Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Category:Suzuka Files

I stumbled upon this uncategorised category: Category:Suzuka Files. I have no idea where to link it to WP's category structure but I bet some of you do. Also maybe it's name could be improved to Category:Suzuka or Category:Suzuka (manga)? Enjoy! - Nabla 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... a few comments (all are my opinion only, but I think they're fairly justified):
  1. Yes this should be Category:Suzuka, as most of the articles are articles on characters or other features of the anime and manga.
  2. Having done that, Category:Suzuka should be placed in appropriate subcategories of Category:Anime and Category:Manga, although I'm not 100% sure which genres it falls in (possibly Romance and School, but probably not Sport although some may disagree).
  3. Also, the two templates in the Category need to be removed from it, in the {{Suzuka}} case by making it <includeonly> rather than <noinclude>.
  4. The {{Suzuka}} template needs to be changed, I think, so that it only contains one link per article, not per character etc. I'm not 100% sure of the policy on this one though. At the very least the last line of the template should go.
  5. The category description should be changed to reflect the fact that it's a category to collect Suzuka-related articles, not Suzuka-related files, and the template can be removed.
  6. I have no idea what to do with the image subcategory.

Confusing Manifestation 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That category and template was created by Leefan, who was a new editor. The category should be Category:Suzuka. As for the genres, they probably would be: anime, manga, school romance, sport (track), and some could argue harem. As for the template, when Leefan first started at wiki, (s)he was started to create blank or stub articles for almost every character until other editors told Leefan to stop and work on one article at a time. Probably, Leefan created the template with the intention of having those articles to link to later. However, I doubt that these characters that are now linked to the Suzuka character article in the template will ever have enough information to warrant separate articles. (Duane543 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Featured list images being removed by sysops

Images on List of Planetes episodes (and fatured status) have been called into question. Might need new images or better rationales. These rationales must speak to why the particular image was chosen to identify the episode - a simple copy-and-past rationale that is the same on all images won't do.

