Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

Contents

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters stuff

Doceirias, KrebMarkt and myself have been discussing some points of the cleanup of List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters, and we've (Doceirias and myself, I think KrebMarkt's offline) reached a point where we agree wider project input would be most useful. Specifically, we're seeking wider input on how to handle some stuff related to Steel Ball Run; everyone is welcome to join in at Talk:List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters#More work. ···「ダイノガイ千?!? Talk to Dinoguy1000 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're also looking for input on how to restructure the articles splintering off the main series article; how to split the chapter lists, how/whether to split character lists, and I imagine we're going to be eliminating the pages on each of the seven parts in favor of some new, better structure. The unique structure of the series makes things complicated, but it definitely deserves some attention. Doceirias (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It is an interesting challenge. I confess, the structure by parts appears, despite the difficulties this causes, to be the most logical. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In many ways the simplest solution would be to have seven pages, each covering the respective part, characters, and chapter list, but that goes against the trend towards consolidation, especially when the first five parts were all one series, and the transitions between the partswere occasionally in the middle of volumes. Doceirias (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the consolidation trend applies mostly to smaller franchises and articles on individual subjects, for example episode lists with fewer than X episodes or individual articles on non-notable characters being merged back into their parent articles. And even if JJBA weren't split into parts like it is, it's not like we're averse to making completely arbitrary decisions about where to split lengthy series. ···「ダイノガイ千?!? Talk to Dinoguy1000 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So perhaps the best course of action is to propose having seven articles, each covering characters and chapters for that respective section, and see if anyone objects/has better ideas. Doceirias (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I still say (yeah, yeah, I'm a broken record =) ) we save ourselves a bit of trouble and use the seven parts articles that have already been created if we're going this route. ···「ダイノガイ千?!? Talk to Dinoguy1000 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM proposal

Jinnai (talk · contribs) has made a proposal at WP:MOS-AM. Just thought I'd post it here so it would get proper attention. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ANN cleanup scorecard

Since the checking lists have started to head into the archives, here's all the FA/GA/FLs that still have ANN encyclopedia references that need scrubbing:

How do we want to divvy up the work? (And is there any way to sticky this to make the archivebot ignore it for a while?) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to tag the ones I can tackle. For many of these articles, we have people who can "specialise" Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Signing up is not a bad idea. At all. Everyone, join in! —Quasirandom (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Did List of Soul Eater chapters. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay! —Quasirandom (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've "unsigned" for .hack//Sign as it has far greater issues than just the ANN referencing. It has a ton of bad sources, missing sources, etc, and should probably be GARed (seriously, it is using an ePinions review, and another being used is on blacklists for being a dangerous site)!). I tagged it for issues, but User:Kazu-kun removed all tags, including one noting it has excessive non-free. Anyone else want to attempt to deal with this one before a more formal review process gets it delisted? I've already individually tagged places cites are missing and/or sources are questionable (so long as he doesn't remove those as well as he is being extremely owny IMHO). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I need an assist with List of Kingdom Hearts media: I'm behind a firewall that's blocking Square Enix (I'm really regretting taking this contract) so I can't search their catalog for citations for publisher/pub date for a couple manga volumes. Can someone look for replacements for the last few ANN encyclopedia refs? If not, we can always drop back to Amazon.co.jp, which is being used for some of their other books, but first-party refs for this sort of thing is much better than a seller's site. (Even better would be to also replace the other Amazon refs as well.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Its my lunch break, so I'll go for it (no firewall here :) ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Done...that list seriously needs to be split though :P That table....*shudder* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Thank you. (There's also the whole thing of listing the identical publishers in each row instead of in the prose intro to each. And a couple slightly dubious images.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been able to confirm the director and animation studio for List of Rental Magica episodes, but the dates I can't seem to find. Also, the only references I can find (since I don't own the DVDs) for Victor Entertainment working on it would be the OSTs. Should I use the OST as a source for the fact that they worked on the music?じんない 19:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Bleach (manga) lists now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of List of Gunslinger Girl episodes are done, both ANN and Syobi. However, I can not find any source for the English airdates. The official IFC channel page has the titles and summaries, but not airdate, and alas Amazon.com's online download pages just list the first airdate for all of the episodes. Everything else should be good, even added the missing sources for the Japanese airdates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I need some help. I couldnt find the broadcasting dates from the first Fullmetal Alchemist anime. I found two replacements for the staff, but all the dates I found were not specific.Tintor2 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just stole Azumanga Daioh from under Quasirandoms nose. I replaced the ANN ref with a Anime Encyclopedia ref to show the original airing method. The page needs some minor upkeep, I was told leads should be unreferenced as the info should (and in this case is) already cited in the article body. I'm not convinced over the gamefaqs reference, I'll see if I can find a replacement. Unfortunately it's quite rare outside Japan, and is fairly uncommon within Japan. Which is irritating because I want to play it, and don't want to pay £130-£150 for the disc! Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the official sites, http://asciimw.jp/mediamix/yotsuba/, has the GBA and Playstation games listed for confirming existence. From the covers, the PS one was done by Bandai, so there is probably an official site for it somewhere or more official listing-yep, there is :). The GBA is from King Records. I think I'd, at min, go with an Amazon.co.jp listing[http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B000087JHC over GameFAQs for the dates if more official ones can't be found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't very clear. I'm referring mostly to [Azumanga Daioh Puzzle Bobble http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsQCx33HJ78] , which is arcade only and difficult to find out about on reliable sources due to it not being ported to consoles or easy to find. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For unreferenced leads, not quite -- see WP:LEAD. Short form: For things that are standard-issue information, like a publisher or broadcast year, no citation is needed in the lead. However, comma, for controversial or unusual things (such as, in this case, the unusual broadcast format) citations are reasonable or possibly required. (Thanks for taking over the article -- was stumped on that last bit.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to remove the final two ANN Encyclopedia references at List of Shugo Chara! episodes so that it can be promoted. --Farix (Talk) 11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done the most I can with Bleach. Whoever wants the rest can steal them from me. Use refs I found as necessary. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Good job, getting that much done. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@Tintor2 - Thanks for finding an archive link for the FMA airdates. I was going batty, looking for something, anything, on the down-the-rabbit-hole of an official website. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I think I jumped when I found it (^_^).Tintor2 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth reposting this list of just the TBD parts, to get more project visibility? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it may be as people tend to ingore stuff at the top of the list more than the bottom. Also if it looks smaller and easier to handle people are more likely to contribute than if it seems overwhelming.Jinnai 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

e-animedia a RS?

[1] - They have a monthly magazine Megami Magazine that's been going for nearly 10 years. Possible other stuff.Jinnai 07:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The also have Animedia, which has been out for about 28 years, along with several other magazines in addition to the two already mentioned. I'd say that site is very reliable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lance Belmont should be split from main List of Robotech characters

Lance Belmont should be split as I feel there is enough evidence provided in these links which prove that it should have its own article.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You won't be able to use the robotechcomics site as it's clearly a blog. Blogs almost always never meet WP:RS. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The Fourth Rail doesn't mention the character, so that can't be used towards establishing notability. Dandy has already specified why Rototech Comics isn't a reliable source. Besides, the link is only to the blog's front page and is useless as a reference. That leaves only Comic Book Resources as a potential reliable source. However, while it does talk about the character, it far from meets the significant coverage clause as required by WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Yamcha

I have suggested a merge of the article Yamcha with the List of Dragon Ball characters here. Please contribute to the discussion so that consensus on whether or not the article should be kept or merged can be reached. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to episodes from official licensors

Funimation has been releasing a lot of their episodes on their website for the anime they own the rights to. I'm wondering if we should link to these as they appear to be staying around for the forseeable future and ifso, which page: the main page or episode page? Other companies I know have been doing this, but Funimations seem to be more permenant in general.Jinnai 23:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean in the ELs? I don't think we really need to do that beyond noting within the prose that they were released online. If people want to find them, they can go looking at their preferred location (and, with the recent blow up over FMA: Brotherhood, may not be that permanent). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
*pedant mode*Actually I'd argue that FMA is the victim of crap security, the blow up is actually over One Piece being leaked before it aired in japan.*pedant mode off*. I think that if we add links to legal sources, we'll just get people assume linking to youtube is also okay (there are legal youtube videos, but very few). Videos are easily found from the homepages of the companies involved. Are there likely to be any precedents at any other projects? Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know links to Hulu and the like were rejected, official or not, but the usual argument is the temporary nature of the videos and that the general American-only nature of most of those. I can't remember if Funi and the others are country specific in allowing videos to be seen or not?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Depends, Their Toei licenses like Galaxy Express 999 are general availability (unlike on Crunchyroll where I have to use a proxy server for the same episodes), and so is FMA. But their One Piece was going to be locked (I got a country error trying to load their dedicated OP site). The problem is that the content belongs to different publishers (they also have ADV titles, which are locked even though some are available in the UK on dvd) Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting tired

