licenser's dubbing is the most official. Hooray for rules written for application to the real world. --tjstrf talk 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It really does depend on the series, too, especially for shows like Sailor Moon where the English version was total nonsense, both inconsistent with itself and wildly different from the Japanese. --Masamage 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's where the "not egregariously bad" clause comes in. (But of course, opinions on what counts as egregariously bad will differ...) --tjstrf talk 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the use of whatever name is most common among English-speakers. --Masamage 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most common" is the most difficult thing to determine, IMO, by my experience in the Case Closed saga. Also, since we have to look into how non-otaku (Western meaning) would more likely refer to, names usually used in fansubs would not have much impact unless one is sure anyone would most likely to see that name first when they got knew of the subject.
Also is the problem of "English speakers." It can either mean the sum of Anglophones, or anyone with enough English ability to participate here; part of the problem in Case Closed is on this. --Samuel Curtis-- TALK 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Another problem with the most common guideline is consistency. A long series may not have commercially translated names forthcoming for newly introduced terms and figures within the next 3-5 years, depending on how far the manga is ahead of the English publishers. This leaves users in an uncomfortable bind that may be impossible to logically resolve to satisfy all rules.
They can pick Japanese-only terms (for things that have not yet been commercially translated) mixed intermittently with English-only ones (for things that have), which meets "use most common" from some perspectives but reads horribly and is internally inconsistent.
They can be consistent by using Japanese terms throughout with copious notes of what was changed in the English version, but be in possible violation of "use most common" depending on who you ask.
And then we have the contrived substitute option of using dubbed names where available and Wikipedian-made literal translations into English for what isn't yet. This results in a consistent application of English but a horrendous violation of use most common, since Wikipedia is using terms that are used nowhere else and have no official support from anyone at all. --tjstrf talk 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is why I would like to, for longer and bigger series, having individual naming conventions to prevent problems. Cleaning up CC/DC names is already tiring enough... but I doubt if that would be concurred by many. --Samuel Curtis-- TALK 08:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That works fine when you have editors who all feel the same way. When there are significant differences of opinion though, it makes for constant slow edit-warring with people going and changing poor Zoro-I-mean-Zolo-I-mean...'s name every 2 days. --tjstrf talk 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banner

Just what has happened to the project banner lately? It use to be fairly simple and clean, but now it is a cluttered beast that just doesn't look good. Do we really need the portal link in the banner and do the other links have to be on there, especially when they wrap under normal circumstances? And why does the todo list show up while the page is loading, I don't ever remember it doing that before.

It may be time to just trim the banner down to it essential parts, (intro text, image, and assessment grades) and then discuss what else should be included. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the suggested removal of the To Do list and extra links. I think those things were there before article assessment came along, (but not the portal link). Read the Collapsing with Show/Hide changes section above to see why the to do list is the way it is. --Squilibob 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
One, the "display:none" will not be inherited by other blocks with the same class. That is just flat out misinformation. Two, I don't think problem you gave with NavFrame will be of much concern on talk pages, where NavFrames are used to hide things instead of display them. And frankly I think the appear-then-disappearing content boxes are far more annoying. --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No point in changing it back if it's about to be removed altogether. As long as no one objects we can go ahead and simplify it. --Squilibob 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for putting back some kind of link to the portal. It needs to be advertised. With the current un-clutering of the template a simple text link might be enough. --GunnarRene 07:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP AM Newsletter

Just letting everyone know that The Big O is still on hold for GA, and that Kanon and RahXephon are on peer review, to go to GAC and FAC, respectively. The links above are really great, but could it be possible to make the lists directly available here on this talk page? Exposure would be much better that way. Everyone, please help these articles get good enough to pass!! Thanks in advance, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talkcontribs) 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Japan's project page has recently been revised to have a table at the top with all the recent candidates in it. I've had a play around with it and perhaps we could use it too if it was small enough. Example:
Article Peer reviews Candidate for Achieved
Kanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1st GA candidate.svgGood Article B
Neon Genesis Evangelion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1st   B
RahXephon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1st A-class  
The Big O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1st GA candidate.svgGood Article B
Something like that could be put on the top of our project page and the stuff that is there can be moved to each relevant section. I don't know about putting something on this talk page though, one week after the archive and look how big it is already. --Squilibob 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This looks really good. I understand the size concern, but I don't think many participants browse the project page on a regular basis, as opposed to this talk page. If it could be secured around the templates area, I'm sure it would be of considerable help.--SidiLemine 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it would be at the top of the Project page. It's not difficult to hit Shift+Alt+C or click the project link at the top of the page. Anyone can put the separate pages for Peer Reviews/GA/FAC on their watchlist and can put the WikiProject News template on their watchlist to be notified if there are any new candidates. People usually notify if they just nominated a page here as well so that's three ways to notify people already. --Squilibob 10:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right. That's enough already, particularly if everyone (well, the regulars at least) keep the pages watched. By the way (as you say this page is good for notifying too), Elfen Lied is a GAC! It needs copyediting, and maybe a few restructurings (see talk) too, but otherwise seems like it will pass without problem.--SidiLemine 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Working Groups

Late last month, we were discussing creating a few task forces, also known as working groups, to handle vast sections of the articles within the WikiProject's scope.

First I like to propose that the many of the decedent WikiProjects should be consolidated under WP:Anime. Those include the Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week, WikiProject Sailor Moon, and WikiProject Gundam. The laster two will be turned into Working Groups of WP:Anime. I believe the remaining decedent WikiProjects have scopes that are outside that of WP:Anime, so they should remain as they are.