Additionally, after several failed amendments to ban screenshots from episode lists, images on other Featured Lists are now being removed by some administators. See the administrator board at WP:AN#Clean up for the featured ones for examples and surrounding discussion. --GunnarRene 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And the Wikiwar on fair use images continues *sigh*. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The admins are not informing anybody before making wide-scale deletions, and are not following any kind of documented procedure at all. It's anarchy and it is ridiculous. --Masamage 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
People should weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes. JuJube 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like the admins are waging war on TV related articles. First individual episode pages now episode screenshots. In a month there won't be any TV related articles left... --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to andvance free content culture by showing how we can make a quality encyclopedia, but it seems that the agenda now is to show disfavour to the "content industries" by somehow making an encyclopedia that says "hey, guys, this is pretty good, but it still sucks a little because of that stupid copyright legislation". I think the former strategy is a hell of a lot better than the latter. --GunnarRene 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this random selection of admins wants to have individual episode articles rather than lists, so I guess that's what we need to go for now. Either that or seeing if Citizendium would accomodate fair use to the same extent that Wikipedia in theory does, and if out-of-process actions become the norm there too. I was here to build a free encyclopedia, not some in-universe fan site, so I'm not really interested in going over to some wiki devoted to only to anime.--GunnarRene 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I support the removal of the screen shots 100%. For a long time I argued in favor of screen shots in LOEs, but I finally came to the conclusion that identifying an episode in a list, while great and all, isn't vital enough to use non-free content. The lists are not as useful, they don't look as good, and it sucks, but that's just the way it is. We all just got a little to comfortable with having things slide, but now people are enforcing the rules. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And believe me, I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. I've spent hours upon hours finding good screen shots, and even longer making arguments to be able to use screen shots, in LOEs. -- Ned Scott 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
They're not enforcing the rules, because the rules on non-free content used under fair use haven't been changed. Somebody pretended that lists with significant textual content were "galleries" and started removing and blocking, pretending that it was a copyright issue, when it really was an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (after at least two failed amendments to ban the screenshots from lists). The message here is that episode lists should be nothing more than navigational aids, and that we should have the screenshots in individual episode articles - on the pluss side for those guys who want to hide spoilers, the screenshots have now been censored from episode lists. But you now have to wade through hundreds of articles to find that episode where the South Park characters were rendered in 3D. Or ask at the reference desk, or something. Finding an episode is a sufficient purpose when it's part of a critical commentary work like Wikipedia. --GunnarRene 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO it's the rare episode of a rare series that is notable enough to warrant an article (let alone the issue of availability of worthy sources). Switching en masse to episode articles, especially if they were to mostly consist of information now contained in the lists, might simply shift the field of battle and prolong the acrimony rather than settle the issue one way or another.--Monocrat 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My complaint is not the removal itself, but the total disregard for established procedures. We didn't know our stuff was going away until it was gone. We didn't get to participate. It's ridiculous. --Masamage 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So from what I'm getting, it would seem that Template:Japanese episode list and Template:Episode list would have to be altered to remove the possibility of adding screenshots to comply with Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. Not that I'm happy with this decision, but it looks like this is what is going to end up happening.-- 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Too late; it already happened to Template:Japanese episode list...-- 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, all fair-use images will go the way of the dodo bird. --Farix (Talk) 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope they will; fair use is forbidden in most of the other wikipedias, and it's like an "exclusive" of That's just unfair :-) P.S. Because of the Exemption Doctrine Policy some wikipedias are censoring the images from commons, so you just don't know how lucky you are --Εξαίρετος (msg) 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Claiming that Fair Use will go extinct is to say that either copyright law or our critical reasoning ability will be abolished, since there is no such thing as a free image for an irreplicable event. But if you want to dream that, go ahead. --tjstrf talk 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It won't ever happen that free images completely replace fair use images, that's true; but fair use images don't necessarily have to be there. Take have you ever seen a screenshot of a manga, anime or videogame in one of their articles? Compare the images/text ratio in Mahoraba and ja:まほらば. Fair use is a license available only in the US, and people often think of it as a license under which everything can be published; that's a misunderstanding. A screenshot of a character should be used as fair use *only* on that character's article, and there being two it's already pushing the fair use. So I agree with TheFarix that eventually will adopt a stricter policy and we won't see so many fair use images anymore. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 09:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The obvious solution is to write better text which makes proper use of the images. If this were done properly, the anti-Fair Use brigades wouldn't have a leg to stand on. --tjstrf talk 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A screenshot of a character should be used as fair use *only* on that character's article That only invites cruft as some editors will now go and create individual character and episode articles just so they can maintain the screenshot. Not every character is notable and it is a rare episode that is notable as well. But it's much easier to demonstrate notability as a group. Thats one of the reasons why I prefer lists of characters and episodes over individual articles. As for critical commentary of the fair-use image must be present before the fair-use image can be included (which seems to be the route that this small group of editors is taking Wikipedia), that will only invite original research. --Farix (Talk) 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If they do that, we can AfD the article if the character isn't notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we wanted to be more like the Japanese wikipedia, we could also get rid of quotations and references. Apparently, the JA wikipedia's strict interpretation of the GFDL prohibits this as well. This causes many problems when translating text from JA. --Kunzite 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anime otaku as genre?

Should a catagory of "Otaku Anime" be added for series which are markeeted to anime otaku? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anymouse1 (talkcontribs) 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

No, it would be totally subjective in its inclusion criteria.--tjstrf talk 05:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is also not a genre recognized by most anime reviewers and databases. --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference Library

Since we have a Magazine Archive, I thought it would be useful to have a Reference Library as well, listing anime-related books which could be used as references for articles. Please go add any books you have (or add your name next to those already listed). Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I did start my own list some time ago, but a centralised one is much better obviously. Shiroi Hane 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan sailor fuku

Move along people, nothing to see here

Can I get whoever drew Wikipe-tan to draw me a custom version for my user page?