User Arhicks00 has been constantly adding unsourced facts to Naruto Uzumaki and Rock Lee, and keeps reverting whenever one user delete it. I tried talking to him in Talk:Rock Lee, but he seems to be ignoring me.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

He keeps with that saying that speculation should be used Here.Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Left him a 3RR warning. Looks like he may finally be getting a clue as he self reverted his last undo. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way. It seems Naruto attacks are prone of events like these. I'm constantly undoing the Naruto Clash of Ninja series and Naruto Ultimate ninja series articles. DragonZero (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term Narutard...sigh. It's probably inevitable since it's such a popular series. Feel free to take a wikibreak as needed, I have a few of the main Naruto pages watched, I'm sure other people do too. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Im not thinking of taking a break. I was just tired of those responses.Tintor2 (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comics

Could someone expand on my edit to the section on publication formats on the comics article? There was absolutely nothing about Japan there. Thanks, --Cattus talk 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ANN Encyclopedia release pages

Generally, the ANN Encyclopedia is not considered a reliable source because the content is user editable. However, one part of the encyclopedia that isn't user editable that I know of is the section about releases (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/releases.php). Does everyone else think that this section falls under the guidelines as a reliable source and should this been mentioned in the Online reliable sources page? --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the ANN encyclopedia references at Kon Kon Kokon three times within the past hour. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I did so as ANN is used in Tokyo Mew Mew and that has been a featured article on wikipedia, so I defend my edits here the parts that were edited by Farix INCLUDE manga release info. Knowledgekid87 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Tokyo Mew Mew only uses the news and reviews sections of ANN as sources. However, ANN's encyclopedia section is not considered a reliable source because it is user-edited. While at one time Tokyo Mew Mew did reference the encyclopedia section as a source, those references have since been removed or replaced. --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
*Shrugs* This isnt worth an all out edit war, I will just change the references as I was only trying to be helpful with the article kon kon kokon (Been watching it awhile).Sorry for the trouble and good luck editing all of those other pages though if consensis agrees with you on the issue =). Knowledgekid87 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note here if you view the titles by: ALL you will find kon kon kokon on the list: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/releases.php?yearmonth=all&anime=K Again though sorry for the trouble I caused, a simple did not know and being stubborn thing I guess.Knowledgekid87 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I could have sworn we had a discussion about the releases page recently, but I can't remember what the outcome was. I think, in general, since it is under the encyclopedia it shouldn't be used either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I will look for ANN pages that are a part of this problem as well, konkon kokon is fixed, I added 3 new references to it, no prob.Knowledgekid87 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You can look at the sources used for the encyclopedia part. Sometimes you can get a nice catch and find a Reliable source among the lot (not alway thought) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Broadcasters and their dates are usually the hardest to find, especially if your looking at anime no longer being broadcast.Jinnai 07:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I found a way to find schedule for not too old shows on AT-X or TBS and there is cal.syoboi.jp which is debated as RS. For this one the hardest may be to convince Goodraise. --KrebMarkt 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it had been decided that yes, the release page part of the ANN encyclopedia were indeed RS, and had so documented it. I've been using those in my replacement runs, as needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned here in the fourth paragraph in the section by Collectonian, but it was never really discussed.Jinnai 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue with List of Reborn! episodes

The template from List of Reborn! episodes is showing the summaries from the 4th season of the series even though the 4th season already has a list. Could anybody check it? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Eps 129 and on were incorrectly using "List Of" instead of "List of" for the sublist param :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I wonder if I should change {{Japanese episode list/sublist}} to take the name of the specific season sublist, instead of the main episode list (although that would require a run through the transclusions); that would prevent stuff like that. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah...I think that would be way too much work fixing existing ones for what was a fairly minor error (and really wouldn't have prevented this issue anyway LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The way I'm thinking of, it would have prevented it... ;) And in any case, now that we have our resident AWB fairy back in action, such a change would be quite quick and painless to propagate out to the necessary lists. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability and fiction

Run away!

Surely someone must be able to get some pictures of this to stick in the gundam article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This source is RS as a Japanese news paper web counter part. Even better an English article at the start of the build was found: building a 1/1 scale Gundam. --KrebMarkt 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this division of seasons okay?

List of Reborn! episodes is divided in seasons per the names from the DVD's names. However, the third DVD series is composed only by episodes 66-73, and it was added as part of season 2. Should season 2 be moved to List of Reborn! episodes (seasons 2-3) and the consecutive sesasons be moved also? (season 3 to season 4, and season 4 to season 5). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Go and do it. Shoot first, ask questions later. If I were you, I'd remove this whole thread. It's on the wrong page anyways. Goodraise 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Im an idio... I accidentally moved season 2 to 2-2, and I cannot revert it or move it again.How can I remove it or undo it?Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I got it for you. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Dinoguy. By the way, should the title be season or seasons?Tintor2 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Seasons, since it's covering two of them (I didn't notice the lack of a plural "s" the first time around and had to re-move the page =P ). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. Now season 3 should be moved to 4, and 4 to 5, but it avoids from doing that.Tintor2 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 4 to 5 was done, but I cant do the one from season 3 to 4.Tintor2 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Automatic categorization by infobox

Generally, it is frowned upon for a template, such as navboxes or infoboxes, to categorize an article. One of the few exceptions are maintenance categorize and some userboxes (See WP:CAT). So I though that we may want to remove the content categories from {{Infobox animanga}} and directly add these categories to the page. This can be accomplished with a quick AWB run, though it would be a good idea to turn off all other fixes. --Farix (Talk) 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the auto-categorization is really a problem in this case. There aren't any situations I can think of where an article would transclude one of the components, but the auto-added category wouldn't be appropriate for it. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I can't think of an issue, except sometimes we may need to manually add ones if it was released in 2 different formats, such as OVA made into a film or maybe if special OVA episodes were added to a season set.Jinnai 03:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Novel vs Light novel

Is there any particular reliable source that we can use to determine if a novel falls within the light novel category? --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, uh, I can see the reason for the source, but it should already be obvious whether a novel is a regular novel, or a light novel based on the illustrations included and its target readership. But anyway, the first thing I thought of was Seven Seas Entertainment and their light novel line. Their press release from a couples years ago doesn't really define what a light novel is, but the related ANN news report defines them as easy to read novels that are geared towards teen-aged readers. They often feature manga style art and are serialised in monthly magazines in the same manner as many manga.-- 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What about old stuff that isn't easy to find? I'm talking about pre-2000s novels, which more than likely can't be seen to check the type of illustrations they have. Even if they did, it would be a subjective point of view based in the person that sees the illustrations, wouldn't it?. Right now, the only way to identify the type of novel would be finding information about a magazine serialization. Also, if they aren't serialized, how do we know their target readership? Jfgslo (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Many of the light novel imprints are targeted to specifically male or female readerships. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As TheFarix says, is there a source that states which imprints are for light novels, which for novels and particularly which readership? For new novels, it's easier to identify them since they are on the news, but if they aren't, I don't think it would be obvious whether a novel is light or not if we are unable to see the illustrations, which would be the case for most Japanese-exclusive novels anyway. A source (preferably Japanese) that has that information would be helpful, specially for pre-2000s novels. Jfgslo (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Zatch Bell! Characters

List of Zatch Bell! minor characters was tagged for merging to List of Zatch Bell! characters in December 2008, as is the norm with these minor character lists. Per discussion at Talk:List of Zatch Bell! characters#Merge proposal, the only two people to oppose gave no real reasons for doing so. This month, the minor list was prodded[2] which I endorsed[3], so of course my resident follower User:DreamFocus came behind and deprodded[4]. I think redirected the minor list to the main list per the discussion[5], but he is, of course, continuing to undo this. Additional views at the original discussion and eyes on both articles appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I originally proposed it and I have moved over 1 character from the list that might have potential for more notability. The rest seem entirely background characters or 1-2 shot characters.Jinnai 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

TV.com

Can TV.com be cited as a ref for airdates? For example, using this as a ref for List of Peace Maker episodes.Extremepro (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entries are user contributed, so it can probably not be used. Goodraise 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
TV.com is unrealible as anyone can register and add information which is then scruntised by the person who si editor to decided if it should eb added or not, there no garantee on information there at tv.com--Andy Chat c 11:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope, TV.com is even less reliable than IMDB, especially for anime. If you check the RSN noticeboard, you'll probably find a few threads on it going into longer detail, but as noted above the short reason is because it is primarily user edited.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Need inputs

Hi,

There are some war editing on Pandora Hearts over the right names & terminology see Last 50 Edits. I started a discussion to reach a consensus to resolve the issue Talk:Pandora_Hearts#Naming but only two persons did give their inputs and while others continued waring. I have now enough evidence that the official English will stick with the Japanese 8.5 guide book names [6].

I see 3 possibles courses of action. The first is to wait for the official English to make its way to the fan base but some scanlation/fansubs won't stick with it preserving the confusion. The second is to put comments citing where and how was decided the various names. The third is put the whole article into semi-protection for a short while forcing every IP editors to read discussion page.