Along with these two working groups, create the following working groups based on general areas:

  • Voice actors (English and Japanese)
  • Manga publishers/Mangaka
  • Anime clubs/conventions
  • Anime studios

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheFarix (talkcontribs) 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I would kind of like a visual novels task force as well (or anime games, whatever). I could very likely end up being the only active person, but perhaps help could be gained in articles in which visual novels get adapted (such as Kanon).--SeizureDog 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need some sort of "maintenance" taskforce. A group that will moniter categories, search for new articles, update the requested articles pages, etc. --Kunzite 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a maintenance task force. We can't always get people to edit the articles or groups of article we want, but we can make it easier to do so. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe we should consolidate a lot of the categories we have. Specifically, the genres. It gets a little redundant to list all of the genres for the anime, then all of the genres for the manga. Perhaps still keep the categories, but also make "Genre anime and manga" categories to put most articles in. That way, if the series is only manga or only anime, it can still have use the old categories.--SeizureDog 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That might not be a bad idea. However, can we really justify keeping the individual genre anime/manga categories if we create "Genre anime and manga" categories? Also, I remember running across one title were the anime and manga were genres. --Farix (Talk) 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it depends. Does the 'and' refer to the fact that the category includes manga only sereis and anime only series of a specific genre? or does it refer only to series that have both manga and anime adaptations? It's hard to word this so it makes sense. Here's an example though: should Believers include a category that says "Romance anime and manga" when it doesn't have an anime? or is that too misleading?--SeizureDog 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is particularly misleading, but it could lead to misunderstanding. But at the same time, if you create "Romance anime and manga" under the guise of "consolidating" categories, then you can't justify why the old unconsolidated categories should be kept. After all, my understanding of consolidation is combining categories to reduce the total number you have to maintain, not to create more. --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen something interesting done by WP:Comics that we may want to duplicate. Essentially, they incorporated some of the more common cleanup tags that affect their articles into their project banner. (Yes, I know I complained about the cluttered up banner before.) The banner then automatically sorted the article's talk page into one of project's cleanup categories. --Farix (Talk) 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Conventions Work Group

I have started the draft for the Conventions Work Group. I settled for just "Conventions" instead of "Anime Conventions" so that we can also cover conventions like MangaNEXT and Comiket which aren't strictly anime conventions. Heck, we may even have a few cosplay conventions that we don't know about either. ;) --Farix (Talk) 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anime game articles need consolidating

The anime game articles have a real identity crisis going on. The core problem is that they don't seem to have a well defined genre structure. What is a sub-genre of what? Here is a lis of the problems as I see it:

  • Is anime game even a real term? And if so, does it really cover everything the article says it does? It seems to specfically apply to games based off of anime, with the other genres (visual novel, dating sim, etc.) lumped in from people who don't know what the games are really called. It seems to me that 'anime games' should be moved to something more along the lines of Video games based on anime, and a seperate article be created in its place to cover the actual genres. The best I can come up with is Adventure games in Japan.
  • Are dating sims a true genre, or are they a sub-genre of visual novels? What exactly is a dating sim? Is it just a game where you choice which girl you want to end up with? Because there are plenty of visual novels like that. Dating sims almost always share the same visual format as visual novels as well.
  • Is bishōjo game really a genre? "Has hot chicks" seems overly vague to me. It's more of a concept than a genre.
  • Renai game is too redudant with visual novels and dating sims since 95+% of visual novels and 100% of dating sims (by their very nature) are ren'ai. I'm not sure what to do with it, but the article needs to be gotten rid of.

*All pairings, GxB, and BL game all need to be merged into dating sim.

I propose an article to this format. "Concepts" may not be the right word for that one section, but how do you define them? For example: there really isn't such a thing as an eroge, just a visual novel (or simulation game, etc.) with eroge elements. Comments please.--SeizureDog 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Some dating sims are not visual novels, like the ones where you schedule yourself to meet each girl or build stats. (Kimikiss, Tokimeki Memorial, Dōkyūsei for example), so the genre cannot be a subgenre of visual novels. I don't know enough about anime games, but I think you're going in the right direction with the split. _dk 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen, dating sims generally end up looking like visual novels with the added element of stats. For instance, without prior knowledge, can you tell that Tokimeki Memorial isn't just a visual novel? Dating sims seem to follow the same graphical format as a visual novel; I don't see any 3D dating sims (though there may be a couple). So in my mind, a dating sim is just a more advanced form of a ren'ai visual novel. --SeizureDog 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Illusion Soft makes a few 3D dating sims...though most are more like sex simulations. And, by your same reasoning, one can say Utawarerumono is a visual novel since the plot part uses the same graphical format as a visual novel...except that it's actually a SPRG. From my experience, the dating sim differs from a visual novel in the following ways:
  • In a dating sim, you can move your character freely; in a visual novel, you are only given choices on where to go only once or twice.
  • In a dating sim, the emphasis is on stats (the girl's level of affection); but the visual novel is on the appropriateness of your choices.
  • Dating sims gives recycled and generic dialogue while a visual novel often doesn't. (for example, asking Mao in Kimikiss about her favourite food will give you "Have you forgotten? Crabs, I say, crabs!" every time)
  • A visual novel allows for more dynamic events, whereas a dating sim follow set thresholds. (Encounter -> Become friends -> bf/gfs -> hugs and kisses -> bleep)
  • Dating sims use some element of "time" so that you can only do so many things per day, but visual novels have no such things - just choices choices and more choices.
  • In general, visual novels are more plot-centric than dating sims, which are more like "adjust yourself to her liking".
In short, a visual novel isn't much of a dating "simulation". _dk 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Leaf considers Utawarerumono a SLG (simulation game) and an AVG (adventure game, which probably is just a synonym for visual novel in this case).[2] Granted, there are many things about dating sims that seperate them from visual novels, but I still think they share more similarities than differences. Perhaps the issue should just be avoided by saying that they are similar genres instead of one being part of another. In any case, you made me realize I can't call the article "Adventure games in Japan" since dating sims are simulation games and not adventure games (I don't see how I missed that in the first place). Damn. Well, what to call it now? Computer games in Japan? That leaves out stuff like Tokimeki, put most of what we're dealing with here is what dominates the Japanese computer game market (and not so much on consoles). Could also go with something along the lines of Japan-exclusive video game genres. Has an English visual novel or dating sim ever really been made? Leisure Suit Larry kinda counts I guess... Damn, this is so difficult. Ideas?--SeizureDog 09:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I took a look in the ja wiki, and they seem to group dating sims and visual novels under ren'ai games....seems reasonable, but then I wouldn't consider the visual novel planetarian to be a ren'ai game (maybe it is, just maybe). I'm starting to realize why there are so many seemingly redundant articles in the first place. _dk 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. It's annoying because each of these genres seem 95% the same, but that 5% screws everything up. 95% of eroge are visual novels, but 5% aren't. 95% of ren'ai games are visual novels, but 5% aren't. 95% of bishoujo games are visual novels, but 5% aren't. 95% of visual novels and dating sims are for the PC, but 5% aren't. The percentages are made up of course, but these exceptions are maddening.--SeizureDog 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I tried my best to break them down into simple (?) logic statements:

  • All visual novels are adventure games.
  • Not all visual novels are ren'ai games. (eg. Higurashi no Naku Koro ni)
  • All dating sims are ren'ai games.
  • Not all ren'ai games are anime games. (If they used real video footages or photos, then it's no anime game)
  • Not all bishoujo games are ren'ai games. (eg. Touhou Project, Twinkle Star Sprites, etc)
  • Not all eroge are ren'ai games. (eg. Sentimental Shooting, various strip mahjong games, etc)
  • All bishoujo games are anime games.
  • Not all eroge are anime games. (again, videos or photos of real people make them not anime games)

As it stands, there seems to be no ideal general term that encompasses all the topics we want to cover...although, since a majority of visual novels and dating sims are ren'ai games, I think it is safe to develop the ren'ai game article according to your draft. We'll just have to specify that not all visual novels are ren'ai games. (If we can create an article called Otaku-bait games it'll be all fine, I tell you...) _dk 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it does seem that ren'ai game is the best solution, as it includes both dating sims and visual novels. I'll see if I can get something working there.--SeizureDog 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have:

Next problem is the categories:

What else needs to be done?--SeizureDog 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "ren'ai game" is an unneeded Japanese importation. The correct term in common usage by video game magazines and major websites in the English speaking world is "dating sim". It doesn't matter that the term "dating sim" doesn't technically apply to non-simulation games; the word "manga" in Japan is commonly used for anime as well, and it's simply seen as a correct form through popular usage. The "ren'ai game" article is a neologism without reliable sources which should actually be deleted. Ashibaka (tock) 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What English magazines actually talk about visual novels? And I hope you're not suggesting that we move visual novels under dating sims, because that would be far more misleading and incorrect. I checked various visual novels on IGN, and it inconsistantly called them the following: 'love simulation', 'dating sim' (only once), 'adventure game with a love/relationship twist', 'love relationship adventure', and 'other adventure'. Obviously, it's not surprising that they don't use 'ren'ai', but they do use 'love' often to describe it as a genre, which would really just be the simple translation of 'ren'ai'. We could just call them 'love games', but I think that would be stupid. Simply put, I don't think it matters much what video game magazines call them when they only have the most passing of mention in them. Also, the article specifically states that most (not all) visual novels are ren'ai; just because less than 2% happen to not be ren'ai isn't a reason to remove the section. Finally, do you have any answers as to what should be the overbranching article? As I see it, this is as close as we're going to get.--SeizureDog 06:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Dating sim" is the English term for "ren'ai game."
    Example: [3] despite the fact that To Heart is a visual novel and not a simulation game.
  • "Visual novel" is the English term for "ADV game" or "AVG."
    So if there was a "Use Japanese" policy on Wikipedia (rather than WP:UE) you'd know what to follow.

The over-arching article was anime game until you messed it up. You broke it, you fix it. I have no ideas other than "anime game" but "ren'ai game" is doubly wrong: it is a neologism and it does not cover the very visual novels which have popularized the medium (not genre) in the English-speaking world. Ashibaka (tock) 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ren'ai game" -wikipedia in Google produces 552 hits. "dating sim" -wikipedia produces over 300000 hits (and at least the first few pages are all on-topic). I wouldn't say that "ren'ai game" has *no* uses, but it's certainly a lot less common. Ken Arromdee 03:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan's birthday

Wikipe-tan's present

Hi. Just reminding related projects that Wikipe-tan's birthday is comming up. Celebrations in the temple: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipe-tan/Temple#Happy birthday --GunnarRene 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what all the cakes were about. --Squilibob 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would include the new image here because it is excellent. --Squilibob 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yay! What's in the box? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talkcontribs) 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
School swimsuits! :P Kyaa the Catlord 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
They'll have to be ordered specially at her size then ;). Maybe bloomers? There's no pool until summer.--SidiLemine 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
SHARK! Unbelievable! Aaiaiiaiai! --GunnarRene 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Quick question: Typically, what is used as an article title for a Japanese exclusive anime with a Japanese title in Kanji? Combination 12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) it should be to translate to English. It's also good practice to create a redirect from the Romaji version of the title. The only exceptions are when the subject is better known by its Romaji name then it's translated English name. (e.x. Ai Yori Aoshi) However, articles should never be titled using Kanji. --Farix (Talk) 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Japan-exclusive anime don't have English names. Unless they're like NARUTO where the title is Romanized already, the only title that they bear is the Japanese one. Use the Romaji form with a redirect from the translation. As an example of what I mean, look at Ibara no Ō. The English translation is King of Thorns, but since it was never released in English, King of Thorns is not its name. It is a redirect, however. --tjstrf talk 04:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's not been translated into English a professional licensor, just use a romanization of the title. (WP:MOS-JA gives Wikipedia's standart method of romanization.) DO NOT title an article with an English-language title that has never been used by a licensor. We don't want to see things like Kiba sent over to Fang (anime) or Yakitate!! Japan sent to Fresh baked!! National Bread of Japan because that's a translation of the Japanese title. If the anime has a licensed English-language translation, it's a bit more tricky, but most of the time, we use the English title. If the anime has a high likelyhood of getting picked up under a certain English title, but has not yet been picked up by an English language licensor, then use the romanization and the article can be easily redirected when the title is picked up. If you post the name of the series, someone can do the research and/or romanization for you. --Kunzite 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
When in doubt just check out what the fansubbers are using. Although not official or anything, considering an almost equal argument could be made for translation or Romaji, it's a bit of a coin toss between the two. As long as there's a redirect there shouldn't be a major issue. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Name Dispute: Hunter × Hunter

We're having a significant problem with the naming conventions in terms of the series Hunter X Hunter. The rule seems to be "Go with the most 'popular' name" in terms of all characters. However, this leads to disputes on whether or not they are correct or not. Unfortunately, the discussions generally end up being between another member and myself, with little input from other members. Perhaps we can be given some assistance here.