perfectblue 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not our decision, ask User:Kasuga. Be aware, however, that he'll probably be more inclined to aid you if your suggestion aids Wikipedia articles or projects, rather than being just for your personal usage. --tjstrf talk 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is already Image:Wikitanface.png. Shiroi Hane 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm part of project paranormal, and I'd like us to have a special wikipe-tan all of our own with an MID Theme - A Wikipe-tan in a black sailor fuku with Will smith shades and some tude - of course, I'd like it on my user space too, which I'm lead to believe might require extra permisison from the author.
perfectblue 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Kasuga is uploading every image of Wikipe-tan on Commons, so no, you wouldn't need any extra permission; anyway, ask him in talk, I don't think anyone else here would be able to help you. And his talk page seems to be used mostly for this kind of requests ^^ --Εξαίρετος (msg) 07:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, no extra permission would be required. The images are all freely licensed, you can do whatever you want with them. Good luck actually getting him to draw them though, he's pretty request-swamped right now. --tjstrf talk 07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

...Okay, that is awesome. --Masamage 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikitan in black - AWESOME - perfectblue 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Widen the Scope?

I propose a section devoted to the different Manga/Anime trade magazines. Because there are several that I can think of right off the bat.

1) Newtype 2) Anime Insider 3) Shonen Jump —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaraiel (talkcontribs) 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

We already cover those, unless something changed recently and the Shonen Jump article suddenly isn't in our scope anymore. --tjstrf talk 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Task forces/work groups

Are there any opinions on converting the Digimon, Dragon Ball, Gundam, Sailor Moon, and Visual Novels projects into task forces à la WP:MILHIST? It seems like this project's doing a good job of providing centralized support material (e.g., the Magazine Archive and Reference Library) and assessment. What can the child projects do in these regards that wouldn't be duplicative? I see that Farix proposed something similar before, but that nothing came of it. Is this because it wouldn't be worth the effort?--Monocrat 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, especially since in most of those cases they are effectively taskforces, just at a different pagename due to the taskforce idea not being popular yet when they were created. (Visual novels is more iffy though, since they're about equally under our scope, WP:CVG, and the actual book project.) The real question is if they're agreeable to it, we can't exactly go annex them or anything. --tjstrf talk 05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What difference would it make? (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.) I know that at WP:SM we already refer back here whenever we need advice or for ratings, so it seems like the only change would be that we couldn't call ourselves a WikiProject anymore. Which would be kind of sad. --Masamage 05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You already are a taskforce in everything but page title, so basically it would just make the de facto state of things official. The only real differences would be lowered banner clutter on your talk pages and a few page moves. --tjstrf talk 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Okay, so I guess the thing to do is run it by the individual projects in question and ask if they want to do that, letting people trickle toward it at their own pace. I'm guessing WP:SM won't want to right now, but that doesn't mean we won't drift eventually or that none of the other descendent projects will want to. If it's just semantics there's no hurry. --Masamage 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My take on it is that there's no reason to have a nominally independent wikiproject when it's acting as a taskforce in practice, since it just creates an extra layer of complexity. I invite you to take a look at the WP:WPREF page, which outlines the current effort to reform the Wikiproject system.
I'm on the Bleach taskforce myself, which we started recently so that we would have a discussion area other than Talk:Bleach (manga) to discuss category-wide issues. We have just under 100 articles that fall solidly in our scope, but we didn't feel a separate project was necessary since it's really just 10-15 of us doing the work. --tjstrf talk 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A Personal View on WikiProject A&M

Just my two cents on the project. When I say the project in this writing, it refers to all articles of an anime related spectrum. The whole seems to be going over well, with a high article quality on average. However, most anime and manga articles are written from the point of hardcore anime fans (in the sense that they see Japanese animation as pure, and make a heavy criticism of western animation and Western animation infleunced by anime), and contain material far too thick for unacquainted laymen to get around. Also, the project makes too much of a distinction between anime and other cartooning (for example,never using the words comic or show). Beyond that, the project is generally fine. ( 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Scope draft