Any piece of advice is welcome

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From what YenPress says, it seems reasonable to go with the guidebook names (plus, they are the "official" names at this point). To deal with the edit warring, I'd pop in a comment at the top, or maybe one at each disputed character. Give anyone changing one revert, then if they keep at it, revert as vandalism. If it continues, then yep, semi-protect. Unfortunately, we've had the issue with quite a few on-going series (even finished ones were people just don't like the English names). Doing the comments, plus semi-protect as needed usually helps slow it down some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Put in action those advices. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would actually look and see if the terminology section is needed to understand the rest of the article. If the rest of the article can do without it, then ax the section. If there really is a need to explain a term, then explain the term where the term is first used. The thing about terminology sections is that most of the time, they are either trivia or of interest to fans who already know about the story. In other words WP:FANCRUFT magnets. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hidden agenda: mid-term objective is to merge elements of terminology & chain section into plot & characters sections and re-organizing the characters section in a less in-universe fashion probably broken between protagonist/antagonist/others characters. The character section was in worse shape a while ago with blog writing style, Orignal Research, Excessive Plot. Reading a character described as Tsudere type raised the Red flag in my head. --KrebMarkt 13:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 3 of List of School Rumble episodes

There have been problems recently with whether to list season 3, which contains 2 actual episodes as OVAs or a season. There were mock episode summaries released for each episode by TV Tokyo, however only the last 2 were ever released and those were with 2 volumes of the manga (1 for each). Normally anything not released for TV and a movie is considered an OVA, however, these are listed as season 3 episodes.Jinnai 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some outside opinions? It's been happening much more frequently recently on the main article School Rumble, at least once/day, if not multiple times.Jinnai 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another reliable source for reviews -- in French

KrebMarkt has pointed out the existence of this book, which does for manga licensed in French what Manga: The Complete Guide does for English. As such, we can use to for material for Reception sections, and if we can't otherwise verify it, licensensures. For reference: {{cite book | first= | last= | editor=Nicolas Finet | title=Dicomanga: le dictionnaire encyclopédique de la bande dessinée japonaise | publisher=Fleurus | language=French | location=Paris | isbn=978-2-215-07931-6 | year=2008}}. 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I added it in the book part of the project reference libraries.
Comment: There are 10 editors who participated this dictionary and each article is nominatively attributed to its writer. I was too lazy to mention the 10 of them in the reference libraries. I picked that one up after remembering that this dictionary lead editor was guessed on France Info in July & August 2008 for weekly chronicle on Manga/Manwha for dummies or so. --KrebMarkt 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a general editor listed? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Lead editor Nicolas Finet as it was written under his direction. Yea i got your point but each article writer is identified --KrebMarkt 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the template reference above with that -- standard is to include both editor and contributor. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Need third opinion

I need someone else to look into the activities of SallyFord (talk · contribs) in relation to anime podcast articles. Particularly with Anime Pulse and Geeknights which she attempted to tag for speedy deletion. Sally has a long history of disliking the former article. I also think that there may be a WP:COI here as she claims to host a rival podcast. On an unrelated note, she seems to be retaliating against me on an article about the outdoor drama, Honey in the Rock after I removed a speedy deletion tag she placed on Geeknights. First by challenging its notability,[7] despite that four newspaper articles are already listed in the reference section, and then adding unsourced information about an unrelated improve group in Chicago.[8] --Farix (Talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at them there is defintely a WP:COI in the user sallyford, but you might have one to but to very much lesser extent, there defintely a rivalary (maybe not particular with yourself and the other user) but with the different podcasts, anime pulse is defintely not spam. That is my opinion on it but speedydeletion tags are defintely not required on any of them.--Andy Chat c 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm also involved in those issues with SallyFord (talk · contribs). Who has a grudge toward Anime Pulse and other rivals podcasts but doesn't enough courage to send them to Afd. She does have enough to do disruptive edits [9][10]. I'm tired of that user behavior: bad faith edit, writing slander toward rival podcast and misuse of policies & guidelines. --KrebMarkt 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Both of these podcasts are not notable according to the spirit of Wikipedia. The Anime Pulse article is poorly written and very unfocused. Is the article about the company or the podcast? If this article is about the company then it's blatant spam. If the article is about the podcast then a lot of the info on the page has to be rewritten. Geeknights is also another podcast with notability issues that no one has addressed for months and should be deleted. It seems TheFarix is at least involved or related to one of these podcasts and compromising the rules of Wikipedia etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That user should then send those article to Afd and spare us slanderous & bad edits. That user should also accept fairly the Afd decisions afterward. --KrebMarkt 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by retaliation. Retaliation does not equal disagreement. I had questions about the notability of Honey in the Rock. I never heard of it. Upon further investigation, I was wrong to put a tag on it. In theory it does have some merit to be an article on Wikipedia. Through my investigations, I did find more info about Honey in the Rock as well as information about H —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
First, how the hell do you figure I have a conflict of interest with either podcast article? I have no association with either podcasts or podcasting in general, other then regularly listening to OtakuGeneration, Anime World Order, RightStuf's, and AnimeNation's podcasts. Second questioning their notability doesn't give you license to undermine and vandalize the articles, as you keep doing with Anime Pulse. The fact that Geeknights has wone the Parsec Award and Anime Pulse the Podcast Award prevents them from being speedy deleted. Nor is the fact that the Anime Pulse article is unfocused make it a candidate for deletion. If you think they are not notable, send them to WP:AfD.
I said might never said you did, none of your edit suggest you do just wha ti was reaidng in talk pages and your original post above suggest to me whatever SallyFord podcast is she favour more you might have something against it, but since your a long time editor and a very good one i would probally go with more you aint. Apogolise for coming across worng.--Andy Chat c 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
As for retaliation, yes I very much believe you are retaliating against me with your edits to Honey in the Rock. You had no interests in the subject area other then seeing it listed on my user page as an article I created. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is totally untrue and deep down you should know that. Not only did I spend time to review the notability of the Honey in the Rock article, I spent time researching about the subject and adding content to it. The article is a stub, and I'm trying to expand on the Honey on the Rocks article. I think you're projecting and it really doesn't help matters. I don't know what OtakuGeneration, Anime World Order, RightStuf's, and AnimeNation's podcasts have to do with anything. Are they competing podcasts? Then by admitting that, you just admitted your conflict of interest. The awards AP and Geeknights won are not notable. If that's the case, every podcast on the planet would be notable. Disagreement about content does not equal vandalism. Just because I question some of the content of an article does not mean it is vandalism. Wikipedia is not meant to be a podcast directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont see how simply listening to a different podcast is a conflict of interest, I suggest not throwing around bad faith accusations based on such ridiculous reasoning. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is unsound logic. For example, someone likes baseball but doesn't root for the home team.
@SallyFord can't you stop doing contestable edit on Honey in the Rock ? The world of Naruto is a fictive universe there is nothing as a Japanese there. --KrebMarkt 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is everyone nitpicking all my contributions? Is Naruto not Japansed? Why does he speak japanese then? I think it makes it clear that Naurto is japanese. How many blue-eyed and blonde japanese people do you know? Also, I am colored blind... so just giving a quick mention that his hair is blonde shouldn't be contested.
He is a character from a Japanese series. This does not automatically mean Naruto himself is Japanese. For example, Allen Walker in D.Gray-man is from a Japanese series, but the character is of British origin. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Why does he speak Japanese? For the same reason he speaks english in the english localisation. Content is generally voiced for the region its intended for.... As for his hair color, it's neither important to the plot nor are their any sources in the article to suggest the color has any special meaning in terms of creation and development. Remember, information must be sourced in reliable sources (especially in a B-class article like that). It's certainly not a defining characterstic as your attempt to include it suggested. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
@SallyFord Stop digging your own grave with your questionable edits on Naruto Uzumaki. --KrebMarkt 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It's like Revert City. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed and after 2 3RR warnings, I've reported her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it only shows evidence of ganging up on one editor. @Dandy or Kreb. Let me ask about this. Have you heard about Wikipedia's new UpDog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it shows people looking after important articles. Several of the editors you disagree with have long historys of writing and contributing to high quality articles. Whereas you seem to be ignoring every single piece of advice given and looking for arguements to make. And learn to sign your posts! Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Only proves power trips of certain "editors". According to Wikipedia's new policies in UpDog, it states all users have rights to edit any article regardless of editorial history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No one has said oyu can not edit, but when you are being disruptive and nto listen and vandlism articles then you edits will be reverted. You clearly are new and do not know most of the polocies you state because what you state is not what poloices you state say. Instead of engaging in edit war go to talk and discuss the problem you have witht eh article, instea dof tagging go to talk and say ther ethis porblem with the article and people will not get so mad at you--Andy Chat c 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) No idea what this "UpDog" you keep claiming is, but it obviously has no real basis within Wikipedia and it certainly does not declare new policies here. And no, all users do not have rights to edit any articles regardless of editorial history. You vandalize, you'll get blocked. You edit war, you'll get blocked. If you are under a topic ban, you will get blocked. You act like an ass just to act like one, and you will be warned not to edit the article and if you continue anyway, you will be blocked. Editing is a privilege, not a right.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You mean to tell me you don't know anything about the new UpDog? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 15:35, June 17, 2009 SallyFord
(outdent)I don't. I'd like an explanation. A search of wikipedia for UpDog returns nothing relevant. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ditto the first several screens of g-hits on "UpDog Wikipedia" (without quotes). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Try Urban Dictionary: [11] Goodraise 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
大したことはないものをあなたとは何ですか? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talkcontribs) 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw that when googling, and figured that was about the jist of it...totally non-existent BS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history, it seems clear that SallyFord is either acting in bad faith or acting from an extreme lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies. At this point, an AN or ANI thread may be necessary to examine her actions (and the potential sockpuppeting issues noted on the Anime Pulse article talk page). At minimum, it seems clear she needs to be topic banned from that article and any other anime podcast articles due to the clear lack of neutrality and continued inappropriate hostility and continued personal attacks against both other editors and the articles themselves. She's already had two 3RR warnings over that article previously, so no real excuses here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I go to camp to clean up before the summer season and this just snowballs. Yes, I do think it's high time for an AN topic as this editor really does need to be brought to the attention of other administrators. SallyFord has a history of acting very hostilely towards other editors she disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed an ANI report for anyone who likes to contribute. I'll be heading off to bed in a few mintues, but I hope I covered all bases. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: SallyFord (talkcontribs) was blocked indefinitely after resuming vandalism on Blood+ & on her own talk page [12]. I would say in French Ne jouez pas au con but SallyFord did & persisted. --KrebMarkt 13:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Propose for deletion?