The creator of the series has romanized the names in the series quite a few times, but they seem to change quite often. Now, the article has chosen to go with the names commonly used in fansubs and scanslations. However, these often disagree with official romanizations by the creator. For example, "Freaks" was the most common translation of the main character's last name. However, it has never been written this way in English from an official source. In a somewhat recent guidebook and in the manga, the name was written as "Freecss" instead of the common use of the name "Freaks." This was done only after a large number of fans in English-speaking countries had read the name as "Freaks" in scanslations. Viz's manga chose to go with "Freecss" in their translation--should we as well? Going to the Wikipedia page for Hunter X Hunter in other languages does not offer help, as the names are inconsistent and use translations such as "Freecs", "Freacks", and "Freeks."

Another large debate is over the name of the character "Kuroro Rushirufuru ("クロロ=ルシルフル"), as the main translations all differ. The most common of them all was the one adopted by fan translations: "Kuroro Lucifer." However, the creator has romanized this in several ways. In the twelfth volume of the series, the name is translated oddly to "Quwrof Wrlccywrlir," a name that does not follow phonetic guidelines in any way. In the handbook created by the makers of the animation, they list his name as "Quoll", and do not give a translation for his last name. In the latest Hunter X Hunter guidebook, his name is romanized as "Chrollo". "Chrollo Lusilfer" is the name chosen by Viz for their adaptation of the series, which is fine. But no one can decide on which name is correct. If we were to go by just the way the words sound, then "Kuroro Lusilfer" would be the closest to the original pronunciation. Obviously, this is a mix of names that has not been used before and would be incorrect. What should be done in this situation?

Finally, there's a concern about using literal translations or going straight to the romaji for organizations and areas. Some names of organizations and places (Such as Genei Ryodan「幻影旅団」or Ryuuseigai 「流星街」) are left untranslated on the site because they are untranslated within the scanslations, and thus more commonly known. Other places (Such as Tenkou Tougijou「天空闘技場」) are translated in scanslations as "Celestial Tower," which takes liberties on the meaning of the words. Using the Naruto Ninjutsu page as my reference, I see that the attacks are all done literally, despite some of these never being used prior. Should we do the same as well?

Any feedback would be appreciated, and I would be happy to give more examples of inconsistencies in translation, and show examples how some translations go against the phonetic pronunciation of certain words. Thank you for your time.

--Mr. Toto 05:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the author romanization and VIZ are both consistent, I think that makes a strong case for Freecss. But in the latter case where the author is self-contradicting, going with Lucifer might make sense because his character does seem to be based on a Lucifer archetype. Either way, the other names should definitely be mentioned. (If all else fails, just go for the directly Romanized forms.)
I consider the Naruto article's use of translated jutsu names that have never been used in any official source rather than romaji to be WP:NOR violating. --tjstrf talk 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, i happen to be the other person in this dispute. In my opinion, a lot of your arguments (regardless of whether they are correct or not) are irrelevant. For example, we can argue about whether a translation is correct or not - in terms of how to romanize japanese, in terms of accuracy...etc. But they're our original research (and opinion)

Togashi (the author) provided romanization for only one name (and that is Ging). He did, however, try to provide english versions of all the names (which are the ones used in the guide books). These are never used - because he contradicts himself often, and because they are a perfect example of what is absurd and 'egregiously bad' ("Quwrof Wrlccywrlir" being a good example). In other words, Togashi's 'translations' from the guide books are basically ignored. They're completely un-used by fans, almost completely un-used by ViZ, and ignored by scanlators and fansubbers.

He provided romanization for "Ging" in the manga itself, and it's obviously canon. He has done so for "Freecss" as well, I believe. I'll find the panel to cite my claims.
--Mr. Toto 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So in summary, we have for this series

  • a single set of names which are VERY OBVIOUSLY the most used ones.
  • a set of names which Togashi had claimed to be 'english versions' (these where used in guidebooks). These contradicted themselves, where completely absurd, and never used in fans...although very few made it to ViZ (actually, i think Freecss was the only one)
  • a few romanizations here and there from semi-official sources (e.g. the "Quoll" in the anime handbook)
  • a set of names from ViZ. Which are...official. And that's it. They're rarely used. I'm not talking about a slightly lower google search result. I'm talking about google search results many many times lower than the ones which are commonly used. ViZ's changed names are almost never heard of in the hxh fandom (e.g. forums, communities, fanfiction...etc).