I've taken the additional liberty of drafting a revised scope. The "Fandom" part is relatively weak, but I don't have much in the way of experience there. Also, on the assumption that anything notable in one language is notable in another, I've expanded the draft scope to include non-English distributors and voice actors. This might result in a few additional lists, but it seems the right thing to do in terms of principle. I'll defer on it, however. Thoughts welcome.--Monocrat 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I would like to comment that video games and visual novels are outside of this project's scope, as they are covered by WP:CVG and WP:VN respectively.-- 23:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Video games were within the scope so long as the game was an adaptation of an anime or manga series, but not the other way around. However the original line about visual novels was far less clear, "Light novels, but not Visual novels lacking anime or manga adaptations. For the relevant project on visual novels, see WikiProject Visual novels." Though I don't see how light novels and visual novels are related to each other to begin with, the sentence appears to state that a visual novel must have an anime or manga adaptation to it before it is considered within the project's scope. So I assume that is any visual novel that has an anime or manga adaptation regardless of which one came first. The new version implies that the anime and manga version must come first. --Farix (Talk) 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding visual novels, if the VN in question has neither an anime, nor a manga, nor a light novel adaptation, then it falls out of the scope of WP:Anime. A good example is Tomoyo After: It's a Wonderful Life which currently has no adaptations to it.-- 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of video games. What about Super Robot Wars? Does it fall under the project's scope? How about its copycat, Battle Moon Wars? Are they games "in which anime or manga characters make incidental or out-of-context appearances?"--Nohansen 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And what about Sakura Wars. It started out as a video game series, only adapted to anime later. But the game plays somewhat like an interactive anime (think Disgaea, with dating sim type gameplay between battles), but more importantly, the only English releases have been on the anime. (At the moment, it's currently tagged under both projects) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the queries, how about: "Media belonging to the same franchises as the above, including video games, visual novels, live action versions, audio dramas, soundtracks, and stage shows and musicals (such as Bleach (musical) or Tenimyu)." This is more general and removes concerns about the path of adaptation.--Monocrat 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late to respond, but the old scope description was much better. Also, so far we've been mostly about the anime and manga themselves, and not so much about working on bio articles for directors, voice actors, etc. Our structure guidelines, main focus, etc really isn't for bio articles. I'll expand on my reasons in a moment. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looking more into it, I'm not sure if we've discussed the people part of our scope before. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I like about the new scope. These pages aren't going to be covered by the Biography project; they're less likely to know anything or care. If we don't have structure guidelines for people articles, we should develop them rather than go back to the old scope. The new one is a much cleaner read, and a good redefinition. (I'd been adding the banner on talk pages for mangaka and light novel writers for a while, without even realizing that there was any question.) Doceirias 09:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ned, obviously I disagree with you that the old scope was better, though I'd be keen to hear what specifically you don't like about the new one. Setting that aside, even the old scope claims mangaka, so it's no real stretch to explicitly add directors. And we refer to WP:WPBIO in the "Article Structure" section (check out the demands on Matt Groening). And all of that was there in some form before I took a stab at it.--Monocrat 13:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case we should just make a joint task force with WP:WPBIO. Our main project goals have always been focused on the shows and manga's themselves, and this would be a new area for us to actually comment on. As for the rest of the new scope, it just lacks any real description of what's going on. I found the old scope description to be much more informative and clear. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's totally standard for a project scope to include people closely related to their subjects. (I see no advantage to a task force here either, since the people likely to find information about a given mangaka will be the same ones as edit the articles on the creator's manga.)