I was thinking the page List of FLCL characters should be deleted, after the important characters have been merged to the article FLCL as they aren't notable enough to have their own article and many of the characters listed are pretty minor. DragonZero (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be redirected instead, since content was merged to FLCL per GFDL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It certainly needs clean-up, but I'm not unconvinced that as a whole, the cast of characters is non-notable. I mean, the ratio of reviews of FLCL that mention the wacky, unique characters as part of the show's appeal is pretty close to 1. Many of them go into some detail about this, which to me says the cast is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Before this is merged or redirected, some serious effort should be made to show that the list is not appropriate as it lacks notability as a whole.Jinnai 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


What about these articles. Keith and Berun and Purio and Lupa. They only appear twice in the series and are minor foil characters. DragonZero (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong section? :P Anyway, those should be redirected to the appropriate list.Jinnai 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

jump.shueisha.co.jp closed

Shueisha closed the Weekly Shōnen Jump site. I think the webarchive got it covered though, so the refs just need to be updated. Just a head's up. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some days ago, the booknavi site closed, but it returned. Could it be that Shueisha's sites are in mantenience.Tintor2 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. When I try to access the site, there's a message telling me the sites been closed since May 31, and that starting June 1 the new site is [13], which redirects to [14]. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The .com one does not redirect me ot the viz one i get a complete differnet site but it is not the japanese one unless they have now produced a english version to--Andy Chat c 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you. A google search points me here. I think that's the correct site. The refs just need to be updated. Soon as I figure out how to navigate the site.... ~Itzjustdrama ? C 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Company lists

I noticed that a lot of shows with episode lists are featured lists but lists that proprieties of a company like Funimation are not and are poor. I have been working on a re-vamped format for lists of properties of a company which have a similar look to List of acquisitions by AOL and List of Nintendo 64 games. My sandbox has a work in progress page of what the Properties licensed by Funimation could look like. If anyone has any suggestions they are more than welcome. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your version is an improvement, however these types of list have been removed from most studios (don't know how Funimation got missed). Consensus agreed that such list of properties is not useful and, for the larger companies, are really not very manageable. Instead, titles are categorized appropriately by studio/licensor, etc and the company articles concentrate on the actual company. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally "licensed" is sometimes a misnomer, attributed to companies who often just handle aspects of the release and aren't actually the license holders. Funimation probably being the best example, as many of their "licenses" are still owned by Geneon, and Funi just handle distribution. Unfortunately this isn't always clear as companies typically announce the series, but not always how much of the work they are actually doing. The Funi/geneon relationship was unclear for quite a while. Partly beause of this I agree with the concentration on the companies, and using cats and such for "licenses". Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I had no clue about the consensus, if I had know about it sooner I would have redirected the page myself. I see the points of using categories regarding companies of this nature. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I used the page to finish up the cat before redirecting (about 20 titles were missing their cats). :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com?

Is amazon.com a good source for release dates? on the bottom there is a thing that says "Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?" If any amazon.com user can edit the products info on it how reliable is that? A good example can be with Ai yori aoshi: http://www.amazon.com/AI-Yori-Aoshi-YORI-AOSHI/dp/B001TK9X8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245384511&sr=1-1 This reference says it was released by tokyopop on October 31, 2007. While on tokyopop's website it says it was "Added 10.13.2007" http://www.tokyopop.com/product/1201/AiYoriAoshi/17.Knowledgekid87 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com is an acceptable source for release dates as a last resort. The official publisher site is the preferred source, with reliable sources from review sites or the like being secondary. In this case, however, Tokyopop's site is the best source and it is the date you should use.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Shame it's such a pain to reference. Why they can't give the release dates on the individual pages is beyond me (and seemingly, beyond their code monkeys). Instead we need to use convoluted references (or at least, convoluted titles). Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
So how is it diffrent than using A.N.N if any user on amazon can edit the product info?.Knowledgekid87 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
With Amazon, they don't just accept the edit as is. They check it themselves (including any submitted evidence) and frequently reject submissions (and generally only accept things like typos and stuff). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Amazon really is the last resort. Other retailers are generally better in cases where all of the info comes from the retailer, or user info is clearly marked and separated.Jinnai 05:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In short, Amazon is reliable but depreciated. (For one thing, they tend not to update release dates when the item is delayed.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem user

Xmadixjanex (talk · contribs) has introduced blatant factual errors into List of Naruto characters and Gaara, and currently seems to be a single purpose vandalism account. I've left a level 1 and level 2 warning on their talk page, this is really just to advise people to check any edits he makes to Naruto pages. They aren't exactly subtle, so they'll be easy to spot even for those who only vandalwatch the pages. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode list templates

I am proposing some code changes to both {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}}. The full discussion is occurring on Template talk:Japanese episode list#Code updates. --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode lists and chapter comparisons

List of Gin Tama episodes‎ has had 3 requests/comments in the last 6 weeks, all asking to reintroduce the notes concerning which episodes were adapted from what chapters (which I previously removed, along with the fan divised "arc" linecolors). IIRC the chapter numbers were included in the title fields or something like that. With the similarity to a debate over noting which specific eps were filler in another list a few weeks back, a clear statement regarding this may be beneficial. Theres only so many times I can say "its not appropriate, this is not a fan site". No one has actually tried readding them yet, but clearly the more casual users don't "get it". Although my request for better summaries (over one sentance taglines) seems to have worked!

I might be a little blind, but I don't think we have a MOS-AM section regarding episode lists, and nothing is noted in Template:Japanese episode list either. Now, as it stands "not appropriate" is really my own opinion, and there doesn't seem to be any actual consensus on the matter, so further discussion seems like a good idea. I could also argue the OR card, but that would allow "justification" of it via references. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, standing consensus is that is it does not belong in episode lists through numerous discussions and what we see in our FL lists. So it isn't just your opinion :) Its WP:OR, its generally WP:NPOV because people are mainly wanting them to indicate "filler", and it is generally trivial and trivia. The leads generally note that the episodes are based on a manga. Beyond that, minute details on just what was and was not used is irrelevant. Its similar to most (good) film based on book articles not having a section indicating just what was and was not adapted, even when it can be sourced, beyond a very general overview. I do agree, though, that it might be good to explicitly note in the MoS that it isn't something that belong to provide aid in discussions. For episode lists in general, there was a discussion on adding it to the MoS, but some felt it was WP:CREEP and so the proposed section was eventually adopted by WP:MOS-TV with some changes to match it being for general television rather than anime specific. Personally, I still think the MoS should have a section on it, if nothing else summarizing how the television episode list guide is applied to anime, and one for chapters. But consensus disagreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
My recollection of the discussion is that it is relevant material, but specific adaptation (that is, this episode from that chapter) should introduced only if reliable sources can be found for that adaptation. (Which can include producer notes, in this case, as creator intention allows for first-party sourcing.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Something different to referencing the chapter page of the manga I presume? As this doesn't cover the episode/manga content, only the title. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't so much in doubt over concensus, more the lack of an easy link to it. I've also indicated my annoyance at the lack of increased MOS-AM details in other areas, while series articles and character articles have a set concensus there, many article types don't, which is making it hard for me to decide how to work a couple of articles... Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The MoS is way too short. Goodraise 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Point out that direct comparisons tread into original research. Also point out that these comparisons are unverifiable if they cannot be backed up by a reliable source. And finally explain that not only is such information trivia, its importance is only to a small population of enthusiastic fans instead of the general readership (WP:FANCRUFT). --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of that is good, but I take exception to that last sentence. Academics write papers on the process of adaptation, including analysis of what was and wasn't changed from the source material (and why). Which makes what was adapted of scholarly, and not just trivial, interest. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chapters list technical split

Just to warn people that the issue encountered with the List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters still exists for chapters list that overuse templates. Currently this is the case for List of Initial D chapters. There may be some more thought.