All of ViZ's names get mentioned as alternative spellings, since they are 'official'. Otherwise, we use the most common. We have the guidelines, they work, we follow them. I don't see why we need to make exceptions here to go with ViZ's 'official' names. --`/aksha 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is only one guidebook. One released much after volume twelve, in which the original romanizations were given. Taking into account that Togashi has had a few years to improve upon his English, and that none of the names given in the guidebook were "egregiously bad", then he has only contradicted himself once. I believe you're confusing the "Hunter's Guide (The official guidebook written by Togashi, which I would hardly call "semi-official.")" with the names given aside pictures in the 12th Volume of the manga. Taking the character Kuroro into account, the name "Quoll" was used by the anime producers, and Togashi had no input in their romanizations. "Quwrof" was used in volume 12 only, and was changed to "Chrollo" in the later release of the Hunter x Hunter guidebook. The names inbetween these two books are the only time he's contradicted himself, and the distance between the release date of both (Volume 12 in Japan was released in July 2001--the official Hunter's Guide was released in June 2004) is too great to take into account the previous one anymore.
The reason that "Chrollo" is not used by fans very much is not only because the guidebook was released after the series' peak in popularity, but it was also never available for the English-speaking fans of Hunter x Hunter to read. Scanlators did not translate this, and a large minority of English-speaking fans even know it exists. Although it is true that Viz translates some names phonetically, others are taken from their direct spellings in the Hunter's Guide.
Many other pages that are part of the Wikipedia Anime and Manga project use names that are more popular in Japan, taking Dragon Ball into account. The name "Krillin" has more results on Google than the original name "Kuririn," and it's undeniable that the former is more popular here due to the fact that most of the English-speaking audience is more familiar with the dub than any other product. However, the original is still used. This is consistent with other characters, such as Mr. Satan (Hercule) and Tullece (Turles). So obviously, not everyone follows the guideline that the name most popular with fans is the one that should be most used.
Also, I am rather confused as to why the names used in scanlations are not counted as "original research." Although it is true that these names were used frequently by fans, a majority of the name romanizations are done by scanlators who are merely guessing. A majority of the names used are totally unverifiable, as they do not come from original (or official) sources for the most part. Seeing as how Viz is a company that's owned by Shogakukan, which publishes HxH in Japan, I would assume they have a considerable amount of input in translating the manga. Therefore, shouldn't Viz be more of a reliable source than scanlators?
--Mr. Toto 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Your confused about what a source is. Scanlators aren't being used as sources here.
The reason we are using that particular set of names is because they're the most popularly used ones. Who created those names is irrelevant, we really don't care.
Which is the entire point. The fact that a set of names where created by ViZ (which is official, a professional company, ...etc) is irrelevant - we really don't care. What we do care about is which set of names are most commonly used. And it just happens that in the case of hxh, the set of names that are most commonly used happened to be mostly the names used in scanlations. If ViZ had come out with a completely different set of names - and the majority of hxh fans accepted them and decided to use them, then we'd be going with ViZ names.
As for original research, it's also irrelevant. Original research means people coming up with 'original' things for wikipedia. The naruto translations (from what you describe) are probably an example of this - the translations where done by wikipedians, for wikipedia, and have never existed outside of wikipedia. Hence they are 'original'.
Anything that already exists independantly in the world outside of wikipedia (and whos existance can be verified) is not 'original'. Although whether or not it's reliable to be used as a source/ a completely different story. But once again, we're not using anything from the scanlators as reference or as a source. We're using the names (which happen to be the ones used in scanlations) because they're popular, and that's it. --`/aksha 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated before, it seems that many other pages disregard this guideline. Please look back on previous examples. As I have shown, the Dragon Ball Z page goes with the Japanese names for the article, even though the English ones are clearly more popular. This is because the names have been written in English correctly by the creator. It's the exact same case with Hunter x Hunter and other series too. There are numerous examples in which even though a name is more popular with fans, the correct spelling is the one that is chosen in a Wikipedia article.
"Might Guy" is the correct name for a character in the series Naruto. Prior to the airing of the English version, his name was constantly romanized as "Maito Gai," and that name still has more results on Google than the former. "Road Kamelot" was the official romanization provided for a character in D.Gray-man. However, prior to that fans had assumed the name was "Rhode Camelot," and this still turns up more results as well. But the correct form is chosen over this. These and others fall under the "not commonly used" category, and they still are used instead of the "more popular" forms.
It's not necessarily the Viz names that I'm trying to get included in here. But when the creator himself has recently compiled a list of how these names are supposed to be written, one simply cannot argue that these aren't correct. Just because most fans say that Gon's name is supposed to be "Gon Freaks," the creator of the series says otherwise several times. He has never written it this way, and it was only a guess by fans as to how it was supposed to be translated. This is a more reliable source than that of a mere Google test. Viz merely adopted the names he had romanized, and came up with their own phonetic translations of other names that were not given. I am not saying we should use all of Viz's names, but it's difficult to argue that they aren't correct when the creator himself is in agreement with many of the names. --Mr. Toto 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because many articles disregard the guidelines, it doesn't give an excuse for this one to either. We have tones of articles which aren't wikified, tones that have neutrality problems (should we disregard NPOV too?), and even more which desperately need sourcing. The problem is because there isn't enough people willing to do the work. But it isn't an excuse for other articles to also not follow conventions. You know where the convention pages are, i've pointed to them again and again. If you really have a problem with this "use most common names" thing, then bring it up there. --`/aksha 06:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the "most common names" thing is only to be used if the series itself does not state the official romaji name of the characters, according to the rule. In the case of Gon, the series does several times. I'll have to get my hands on a copy of the Hunter's Guide to make an official statement on the other ones. But for now, Gon's name at the very least should be changed. When I get a copy of the official listing of the names of the characters, then I'll post the correct names for the ones Togashi has romanized so far. --Mr. Toto 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Togashi never romanized any names except "Ging". The names he provides in the handbooks are what he calls "english versions" of the names, and are for most of the part terrible (gon's name was probably one of the best ones. Togashi's 'english names' for characters like pakunoda and hisoka are basically ignored by everyone). Using most common names is also an overriding guideline/philosophy. Almost all our naming conventions are based on the philosophy of using the names which the majority of readers will identify with. --`/aksha 12:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you ignore my previous post on the Hunter's Guide? The Hunter's Guide is the ONLY Hunter x Hunter guidebook that exists and is written by Togashi himself. Again, you are confusing "guidebook" with the spelling provided in the 12th volume, released about three years apart from each other. The names romanized in the 12th volume are only "Hyskoa," "Chzzok," "Phalcnothdk," "Quwrof Wrlccywrlir," "Wbererguin," and "Curarpikt." Even these, he changes to their correct names in the Hunter's Guide. In the Hunter's Guide, he also provides official romanizations that have never been contradicted. Gon is one of those names. It is consistent in the manga for Gon's name as well, as we have seen in several chapters. Ging's name in the manga is given as "Ging Freecss." Gon's name in both the guidebook and the manga is consistent with this last name--"Gon Freecss." Never, is it EVER stated as "Freaks," and it's romanized correctly.
The rule given states that "Characters should be called what the series officially states their romaji names as. If that does not exist, use what they are named in the most recent or popular English translation, if it exists, isn't egregiously bad, and is the generally-used name (a google test is appropriate here). Otherwise, use a literal transliteration." Well, in this case, the series in Japan officially states Gon's romaji name as "Gon Freecss" and nothing else. It's the same for other characters as well. Also, take into account the actual sites that use "Gon Freaks." No fansite that has been recently active uses this at all, and many of the pages listed are usernames and reviews by people who have only seen the series once. Take a polling of actual fans on message boards and such, and see if you get the same results. --Mr. Toto 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More Gundam AfDs

There are a huge number of Gundam related AfDs up right now (15 at present count). I've included most that I can find on the deletion sorting page however more are bound to show up as a couple of editors have declared a personal campaign to delete these articles.[4][5]