Other than that, no opinion on the revised scope one way or the other. --tjstrf talk 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. It seems perfectly logical to me to put up or expand a page for the manga artist, author, director or other staff while working on the page for the series itself. I doubt I'm the only one doing that, and it's high time the project scope recognized that.Doceirias 04:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Except it's not something we've done before, and it just adds one more banner to those people's talk page. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just pointing out it's somewhat of a new focus for us as a group. The benefit of a task force is that it helps participants to recognize that the work falls under both groups, and we can use one banner or the other, instead of two banners (cats and ratings would apply to both projects, though). It's simply a better way to interconnect each other and cross-collaborate. From an organizational standpoint, it makes sense to list guidelines and instructions for our new bio tasks on it's own page or section. It would still be us doing it, but just makes things easier. Over-all, I like the idea, but I'd like to see us include WP:WPBIO (and maybe WP:JAPAN) to cut down on banners and to better cross-collaborate. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be anything new at all. If your concern is only the banner tagging, then somebody go bug the {{WPBiography}} guys and ask them to add an anime and manga-related subfield. --tjstrf talk 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any bio-guidelines on our page except that which is linked to WP:WPBIO... As a project we haven't really commented on what to do for bio articles, which is what I meant for something "new". -- Ned Scott 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We have some slight bio-guidelines. I'll also reiterate that the inclusion of mangaka and predates my draft, so "new" is not appropriate. "Undiscussed" or "undocumented" perhaps is more accurate. In any case, the proper path to development for these types of articles lies through both projects: they provide the form, we the content. From the relevant work-group: "Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in." Setting all that aside, Ned, I'd really like to know if you have any specific suggestions for my draft.--Monocrat 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sensing some bad vibes, plus it might be easier to just work from improving the new draft rather than a full revert, so whatever. If anyone hasn't already, I'll leave a note with WP:WPBIO about adding us to their banner for bio articles, and maybe set up something so both projects will watch the same set of recommended guidelines (two sets of eyes to update, and prevent conflicts, etc). -- Ned Scott 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have given off bad vibes. :) I think I was more puzzled than anything about your concerns about people. My big thing was working together to improve the text of the scope. Better luck next time I guess.--Monocrat 07:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, you had the right idea, I was just.. off in space, I think. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of people within the scope of the project, there's something that bothers me about the voice actors. If the project does not cover "anime voice actors that speak in neither Japanese nor English" then why do characters pages like Haruhi Suzumiya and Tenchi Masaki list the credit?--Nohansen 22:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disliked that wording, which is why I changed it in the draft scope. :)--Monocrat 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Because someone wrongly added them. Most english-speaking voice actors are not notable with a handful being notable. Seiyu are only notable because of the celebrity status of the industry in Japan. Without independent confirmation of notability, non-original voice actors should likely be removed from those articles. --Kunzite 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For en and ja voice actors, listing them on the pages of the characters they act as is logical because they are the original language and the article's target audience language, whether the individual VAs deserve an article or not. --tjstrf talk 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I clarified my original message. --Kunzite 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One-shots policy