Add List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters to that list --KrebMarkt 12:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is in the mood to split that one Those ones. Thanks ----KrebMarkt 12:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What issue? Reflist not working? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. What issue? An issue with {{Graphic novel list/sublist}}? Why didn't anyone tell me? Goodraise 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Previewing a whole article would return: Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. It's logical that the reflist isn't working first because its templates are resolved the last. In the case of List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters some seasons chapters list were not rendered at all. --KrebMarkt 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
@Goodraise
Not a template issue but more the limit of the Wikipedia engine or whatever you call it. --KrebMarkt 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, this may be a bit of a random comment but: If the template include size is hit when transcluding onto a volume list with {{Graphic novel list/sublist}}, try adding <noinclude> and </noinclude> around the chapters (if they use {{nihongo}}). Templates between the tags aren't counted toward that limit. Goodraise 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters:

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 112779/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 1516797/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 1/500
-->

The templates need to be optimized. I would first start by get doing away with {{Graphic novel list/header}} and {{Graphic novel list/footer}}, instead inserting the code directly into the article, just like we do when using {{Japanese episode list}}. Since the headers are fairly simple, this shouldn't be a problem, and I find these two templates completely unnecessary. Then {{Graphic novel list}} should be optimized to further reduce the post expand include size. In fact, looking at it now, I see lots of room for improvement, and that is before reformatting the code to make it more readable. --Farix (Talk) 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've squeezed very last bit I could out of {{Graphic novel list}} but List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters can't get any longer. I also think that the number of references are also playing a part in the post-expand buffer. Is it really necessary to cite all 163 ISBNs? I wouldn't think those would never be contested. --Farix (Talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The references are in the wrong place. They're supposed to cite the release dates. That means they can't really be skipped. However, they could be converted to plain text. That's not a desireable solution, but it might cut the template number down enough. Goodraise 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That could get ugly if it ever goes for FLC. The refs are in the wrong place, but they all appear to be showing now. Unfortunately, Shuisha doesn't appear to have a single page that lists the release dates. Their search page only has title and number, so can't do a more combined ref. For a series that insanely long (and seemingly still on-going???), I think splitting is a must. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've squeezed very last byte I could out of the GN templates and only got the post-expand include size down to 2,019,250 bytes. That is just barely under the 2MB limit. Either the header and footer templates have to go or the lists should be split up. --Farix (Talk) 18:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
For that list, with 150+ volumes, I don't think dropping the header/footer would make any difference either, so I'd go with splitting. Personally, I'd rather do that anyway, as dropping in the header/footer really is easier than trying to remember the code and location for the header. Though maybe another option would be the combine them into the chapter list, with a flag to note a volume is the first in the list (so include the header) or last (and include footer)? Would that be too big a hassle or a workable solution? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with splitting. Handily, the table is organised in a way that makes it fairly easy. I think it's safe to say that it'll never get licensed :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
@Farix: I find it interesting to notice that no-one noticed that all of the problem lists transclude {{Nihongo}} a lotList of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters for instance transcludes it 307 times, and List of Initial D chapters does so 506 times! Shouldn't that be the place to look if template length is to be reduced? (Or alternatively, replace it with a less expensive one?) G.A.Stalk 04:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that one is potential time bomb as you may have the issue appearing when you start filling the volumes with a lot of {{Nihongo}} templates. I still wonder why List of Hajime no Ippo chapters has no blow up yet with +800 {{Nihongo}} templates. --KrebMarkt 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I can only think of one thing in {{Nihongo}} that could be optimized. But I don't think you can get much gain out of it. The only other solutions would be to not avoid using Nihongo (English (<span lang="ja" xml:lang="ja">Kanji</span> ''Rōmaji'')) or use a very simplified version with just the code from above. --Farix (Talk) 11:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we could get away with creating a mini version of Nihongo for use on our chapter lists, where the two extra parameters are cut - we never use them on chapter titles, anyways (or is there already a mini version like that? I've never looked very closely at Nihongo's forks). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem are the span tags, which make up the majority of the template. Many editors fought for these span tags so that they can alter how the template displays and behaves via their custom style sheets. Get rid of them and we probably get rid of the problem. --Farix (Talk) 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Simplified template created at {{Nihongo-s}}, for lack of a better name. Seems to have a dramatic impact on post-expand include size. I'll make an edit request at {{Nihongo}} that should also help things along. --Farix (Talk) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please create the documentation for the template as it seems to handle things differently. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not that different, except that it only takes the first three params. However, I think we should wait until a more permanent name is settled on. --Farix (Talk) 20:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The template is going to be used a lot, so maybe move it to a shorter name. {{niho}} isn't taken yet. Goodraise 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be harder to remember. --Farix (Talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If the naming convention is to be followed ({{Nihongo}}, {{Nihongo2}}, {{Nihongo3}}), I believe this should be called {{Nihongo4}}. ^_^ G.A.Stalk 06:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like that last change to {{Nihongo}} fixed all of the problem lists (List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters and List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters before split). G.A.Stalk 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Now we just need all instances of {{Nihongo-s}} switched out as it's unnecessary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

dvdvisionjapan.com a good site to use?

http://www.dvdvisionjapan.com/aiyori2.htm < Would this be a reliable site to use for reviews? Knowledgekid87 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it fails WP:RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Shaman King Plot

In the article Shaman King, an Ip address keeps removing the final two paragraphs and changing them to match the anime plot. I'm not sure on the Wiki-rules, still, but I'm sure the manga should be in the plot section while the anime differences should be in the anime section right?DragonZero (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whichever is the original media should go in the plot section.Jinnai 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh right then.DragonZero (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lupin Encylopedia

This has come up while looking at Lupin III's status regarding its upcoming GA review. I previously raised it in the ANN GA/FA/FL replacement discussion, but never got any input.

A while ago I replaced the ANN Ency refs in the Lupin article using Lupin Encyclopedia. While the site is technically a fan site, it's written by AnimeOnDVD.com/Mania reviewer Luis Cruz. link to his reviewslink to a review thread on the aod/mania forums. Also, we already have examples of fansites being used as reliable sources such as Rumic World. I don't know how well the site is used by other sources, but being written by a reviewer for one of the major RS sites is hardly a small thing.

I've cleaned up the article, but the amount of work required for it keeping it's GA status hinges largely on the useage of Lupin Encyclopedia for sources. While many of the sources could be replaced with some work, I'm not convinced it would retain it's GA status if forced to change all the Lupin Encylopeida refs.

The fansite then would qualify as a WP:SPS as he has had his work published elsewhere...though maybe check to see if he's done a review for Lupin at Mania as it might be an issue otherwise that while he might be a general anime expert, on a specific series, aka Lupin, he wouldn't if he hasn't published a Lupin III review.Jinnai 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The review list above has 12 movie/special/tv lupin reviews, not including any reviews of the manga he may have doneDandy Sephy (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Then it should be fine.Jinnai 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Reliable sources and plot summaries

Just to let everyone know that there is a discussion about whether a work can be a reliable source for its own plot summary at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Farix (Talk) 04:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems sourcing List of Gin Tama episodes

I tried sourcing List of Gin Tama episodes with the TV Tokyo, but even if I write the url from each section, I will find an error within the site. The Sunrise site also has titles and rel dates, but there are only 2-3 episodes per url. How should the article be sourced? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand your problem, you can cite the stuff, you just don't know using what style you should do it. If you have to use one ref. per three episodes or less, I suggest you do it like this. However, seeing as Gintama has 150+ episodes, I'd also suggest to find other sources, because that's a lot of work. Trust me, I know. Goodraise 00:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
With TV Tokyo, you can use a general reference if you describe what page to find all the episodes on. I would use an internet archiving tool as TV Tokyo occasionally removes their content, assuming all the dates are on the same page. Otherwise, for Sunrise you can skip some of the info for citing multiple pages from the same site. You still have to provide a title, url, accessdate and if there is one author. The first citationn still must contain all relevant info.Jinnai 00:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I archived the first episodes list from TV Tokyo as well as the staff, but it didnt work as I was directed to "Not found" in TV Tokyo's site. Just see this.Tintor2 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I found that these sections use "content" in the url so it is possible to source. Sorry for the trouble.Tintor2 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Naga the serpent