The problem is that no one has had a chance to evaluate and cleanup the articles in question. Instead, they rather delete site unseen. --Farix (Talk) 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not touching these anymore. I did my best for RX-78. Now I have a shadow who followed my contribs and reopened a can of worms I had hoped closed forever on a page outside of his interests. I think I'm done with Wikipedia, this is bullshit. Kyaa the Catlord 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Having witnessed the fight at the last AfD, I would tend to say that if no one has yet bothered to make the changes decided back then (lots of merging, a few deletions and some real-world refs adding, if I recall well), maybe the bad guys are right, and these articles aren't that important.--SidiLemine 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to step into this. This guy apparently only wants to rid wikipedia of any gundam article he can find. I think we should begin working on any of the gundam articles he has put up this way they can't find any excuse to delete them. I would help but i despise gundam and don't know much about the details of all the different gundams. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy has now escalated the "war" on WP:GUNDAM onto ANI. Kyaa the Catlord 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I had to laugh a little when he called it an assumption of bad faith when I pointing out his and the other editors declaration of targeting Gundam articles. --Farix (Talk) 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I think the best course of action to take with this is to ignore him, hope he gets bored and goes away. Its gotten awfully silly and crazy melodramatic. Some of the "claims" being made are just groundless. Seriously, do they even read the policies they tell others to read as a 'warning' (cough threat)? *note this is in no way an attack on anyone, living, dead or animated. It is an observation of behaviour and is spoken in a neutral tone.* Kyaa the Catlord 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to stop calling names and be civil about this whole matter. Has anyone transwikied this stuff? If people are interested in creating articles with a lot of in-universe content then moving the data to a different host is the best bet for keeping it. They'll be indexed by search engines and people who want this type of info will be able to find it. If one is interested in creating articles on Wikipedia, then we really need to tighten up creation guidelines for this type of article. These articles need to be merged in to as few pages as possible. The need to have as many trivial details removed as possible. They need to show as little plot line as possible and large chunks of these articles are nothing but data dumps of statistics. These articles need to be readable and understandable to a general audience, not just people who follow the series. Why isn't there any creator info in these? I'm sure the creators write lots of information about what they create and what look they were going for when they came up with the mecha designs.

Secondly, it's not just this one person or a group of "bad guys". There has been a tone in the direction of the project from the Grand Poobahs stating that we should now focus on quality articles over a high quantity of articles. --Kunzite 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

On some level I disagree with the quality vs. quantity thing. I'd rather have some information on everything I search for than good information at random. But basically that's just relating to things such as films, TV shows, video games, etc. It's annoying to not be able to consistantly find certain things. However, characters and such probably do need to be cut down. Though I'll mention that I voted to keep RX-78 Gundam.--SeizureDog 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the quantity vs quality is about information; more about the articles. Personally, with the same infos, I'd rather have one big article summarizing a whole subject (like the characters of a series) than a dozen stubs. That being said, I'm with SeizureDog when it comes to have all the info I want. To sum it up, I guess I'm a mergist inclusionist :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talkcontribs) 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
And I'm a transwikiist. If you want to go into the minutia of a fictional show without sourcing, do data-dumps of technical information, and generally not follow wikipedia content guidelines, I think that it's best that the info not be included in Wikipedia. A specialized wiki and a google search should satisfy your informational requirements. --Kunzite 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Seinen - question

I've seen many anime in the seinen section. How can anime be seinen? I know the term is used by manga publishers but I wasn't aware of anime producers using it. ^^; 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If the anime is based off a seinen manga, it is therefore seinen anime. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Same way it can be Shonen. It's the genre. --tjstrf talk 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of names in anime/manga with historical settings

I'm looking at the article on Blade of the Immortal. This manga is set in the middle 1780s, in the Edo period. At one point, the article gave the names of the characters in Japanese order, with family name first, consistent with the licensed translation from Dark Horse. The English translation has used the Japanese name order for many years (with some lapses early on). At some later date, the names in the article were all changed to Western order, which I have seen in no other reference on this manga. It looks odd, IMO, and has potential to cause confusion. From what I read in the WP:MOS-JA, the names of historical persons born prior to 1868 should be given in Japanese order, with the family name first. Shouldn't this also apply to anime/manga set prior to 1868? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madame Manga (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe that yeah, if the setting is explicitly mentioned as pre-Meiji, the names should be Family-Given order, especially if the English translations uses it as well. Rurouni Kenshin applies this standard as well. There was some brouhaha over this issue in regards to Naruto since it's setting has a mix of both pre- and post-Meiji elements as well, but that was settled with some consensus on common usage. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Since I'm also getting agreement over on the Blade of the Immortal discussion page, I'm going to implement this soon, and put in a note on the page about pre-1868 as an exception to the general Japanese name guideline, similar to the one on the Rurouni Kenshin page. I'd like to add a note on historical settings to the style guidelines as well, but I have no desire to (re)open other people's cans of worms. So if that's likely to cause or raise from the dead any variety of brouhaha, someone please warn me first. --Madame Manga 08:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Project page organization

The project page was disorganized. I have taken a page out of WP:Japan's book and put some things into columns. The drawback is that the page only looks good on resolutions over 800x600, though I think the page needed better links and navigation and this change may neaten things. Does anyone ever look at it? --Squilibob 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. When I scan a page for a section, I only look at the right-hand side. Now it's too easy for me to entirely miss things on the left side.--SeizureDog 06:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Would you rather have all the columns removed or just some? --Squilibob 12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think "Scope" should be returned to the original style (the not part is too far off to the side), and "Participants" and "Awards" as well (I don't like columning of entire sections). Use of columns in "Recognised articles" (images draw attention) and "Articles that require attention" (lots of bold draws attention) is fine though.--SeizureDog 12:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For scope I was thinking of merging the two parts. For example it would say something like manga is part of the project however manhwa isn't. Along those lines, so that the similar topics are together. I don't mind separating the Participants and Awards but I feel that regulars to this WikiProject always skim over those sections anyway. Maybe split and put them further down the project page? --Squilibob 14:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now why is the page even more columned than before? Phorque seems to have gone ahead and added columns everywhere even though there's this discussion >:( Now the page is just unreadable to me. I changed it back.--SeizureDog 07:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems alright as is to me :). Maybe we should have more subpages thought, and a nice box on top telling where to find what, with only the more general informations on the main. I am only sad we lost the nice little box that used to inform us of how many articles we had in each category; it was very encouraging to compare it with other projects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talkcontribs) 15:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Quality over quantity?