What is the policy regarding one-shot manga and very short series by notable authors? One-shots by non-notable authors I assume could just go up for deletion.

Specifically I'm thinking of Hiroaki Samura, who currently has an article for his work Emerald (manga) despite the piece being all of 65 pages long, and a similar page for his one volume anthology Ohikkoshi. Neither of these articles will probably ever get beyond stub length, unless of course someone went and did a blow-by-blow retelling of their entire plots. Should they perhaps be merged with the author's page?

I would normally have conducted this discussion on the relevant talk pages, but none of them are particularly active and there may be cases beyond just those 3 articles that need discussed. --tjstrf talk 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, one-shot mangas normally don't get their own page since there isn't enough info to bring them past stub length. Pages like these should just be covered on the artist's page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Once the one shots are brought into a collection, like Ohikkoshi, a page might be justified, but uncollected one-shots seem a little excessive. Doceirias 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO, In the absence of any evidence of notability, one shots are best collected in the mangaka's article. --Kunzite 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's been internationally translated, it's probably notable. --tjstrf talk 09:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Things are notable when they have multiple non-trivial independent references or have won a major award. International translation itself gives no indication of notability. --Kunzite 04:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

mass image cleanup for Digimon

WikiProject Digimon is facing a mass image cleanup task, started by the need to update images from using {{Digimonimage}} to a more appropriate tag. Most of these images contain no source information at all, or fair use rationale. We've let it slide for a long time, and unfortunately there are 1,160 images that likely require updating. To assist in this task I've updated the project's banner, {{WikiProject DIGI}} with a notice, and started an instruction page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon/Images. I've only created a very basic page for now, and would really appreciate any help with improving the instructions page. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to be fun. Majority of all anime images I've seen lack fair-use rational, so we've got a lot of work to do after these are done. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings up for deletion

Should we have spoiler warnings in articles or not? Discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the guideline is currently rejected pending a new revision, it may be in our interests to establish a project style on the matter. ---tjstrf talk 10:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that, as a project, we should defer to whatever is agreed to by the new guideline. The problem with WikiProjects defining their own guidelines on the use of spoiler warnings is that it fosters a senses of "ownership" on articles that are within our scope.
But if we must have a WikiProject specific guideline, then it should be the most restricted version of "no spoiler warnings". There is little chance of the Wikipedia guideline will be any more restrictive then that with the placement of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally worry about it, but rebuilding a guideline after it's rejected could take anywhere from a week to a year. There are also some unique concerns regarding spoilers in anime and manga, since they are released in different formats at different times. Something scanlation readers knew 5 years ago may be the biggest spoiler EVAR for an English dub watcher. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Fan speculation

Fan speculations are rampant in anime and manga, and these, according to standards on WP:ATT and WP:NOR, should not be in any articles due to its being original research by some fans, and its lack of attribution. Does that mean, any kind of fan speculations, even universally accepted by fans, should never be in WP?

A related question: I wonder how to remove such content on articles without angering editors.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag is as needing a reference. If no suitable references are provided within a couple of weeks, then delete it. If someone complains, then point them to WP:ATT and WP:NOR and inform them that if the fan speculation can not pass both of those policies, then it has no place on Wikipedia. Of course there is still the chance that editors will be angry over it, but there is not much you can do about those types. --Farix (Talk) 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since apparently nobody follows WP:MANGA/D

Some of you may remember a discussion (now archived) in which I proposed that, since the genres used to classify anime and manga are identical, we should merge Category:Anime by genre and Category:Manga by genre trees into a common Category:Anime and manga by genre, as is done already with many of the other anime and manga categories, to prevent overcategorization.

Nothing came of the discussion then, but I have finally gotten around to making a CFD nomination for the proposed merge. I have already listed the discussion on our deletion sorting page, but either nobody has that page on their watchlist or nobody cares about the merger, so I'm announcing it here directly.

Please feel free to express your opinion at the discussion, and if you haven't yet, please watchlist our deletion sorting page as well. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think pretty much everyone agrees- I don't remember anyone objecting past the point of "not all manga have a corresponding anime and vice versa". All that is needed is someone with the bot-power to effect all of the changes required. I think consistency is a good thing and have been frustrated for a long time with the inconsistency in this WikiProject, probably its only problem (since the scope is so broad). --Squilibob 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Streamlining genres