I could do with some help here. I stripped out the very obvious elements of OR, and added some fact tags, but another editor is having trouble comprehending this, even with a detailed explanation of it on the talk page. I believe the talk page covers the arguments so I'll not go over them again here. The editor is either being ignorant, or just overly protective of something he hasn't actually worked on, and I'm at 2 reverts already and don't want to get into an edit war with a user who is completely missing the point. The only thing they did take notice of was completely misinterpreted. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

soul eater navbox

i'm intersted in doing a soul eater navbox. is there anyone i need to talk to before doing so, or do i just do it? Bud0011 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

With one main article and only two valid lists, it doesn't really need one. The lists can be interlinked with see alsos, and the albums list needs to be merged back to the main (only has two soundtracks) and some unnotable character singles. Can be properly covered in prose in the main) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Three valid lists (episodes, chapters, characters).-- 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Doh, miscounted (heat is cooking my brain). In that case, one should be fine, so long it sticks to a basic design (no crazy colors please :P ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I just merged the info from the album list to the main article, as there wasn't much to merge. With only 3 lists and a main article, I don't feel that's enough to warrant the creation of a navbox.-- 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Its been back and forth on those. Right now, I think it be fine without it, unless the OP plans to aim for a featured topic, in which case it will be needed then. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not an uber fan of them. I think that it incites to create more articles often beyond reason to fill the navbox (implying a childish contest of the biggest navbox). --KrebMarkt 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
isn't there also 3 games due out? Bud0011 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, 3 games have been released, but I can't see them getting beyond Stub class anytime soon. I would say, create those articles first, get them to at least Start class with some formatting from WP:VG/GL and reliable refs, and then create the navbox.-- 00:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenchi Muyo and Pretty Sammy episode lists

I got started on the Tenchi Muyo! and Pretty Sammy episode lists. I'm planning to move the move the episode lists from the Tenchi pages to their respective pages.Duo02 ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ALA awards?

The American Library Association often gives awards to manga series, as can be seen here: any objections to adding this to the awards section of the online resources page? --Malkinann (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an RS to me :) No objections here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of it so much as a RS for coverage (because their coverage of the works is often miniscule), but rather as a way of satisfying the second criterion of WP:BK, "The book has won a major literary award.". Would these awards constitute that? --Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Hmm...I think it would. The ALA would certainly be a good authority for giving book awards, and their other awards have been used to satisfy WP:BK on children's books. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
ALA should definitely count as a literary award. Not that their manga award is anywhere near the profile of the Newbery Award or even the Printz Award, but it's important for notability purposes. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Prizes can help to prove the notability but they can't help for the article content. Our list of prizes should cover the most important ones and the other should be evaluated on case basis. --KrebMarkt 15:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
What about just making the ALA's booklists? --Malkinann (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a copy editor

... for List of Cross Game chapters, by way of prepping it for a FAC run. I'd do it myself but I wrote almost every complete sentence, and it needs an outside eye. Anyone up for the task? Knowing baseball is probably not required, but might be of assistance. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how unlikely it is for someone qualified to volunteer, I might as well give it a try. Goodraise 19:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Coo! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

It's me or there is no more auto-archiving of the +10 days old discussion ? --KrebMarkt 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your right, the bot hasn't hit for awhile. I've manually archived to see if that helps fix whatever is causing the bot problems. If it still doesn't archive after a few more days, we can bug the developer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Last archiving was June 18, 2009 for indication. --KrebMarkt 19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Could it be the 3009 date on the GA/FA/FL ANN replacement topic? 10 days from the 8th is the 18th afterall. Although replys prevent archiving that topic, it may be causing a bug in the rest of the page. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the date back, lets see if it works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
MiszaBot II has probably broken down since it hasn't archived WP:VG's talk page either. --Mika1h (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The date was done per the bots instructions to keep a topic from archiving. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, just seeing if maybe that feature was bugged. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation of news article

Is anyone willing to translate this article for me? From what I know, it's an important point in Aki Toyosaki's career, but I'm probably mistranslating it. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Katherine Luther considered a RS?

info - I wanted to use some of her reviews and she would be considered a RS. It looks like she has some experience, but don't know if her reviews meet WP:SPS criteria.Jinnai 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes. We already consider Deb Aoki RS for About.com's manga section, and it seems like Ms. Luther has some industry experience in the retail areas and previous writing credits elsewhere. While About.com's publishers are kind of self-published, as I recall, the company is very particular about who is allowed to write for each section, they have to go through training, and they are paid freelancers rather than just random bloggers or an anyone can write-ad-based-pay-SPS site. To write in any particular topic, About.com does have minimum qualifications as well. So I think the case can be made for her being RS. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
She should be, for all the reasons Collectonian gives. About.com's publishers are pretty much staffers (even if they're technically freelance) and they are hired for their expertise. Good find there. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode lists in need of splitting

There are a few episode lists that are in need of splitting. I've already split up List of Gin Tama episodes and List of Zatch Bell! episodes earlier today. Anyone else like to take a crack at one? --Farix (Talk) 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do these need splitting? Purely size issues? I'd be particularly concerned about DB being split considering they have already been split from List of Dragon Ball episodes and doing a double transclusion seems very very messy. And what lines of splitting are being proposed? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
All of these lists have over 150 episodes and most can use further improvement and development. Splitting the lists into seasons or some other method will make them easier to work with and we can go into more detail about the season then we can one an overall series list. As for the DB lists, the double transclustion can be easily worked around by overriding the |MainList= parameter during a transclusion. (|MainList={{{1|List of Dragon Ball Z episodes}}} then on List of Dragon Ball episodes do {{:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes (Season 1)|List of Dragon Ball episodes}} --Farix (Talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The devs are screaming at you right now for even thinking of suggesting a hack like that. =) Another possibility, which would avoid the need for the second parameter there, would be simply using |MainList=<includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>, which would probably still make the devs scream at us, but maybe a bit less so. Unfortunately, both of these would trigger a check at WP:CHECKWIKI. Is there any real reason the episode list must be transcluded twice (that is, is there any reason List of Dragon Ball episodes must be a meta-list for all three anime series, as opposed to covering the first with hatnote links or similar to the later two)? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I should probably finish what I started with UY, but it's probably not going to be any time soon. If no one starts it, I'll be able to work on it properly in a week or so. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
User:TheFarix may be refering to this guideline which says series of 80+ episodes should likely be split.Jinnai 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, though, they "may" need to be split, with no guidance as to how to decide -- which leaves me puzzled as to why these lists in particular. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that they are considerably longer than 80 episodes and, with the exception of Dragoball, all atleast twice that length (3x for DBZ). I know we split series that are that long (see List of Bleach episodes. FE, which was split off long before it had the number it does now. The only real concern with splitting would be notability for such long series and at the very least i can say DBZ and Yu-Gi-Oh seasonal set divisions (which is the most common way) could easily pass WP:N. Not sure offhand about the rest. As for List of Urusei Yatsura episodes those would have to be based on the Japanese seasons if they even exist otherwise something arbitrary like List of One Piece chapters.Jinnai 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The UY splits are by end theme, which is the only real logical way to do it (Lum no Love song covers several "standard seasons", which is why its not split by op). I don't think Japanese splits exist, and the Region 1 boxsets are just the x loose volumes (each with four eps) in a outerbox, I don't know how well they follow "seasonal" splitting. I don't own them, 50 volumes is a bit too much! Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My assumption is that episodes lists are one of the few groups of articles that are exempt from the general notability criteria. At least the results of all AfDs on the matter have been that way. All one needs to do is demonstrate that the whole series is notable, which shouldn't be a problem for these series given their length. --Farix (Talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Back again :P Okay, Dragon Ball Z list has now been reorganized properly per Funimation's season divisions in the DVD releases (9 all together); so how do we go about doing the split on a technical level? (and anyone want to help with sourcing, while we're at it LOL). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is The Nihon Review reliable?

I'm not seeing any discussion in the archives about one. Would The Nihon Review count as a reliable source? Reviews are only staff-written, but sometimes use handles instead of real names. The site is referenced a handful times on Wikipedia, but I can't tell if that's for reliability or just noticing them. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look doesn't fill me with confidence, half the reviewers seem to be in High School, one is 15! While the site looks fairly decent, I'm not seeing any reason to believe they are "professionals" or people with a history of writing for the bigger sites or as published authors. They have an open invite for reviewers, so I doubt they are looking for any other then random people who can write a half decent review. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember it was concluded not RS from past discussion(s) when and where i don't know. --KrebMarkt 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find anything in our archives -- thus my question. I don't have a lot of confidence, either, which is a pity as their reviews are often pretty thoughtful. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably in Peer review & others GA evaluations... --KrebMarkt 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have access to Shōnen Magazine Wonder?