People may be interested in the discussion at Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some help with this, if there are any guntaku out there who'd like to assist, I'm not a big Gundam fan so I'd love and appreciate more input. (Heck, I didn't even remember what the Messala was its AfD!) Kyaa the Catlord 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Unfortunately, we don't have a page to keep track of articles within the scope of the WikiProject that are in [WP:DRV]] (perhaps incorporating it into the delsort page). But I've put up ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam up for deletion review so that the page can be unsalted and turned into a redirect. --Farix (Talk) 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that all deletion-based discussions should go on that deletion sorting page. --Squilibob 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Related WikiProjects:WikiProject Dragon Ball

Umm..hi guys

I don't think it was there earlier, but on the project page, I just added Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball to the Related WikiProjects section. This project just had a revival, with some new members taking its helm, and are hoping to fix up Dragon Ball articles =)

But yeah. I just added it there so everyone can know about it. Hope I didn't cause a problem because of it. VelocityEX 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated A Class

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Assess updated with an explanation. See if you agree. Also added RahXephon to be assessed. --GunnarRene 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Title redundacy

I was thinking that we should stop putting sticking article titles in {{nihongo}} when the Japanese titles are provided in the infobox. It somewhat breaks the flow of the prose to slap foreign text in as soon as the reader starts. I think removing really helps in tidying up the leads, since the Japanese title is something only a select few are going to be able to even read and is still easily viewed in the infobox. I'm going to start removing it from articles that I've worked on, and if everyone else is fine with it will move on to the rest of articles.--SeizureDog 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Drastic example: before and after. Before the article almost didn't even start until the second line.--SeizureDog 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Infoboxes aren't supposed to stand alone, actually. It's annoying when you have long titles, but anything in the infobox should be repeated somewhere on the article. --tjstrf talk 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally object to this being applied to all anime and manga articles and I will likely revert any that I find removed. This needs to be in the lead. The infobox is supposed to be a quick and dirty way to access the data. If these articles are ever re-produced in a form which omits the infobox or the infobox template is ever deleted, the information will be lost. Personally, for titles and names like "SAMURAI GIRL リアルバウトハイスクール" it doesn't matter as much. (The English anime product does have "Samurai Girl" at the head of the title. I don't understand why it's in the article name, but not in the first sentence of the lead.) --Kunzite 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do we bother with babying derivative works? I still don't get the point of those crappy mirror sites; they're always of inferior quality to the main (Wikipedia hosted) article anyways. I've yet to see being "free" do us any good. But whatever, </rant>. --SeizureDog 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's kin ofa moral question.--SidiLemine 11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if the lead section of every article above GA was printed in a paper version? Would you miss it then? --GunnarRene 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Would I? Perhaps. Would the average reader? No. What about turning them into footnotes instead? If the Japanese title is over a certain length. Is that a suitable middle ground?--SeizureDog 05:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is enough of an issue to seek middle ground. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

High School! Kimengumi finally free of redlinks!

A small but significant milestone since it took me (and probably a few others) several months of work creating new articles for all the redlinks that were there. Thanks to everyone who has helped get this article this far. (^_^). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Convention Work Group

I just moved the outline for the work group from my sandbox to project space. The work group can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Conventions. Anyone who is interested in improving articles on the anime and manga conventions are free to join. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


I ported this article about the French manga publisher over from the French wiki article, but I'm not really familiar with them, and I don't know French. Anyone here know French and want to tackle translating the rest of the article? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Took a stab at translating it. My French is rustier than I thought, and I'm pressed for time.--Monocrat 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! The list of titles needs some translated into English, too. There are some that I'm not sure what they are because there's no Japanese on the French articles (or the French articles don't exist). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kagome under attack

LucifaelsBride (talk · contribs) is trying to own the article Kagome Higurashi which is about the protagonist of InuYasha. Her attitude is hostile and she is putting negative comments (inappropriate for an encyclopedia) into the article. JRSpriggs 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs I saw (Kagome ape) are clearly vandalism. Report it to WP:AIV. --Farix (Talk) 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you are talking about the offensive image Image:KagomeApe.JPG which she uploaded into Wikipedia. (She did not put it into the article. She merely left it available for other vandals to use.) It is not so easy to report things to AIV. I would have to give her a series of four warnings about vandalism first. And although I feel that she is doing this in the spirit of vandalism, she could arguably claim that it is merely a content dispute.
I would like to ask all the editors here to make sure to revert her edits before attempting any constructive changes to Kagome Higurashi. Also, I think that XenocideLuvver (talk · contribs) may be a sock-puppet of hers. JRSpriggs 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppets should reported at WP:SUSPSOCK. Also, WP:AIV doesn't require any warnings if the vandalism is obvious and repetitive, and continually adding in unsourced speculation after repeatedly told not to is vandalism. If you think the vandalism is not that obvious for WP:AIV, then you can put in a request at WP:RFI. --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Another definite sock-puppet is (talk · contribs). I gave LucifaelsBride a first warning for vandalism and I might give her another one tonight after I look at her new edits more carefully. JRSpriggs 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If this person's using anon ip addresses as socks, wouldn't the easiest way be just to request a semi protection? --`/aksha 09:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, she is only using the one IP sock puppet (perhaps she has a fixed IP address and just does not log in sometimes). Semi-protection would not address the main problem which is LucifaelsBride herself. I mention the puppets here mainly because I want you-all to know that she is responsible for their actions; and if you want to revert her, you should revert them as well. JRSpriggs 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If they're confirmed sockpuppets of her. And they're vandalising. Why aren't they blocked? Doesn't this count as an abusive sockpuppet? --`/aksha 11:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about this editor - can someone who's familiar with Angel Sanctuary have a look at Alexiel, Alexiel and Lucifer, Lucifer/Kira Sakuya and the bottom half of Angel_Sanctuary#Characters? --`/aksha 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the series, but the last two articles definately are AfD targets. Both are unsourced essays, useless fancruft and unverifiable. Alexiel also has those problems, along with being redundant to her entries in the main Angel Sanctuary entry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of RahXephon media is a Featured List Candidate

List of RahXephon media is a Featured List Candidate. Disucssion here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of RahXephon media. --GunnarRene 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of The Big O media

As per SidiLemine's suggestion, I'm putting this article through peer review with the intention of going to WP:FLC.--Nohansen 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Buyo (Inuyasha) being considered for deletion

The article above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buyo (Inuyasha). Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is why the project maintains a delsort page, which is linked at the top of this talk page, in order to keep them from cluttering up the talk page. --Farix (Talk) 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi! What's up with this category?