Another way to deal with the problem of overcategorization is to reduce the number of genres listed for each property. Currently, people seem to list every genre possible, even if these are redundant. We should encourage people to choose the most appropriate two choices - only a few shows deserve more than two genre listings. For example, mecha > adventure > action > drama and mecha > science fiction > drama, so Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann does not need any of those larger categories once it has mecha. Mecha and Comedy are the only genre needed. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a science fiction comedy, and the other genre are unneccessary. Seinen is not even a genre. It seems like we could codify some simple, easy to follow guidelines for how to decide what genre a show is, and limit the field from ballooning like this. Doceirias 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this. The genres on pretty much every article are totally worthless because all of them are there. Take a look at Betterman - a rather dark sci-fi series, which, for some reason has comedy listed as a genre. Just because a show has a few funny scenes or makes some jokes doesn't mean it's a comedy, guys.
I definitely agree we need to cut down on the number of genres on each article, and maybe get some guidelines up for doing so. As it is, genres are basically putting each and every thing that any series could possibly apply to, no matter how minor. Moogy (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a note to the main page. Comments? Improvements? Doceirias 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's good to have it in the style guide so that we have somewhere to point people who get annoyed that they can't fill pages with genrecruft, but I think we were already doing that less officially. (At least I was.) But it doesn't change that we still have double the number of genre categories as we have actual genres. --tjstrf talk 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think in general, it's good to follow the guideline that if one category is a child category of another, only the child catagory should be added. Any parents should be removed. This is already a guideline for all of Wikipedia, so it applies here, too. Perhaps put something in suggesting people categorize according to the 2-3 main themes/genres. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that rule as related to this case is that not all of a genre will necessarily fit into another genre even if most of them do, so we can't exactly subcategorize one genre under another. So which genres are the most predominant really has to come down to editorial judgment. --tjstrf talk 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd love to see it changed to something like: japanese-domographic primary-genre, with this, that, and the-other elements. For example, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex might become Shonen Sci-fi, with Cyberpunk, Action, and Mystery elements.
My reasoning two-fold. First, many anime arguably fall into several genres, and setting a guideline that limits the description may invite debate over which genre gets listed. Second, I think for many people the use of genres as tags is a useful reference shortcut in an anime/manga listing. MkDoyle 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice for prose, problematic for categorization. --Masamage 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Two problems right off - shonen isn't a genre, and should never be in the genre field in the first place. If we want to create a new slot for shonen/seinen (GiTS is seinen) that would work, but it isn't a genre.
Secondly, the series is Cyberpunk - which renders Sci-fi and Action redundant. Mystery could be a back there a better term though? Mystery implies detectives to me, while GiTS is more police procedural.
These are guidelines rather than rules, and if a case can be made that an property deserves more than two or three genres, that would be fine. But debate would probably help reduce the amount of clutter. Doceirias 02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood my suggestion, so I'll elaborate. To your first point, shonen isn't a genre, but shonen, shojo, etc. are commonly used in genre tags as part of the description of manga/anime. My suggestion is to use them as a prefix to the primary genre of the anime rather then take them out, as I think they have value (an english equivilant might be 'kids-comedy' vs. 'college-age-comedy'). To your second point, I'm not necessarily advocating using those tags for SAC. Those are the tags already in place and I was using them as an example. MkDoyle 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I understood the point. I just think we should create a new line in the infobox for target audience instead of pretending shonen etc are genre. That's another thread, though. As far as your main point; minor elements in the show can be discussed in a style section, and there's no reason why the title can't appear on a list of ____ anime and manga. But they shouldn't be in the info box, and the idea is intended to reduce the number of categories as well... Doceirias 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nymphet up for deletion

Could someone add it to our delsort page? I'm not exactly sure how to do this... (And, based on the hubbub about it being placed on hiatus by Seven Seas and spawning some major drama at ANN, I'm pretty sure it meets the notability requirements.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If they're running test cases, you'd think people would pick something more borderline to nominate than a series with an anime adaptation. Or was this one just pulled off of recent changes or something? --tjstrf talk 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure it was off recent changes as the nominator is a protoller of recent changes.-- 07:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, understood. Really, there are very few manga pages on Wikipedia that don't meet notability, since in order for a series to earn a translation (or even a scanlation) it will most likely be a series which is either (1) adapted into English and/or an anime and hence notable (2) multiple volumes in length and hence notable (3) by a notable author and hence notable. Anything else we simply don't have the info in English to write an article on. --tjstrf talk 07:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still rather shocked that my article for 12 Days (manga) is still there. OEL/Amerimanga is even more tenuous! :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
12 Days, if nothing else, is published by a very notable company, so I do not believe there should be a controversy on that article.-- 07:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)