Shōnen Magazine Wonder (少年マガジンワンダー) probably one of the 2004 issues. I am looking for verification that a chapter of School Rumble appeared in that issue, but cannot seem to find any links to the magazine, even a cover of it if it lists School Rumble. This is one of the last major pieces missing before I want to try and get it copyedited and brought nominate it for a GA.Jinnai 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it did appear in at least one issue: see the cover here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm I was hoping it would say something about it being a special chapter. This might actually require the primary source considering School Rumble's unique chapter numbering. Well at least I can verify a date and issue so its something.Jinnai 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It does (did you read the description?).

10月よりアニメがスタート (Anime starts beginning in October)
School Ramble 臨時増刊号 (School Rumble special episode/story/issue)
表紙+本編+ショート漫画と盛りだくさん!(Front cover + original story + short manga = A lot served up [in this issue])!)

Hope that helps! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea, the image for me was kinda small so I couldn't distinguish some of the more complex kanji.Jinnai 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The description I quoted was in the text below the image. ;) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • facepalm* Wait...that page had more text below the image?Jinnai 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed on List of School Days chapters

Hi,

I need your opinion on List of School Days chapters. I think this article unnecessary with only two volumes published and containing excessive plot and i my opinion the main article covers this manga adaptation well enough School_Days_(visual_novel)#Manga.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 06:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say. For episodes 12 is enough. I agree though the article if it stays should get some work.Jinnai 06:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are manga chapters not anime episodes ;) --KrebMarkt 06:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
With only two volumes, definitely does not need a standalone list. Redirect to the main which could maybe have a table with the two volumes and much briefly summaries (ala Wolf's Rain) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I will do that. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we've included manga of up to five volumes, including the <300 word summaries per, in the main article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing game websites with Flash

Hi there! I just want to know how to cite the following websites: Tears to Tiara PC Game Kin'iro no Corda 2: Forte that uses Flash for their sites.

I want to cite the game's character voices, how can I do this? Thanks, Amaya Sakura (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#citing websites that use flash that may help some. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tears to Tiara

About the article, is the characters section too big for the article? It is needed for the section to be moved to a separate article? Amaya Sakura (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it's too big. It probably could be seperated out, but before you do, make certain those characters are not trivial/minor characters. Also keep a brief summary of the characters in the main article (so often people split them without doing this).Jinnai 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Trivial/minor characters? How can I make sure which are the important and minor characters? Amaya Sakura (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
For this type of game, it would at a minimum the protagonist and any of the romancable girls (as long as they aren't hidden characters) and any major/reoccurring villain, any party members who stay with the group for a while (ie aren't in 1-2 battles and you can directly control them). Others criteria can be used. A minor character would be someone in 1-2 battles, a reoccruing character that has no relevence to the plot, etc. Please head to the visual novel task-force talk page where you might get some more help.Jinnai 01:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing awards from Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa

I am trying to source two prizes from the FMA film. For the 2005 Mainichi Film Awards, I checked the official site, but I cant find it. It's all in Japanese and I can't understand it. Could anybody check it? For the Fantasia Festival award I found this site, but I don't know if it is reliable. Is it reliable? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For the first one, its listed here near the end of the page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

School Rumble Peer Review

I've nominated School Rumble for its second peer review (the first was some time ago when the article was not much like it is now).Jinnai 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to bother but I nominated List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters to a peer review, which also needs feedback. I'll check school rumble.Tintor2 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I may check it out over the weekend.Jinnai 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping better video games refs are available in peer review page. --KrebMarkt 06:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anime no Tomodachi a RS?

www.tomodachi.de - it appears to be an "Verein zur Förderung japanischer Populärkultur in Deutschland e.V." (Association for the Promotion of Japanese popular culture in Germany). It looks as far as I can tell like a proper NGO. If so, then, would their newsleters be considered reliable since they also have published versions?Jinnai 06:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What means NGO acronym ? --KrebMarkt 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
What kind of information is it you want to cite? Goodraise 06:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
First, NGO. Second, I want to cite 2 newsletters that state the cancellation of School Rumble in Germany. I've checked the 2 RS German sites and neither have any info (one appears to but every like comes up with a document missing page.Jinnai 07:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If they are a properly registered NGO and publish regularly with editorial review of content, then yes. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
de:Anime no Tomodachi appears to be registered.Jinnai 20:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So what all would be considered reliable on the site? Just their newsletter? Would their reviews?Jinnai 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Legends of the Dark Kings

The Ten no Haoh anime series has just been announced for North American release by Sentai Filmwork. When a previously unlicensed title is suddenly picked up for distribution, do we wait for the title to be released or do we move the article's title to its English name before that? Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually we wait till we're sure we know the title it will be released under. Sometimes announcements give a translation of the title, which is not necessary the final title. If the licensor repeatedly uses the title in its announcement (along the lines of "Legends of the Dark Kings will be released in late 2009" sort of thing), then you can be pretty confident that's the title. If ANN starts using the title, that's a good sign. If resellers start listing the title, then you absolutely know it. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Need help sorting out release history for Shizukanaru Don - Yakuza Side Story

As the title says, I'd appreciate some opinions here regarding the release history of Shizukanaru Don as the article has it (especially from someone who can read Japanese). Anyone? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

*nudge* Anyone? KrebMarkt and Extremepro have already commented, but not anything that would help sort this out... ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Guidance on writing some dub changes needed

Although it has been know that the Funimation dub of Case Closed is supposed to happen in North America rather than in Japan, this time there has been hard evidence that this is done-- a new episode referred somewhere supposed to be Osaka to be Calgary. Are there any articles that I can see how this is supposed to be written?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon is the best article we have that might come closest to what you're talking about.Jinnai 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not really sure that is an applicapbe here. The dub of Sailor Moon was much more altered than this show so a seperate article for the dub (assuming that is what you meant with the Sailor Moon reference) does not appear to be the best choice of action. If you meant something please disregard.--76.66.182.50 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Use the info based on what's in the English adaptation section as a basis. The sub-topic article is a start-level one and shouldn't be used as comparison. The rest of the GA/FA series do not have the kind of changes that you are talking about. My other advice is to seek out some quality articles of other television/movie translations that aren't anime that also adapt works similarly.Jinnai 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Not really related, but the Osaka metro area is far larger than Calgary's. There are over 17 million people in the Osaka metro area, and about 1.1 million in the Calgary metro area. If you go by population within just the cities, Calgary has barely over 1 million, and Osaka has about 2.6 million. Quite a difference. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference wonkery

Just as a heads up, the citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, et cet.) now have a little-publicized trans_title= parameter, intended to be used in conjunction with the language= parameter for works/articles/pages with foreign language titles that need to have the title translated. Handy for all those volume/episode/DVD release references we have in spades and the trump suit. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rolling over the floor thinking how many refs we will have to fix. I guess we will fix them as preparation works for GA/FA & FL and i'm not sure that many reviewers are aware of that subtle MoS point. --KrebMarkt 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What MoS point? Goodraise 02:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
When citing a non-english source use the local title to fill the title parameter & not an English translation of that title. English title translation should instead fill the trans_title parameter. I hope i was explained it well enough for more information see that discussion Talk:Kashimashi:_Girl_Meets_Girl/GA1#Cite_issue
I'm not sure it's really necessary to think of it as *fixing* them, and many of our Japanese references consist of book listings (e.g. on chapter lists) where the title usually just consists of the series' Japanese name plus the volume number, and maybe the author's name. Of course, that's not to say that I'm trying to argue *against* this; as far as I'm concerned, it's a very welcome change. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that there is that much to fix. The translated title is optional and giving an English title isn't a requirement really. The main thing is having the real title :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
My personal estimation is at least 200 refs need to be fixed. --KrebMarkt 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Because they are not using the actual titles? That's not actually too bad, all things considered. :P And really, the main ones to focus on would be older GA/FA/FLs. Of the GARs I've been doing, only one thus far has had this issue in any major way. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
One thing to be aware of: if you use trans_title= and there are square brackets in the title= parameter, this borks the formatting of the citation templates. Square brackets in trans_title= also borks it (even if title= is clean), but less badly. So if the web page title [includes some], you've got a problem. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just remove them if the title includes them. There's no reason to include them anyway. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Can also just wrap the text with <nowiki></nowiki> tags, which is done to deal with other special characters that sometimes bork the refs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Or use HTML character escape codes (&#91; and &#93;). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
*resists breaking out in a chorus of "Bork, bork, bork!"* —Quasirandom (talk)

List of fantasy anime

List of fantasy anime needs a lot of TLC. It has accreted so many non-fantasy and non-anime entries (and even some non-manga-nor-anime entries), it was recently prodded as hopeless. Which it isn't, but it does need hella work. If anyone is interested in the subject, it'd make a good collaborative project -- starting with weeding out false entries, and going from there. Either stop in the talk page or jump in feet first. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea. I heard it from you, DCG & Dinoguy1000. I will give it a look as a not yet retired fantasy novels worm ;) --KrebMarkt 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm thinking it may be better to just drop the list and focus on coverage of the use of fantasy in anime. Thoughts? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth trying to clean up the list. For instance, the .hack series are actually science fiction rather than fantasy (though I can see why someone might be confused as the setting in the game is a fantasy setting). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I can be swayed either way at this point. I do think a single list is useful as a supplement to the categories, especially if we can add additional information such as year of creation, but only if we can develop at least a halfway-decent potted summary of the genre features in the lead. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. I think turning it into a sortable table may be useful, with columns for title, release year, perhaps director, and maybe a notes column. Anything else that should be included? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Example