I just ran across Clarice King Hitt, and noticed this category. What a mess. Related to it is this template which was created improperly and contains incorrect information. Anyone want to sort this out? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a mess. I wonder if the template could be speedied. But go ahead and take it to WP:SFD. You can probably take the category along with it as well since it is being used as a stub category. --Farix (Talk) 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
How odd. A category turned into an article. That's a new one for me.--SeizureDog 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not the first time I've seen this. Category:Kaitō anime use to be the same way. --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as non-notable. But if you want to keep the information, you could create a lead article for the category and move the text from the category into that. JRSpriggs 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I killed the "article-iness" of the cat, and categorized the cat as well. It almost seemed like a BBS with the stuff that was on there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just moved everything in the cat to a correctly titled Category:Filipino voice actors, and then deleted the empty incorrectly named cat. I also marked it as part of this project as everyone in the category is an anime VA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's excluded from this project's scope, though: "Companies and staff of those companies that produce the above and companies that produce licensed English translations of the above but not anime voice actors that speak in neither Japanese nor English" --Kunzite 03:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: List of anime conventions' criteria

I have initiated an RFC on the matter of List of anime conventions' criteria at Talk:List of anime conventions#Request for Comment: List of anime conventions' criteria. This is over a dispute about whether the list should continue to maintain the following criteria, or if the criteria should be altered or eliminated. The convention must focus on anime, manga and Japanese culture, must run for at least two days, have at least two thousand attendees, and have held at least two prior conventions and actively planning a third. Exceptions to the attendance criteria will be made when the convention is the largest or only anime convention located within a state, province, or country. And finally, the convention must have an article in the Wikipedia. Secondary disputes include whether the criteria should be mentioned in the list's lead and if Anime South should be included on the list even though it does not meet the list's criteria. --Farix (Talk) 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Berry Shirayuki's "criticism"

The "criticism" section of Berry Shirayuki's article looks awfully biased and unencyclopedic. The author she says she goes around to random Tokyo Mew Mew fansites and forums and just sticks their opinions about Berry in that section. Not only does that violate WP:NPOV it also violates WP:NOR. I've talked to the author about this and she refuses to believe it and keeps removing my NPOV check tag... can someone help me here? --Candy-Panda 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh believe me, that's definitely original research. Fansites and fan forums are not reliable sources. It should go per WP:NOR. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about episode titles

  • While doing an overhaul for List of Zatch Bell! episodes, a thought occurred to me. Wouldn't fan-translated titles of anime episodes not yet dubbed into English constitute original research? IMO, it would be a good idea to replace these titles with romaji of the Japanese title. Thoughts? JuJube 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The easiest solution I can think of is that it's not original research on WP's part if you use some other website as a source for the title translations. --Masamage 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, what constitutes a reliable website? The whole reason I started the Zatch Bell overhaul was because I noticed the ANN page was riddled with errors. JuJube 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Consensus by the editors, I guess. Or, I don't know... There are a lot of articles that use information translated from the other-language WP sites. I'm not sure to what extent simple translation is exempt form the OR policy; it doesn't require any analysis, after all, just simple factual knowledge (albeit of a language). So anybody can do it, which is the general rule. It's probably somewhat more complicated than that, but I've never personally gotten involved with this aspect. I'd be interested in what those who have been think about it.--Masamage 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think translation counts as OR. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it might in this case, given that translation of anime seems to be a hot topic when it comes up. I'll look into the policy more, though. JuJube 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way you could have the unofficial English translations of the titles while making it clear that they are unofficial and so may change when the official translation is done? JRSpriggs 07:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why there's no standard; List of Naruto episodes only has English-translated titles of the Japanese episode when the dub title has yet to come out; whereas Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information has English-translated titles for all the Japanes episodes, but no romaji. I honestly prefer having just the romaji since it's not debatable (whereas translating it into English will raise the "this guy says this word means that, another guy says it means something else" problem), but that's me. There should probably be a standard. JuJube 07:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
When making episode lists for titles without English versions, I've often ignored fan-translated titles. I translate them myself directly from the primary source. I don't consider translations to be WP:OR as we have an multiple wikiprojects (i.e. WP:PNT) devoted to translation. My current project was to translate the Japanese Wikipedia version of Kiba (anime) to de-cruftify and try to bring Kiba Characters closer to WP:WAF compliance. There are mountains of weird verbage from a now-banned editor that need to be cleaned up. (i.e. "Jesara is a somewhat minor character within the anime due to only being shown within small intervals"). Now, this is closer to OR, because the Japanese wikipedia uses a very narrow interpretation of the GFDL and has a greater restrictions on article sourcing. I'll have to reference the entries with episode citations. --Kunzite 08:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think translations of episode names is a bit like translations for any other kind of name. As long as it's used outside of wikipedia (as in people/groups outside of wikipedia refer to that episode by that name), it's fine. However, i think us (wikipedia editors) doing translations ourselves (especially when it's not 100% unambigious, as most translations generally are) is a very fuzzy grey area of wikipedia. There're defintely times when i can see it would be appropriate. But generally, i believe if there's already (in existance) a translated version that's either official or generally used, we should stick to it instead of doing our own original translations. --`/aksha 09:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did some translations myself based on Kunzite's post, but I'm not sure I'm entirely satisfied. JuJube 10:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh! DannyL has a new name. I'm rarely satisfied with translations. Sometimes my translation and the dub were the same, others we took different routes. i.e. I used "Little Messiah" where they used "Little Saviour" ... I used "Unbreakable Curse" and they used "Unsolved Spell". eh. Sometimes episode titles can be a bit tougher especially when they use puns. Nerima Daikon Brothers is the perfect example. They've just been translated into English by ADV and I have to add a new column yet. --Kunzite 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters of The Big O

I listed Characters of The Big O for peer review. Please, check the article and point out what it needs.--Nohansen 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)