Here's an example of the columns:

Title Japanese Rōmaji First released Director Studio References & notes
07 Ghost セブンゴースト Sebun Gōsuto April 6, 2009 Norihiro Takamoto Studio Deen [1]
Air n/a n/a January 6, 2005 Tatsuya Ishihara Kyoto Animation This date is for the TV series; the film was released on February 5 the same year and was animated by Toei Animation.[2][3]
Afro Samurai アフロサムライ Afuro Samurai January 7, 2007 Fuminori Kizaki Gonzo  
Akazukin Chacha 赤ずきんチャチャ   January 7, 1994 Hatsuki Tsuji Nihon Ad Systems [4][5]

References

  1. ^ "News" (in Japanese). 07-ghost.net. Archived from the original on 2009-05-27. Retrieved 2009-05-20. 
  2. ^ "Air film official website news section" (in Japanese). Toei Animation. 2005-02-05. Retrieved 2009-03-21. 
  3. ^ "Air film official website" (in Japanese). Toei Animation. Retrieved 2009-03-21. 
  4. ^ "Akazukin Chacha TV episode guide". Hitoshi Doi. Retrieved 2009-02-14. 
  5. ^ Animage Editorial Board, ed. (1999-03-10). "ビデオ編". Animage Pocket Data Notes (in Japanese) (1999 ed.). Tokyo, Japan: Tokuma Shoten. p. 92. 


I should note that I question whether Afro Samurai should be considered fantasy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd say no. The fantasical elements are stylizations.Jinnai 07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So, any further comments on the format above? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of columns, do Notes and References need to be separate columns? I'm kinda bothered by the superscripted reference numbers detached from any text as it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Quasi here, I really don't like detached references as it just seems to waste too much horizontal space that can be put to better use. Other than that, why are the English, kanji, and romaji titles separated like that? That's what was originally done on List of manga licensed in English, and it was switched over to instead use {{nihongo}}. And for one last point, we're moving away from date linking, so I'd really not like seeing it (re)introduced on one of our lists without a really good reason. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
References and notes could be combined (and I've now done that). For the superscripted refs, I'm using standard <ref> tags in case the same ref needs to be used more than once. I listed the versions of the title separately in order to allow them to be sorted to give more options on how to view the list (I think options like this are fine and makes the titles easier to read in a list format. As for the date linking, that's done automatically by the {{dts}} tag, and that tag is very frequently used in sortable tables to make sure the dates are properly sorted. Additionally, the date linking issue is still pretty much up in the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihonjoe (talkcontribs) 05:03, 7 July 2009
The combined refs/notes look much better, and the separated titles for sortability definitely makes sense. As for the linked dates, while it is true that general consensus on the issue is still up in the air, everything I've observed of our project specifically suggests that we don't have any interest in maintaining linked dates, and delinking them is one of the first phases of article cleanup for several of us. I'd also like to point out that for {{dts}} to output linked dates, you have to manually set an extra parameter - simply removing |link=on from the above examples is sufficient to disable the autolinking. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't see an issue with linked dates myself, and I don't see why it's such a big deal to have them linked. I like to be able to click on a date link and see what else may have happened on that day or in that year. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Date delinking is a whole nother issue unto itself, but you probably know this already. *random idea out of nowhere to suggest a user script that would link dates on page views for those who like them* ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Stupid question: what's the sort order on the kanji column? It almost looks like an ASCII order. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Brave Story source

Can a Mania.com forum post be used to cite a DVD release. I'm doubting the reliability of the forum post. Any thought? Extremepro (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Fudce appears to be just a regular user.Jinnai 06:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Champion Red - Shonen or Seinen?

Here's an odd one that affects a number of pages (any notable series running in the magazine, as well as the magazine itself.) Champion Red and its titles are listed as seinen in all the online bookstores that distinguish, and are filed as such in every bookstore in Japan. The titles published in it are often extreme violent, with a high degree of sexual content. No one familiar with the magazine would ever imagine it to be anything but seinen. But User:ChuChu has discovered that a search of the publisher's catalogue has the magazine's titles listed under "shonen muke" rather than "dansei muke." This is not a situation I've encountered before - where the most official site contradicts all other sources. Which do we follow here? Doceirias (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Its obvious that we should follow the publihser of the magazine. I don't see why we should follow other sites when they are not the ones publishing the magazine. The day the publisher changes all the titles published under this magazine from "shounen muke" to "dansei muke" that's the day to change the magazine's "target audience" info, but until then its a shounen manga magazine. --ChuChu (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which we should use, but this discrepancy needs to be noted in its article. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Noting about this in the article should be much better than calling it a seinen manga magazine while the source above all sources (the publisher) is saying otherwise. --ChuChu (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I can see both arguments myself, which is why I asked. It does seem like there is a consensus that works against the publisher, and there is precedent for valuing an overwhelming number of secondary sources over a single primary source. Akita Shoten's website is also...not very good, and it seems like we can only get this listing by using their somewhat unweildy search engine? I only figured out what was going on by tracking down your comments on User:Nohansen's talk page. Doceirias (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the argument of the publisher's site being good or not has any relativity to the target readership that the publisher is aiming at. I mean the site has been saying the same thing for a long time, any new Champion Red tankoubon will always end under the "shounen muke" category, they could have just recategorized them if they wanted, but they haven't... and also other than that, the magazine Champion Red Ichigo, a special issue of Champion Red, has its manga also mentioned as "shounen muke". Also please refrain from voting about this matter. voting about whether this magazine is shounen or seinen while the publisher is saying its a shounen, that's just ridiculous. --ChuChu (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
For reference, the comments Doceirias was referring to can be found here. I wouldn't use the argument of all series serialized in Red being marked as shonen as an argument without an understanding of the software underlying Akita Shoten's website, since it's possible that their demographic info is automatically added based on what magazine any given series is noted as being serialized in (this would make a great deal of sense from a maintainability perspective). If this were to be the case, then a single typo cold potentially go unnoticed for quite some time, while causing hundreds of pages to display incorrect information. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but it can't be that it was unnoticed for so many years... in the "years" that I have used their site, its quite laughable that they wouldn't be able to correct any mistake they have done. So unless they change that by putting the tankoubon that comes from this magazine into a different "category" of a target demographic, the wikipedia entry for the magazine should not be changed. --ChuChu (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I mention the quality of the site as an indication that they might simply not care enough to fix something like that. Either way, it's just a side point. The real question I want to have discussed here is whether real world, common usage/every other available source overrules the publishers website, or whether a single dubious source outweighs a majority of dissenting sources. There is precedent for siding with the majority, but I have no idea whether this qualifies as one or not. Since debatable issues like this are best settled by group discussion, I brought it to the attention of the group. In other words, instead of turning this into an argument, let's sit back and hear what other people have to say. Doceirias (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Dubious source would be a source other than the publisher, but not the publisher himself. I think you should have this discussion with the publisher, and try to correct them if they are really mistaken. I think that even a million sites can't overrule what's on the publisher's site, start using other sites as sources other than the publishers' websites and we'll have chaos. --ChuChu (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think what should be done here is as Dinoguy1000 said noting about this in Champion Red's page. For now we have no idea if this is a mistake or not, but currently its the truth, if they ever change it we'll know that it was a mistake. --ChuChu (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Saint Seiya Episode.G seems like any shonen, but if champion red says it's seinen, it's seinen.Tintor2 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Champion Red doesn't talk and it doesn't say anything, but the publisher says its a shounen manga, so its a shounen manga. --ChuChu (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see.Tintor2 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Some supporting evidence. Again, if multiple secondary sources are deemed more reliable than a single primary source, Wikipedia can follow those secondary sources, as they have on many other pages.
I have seen all those sources, but again I don't see what it has to do with what the publisher is saying. --ChuChu (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This really isn't about you, sir. The links are provided so that others might provide informed input. You've made your position clear, and really don't need to respond to every single post in the thread as if this is a personal attack of some kind. Doceirias (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You also shouldn't be dismissing the publisher as if its just something out there that doesn't know what its doing. Other sources know better than the publisher itself, yeah right. --ChuChu (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, hopefully I ended this nonsense discussion with the reference I added to Champion Red's page. --ChuChu (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing the publisher at all. Not the way you're dismissing every other source and this discussion. This discussion is not nonsense; it's the kind of discussion that should always be had when sources disagree. Kindly stop attempting to turn this discussion into some sort of flame war. Doceirias (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I already knew about these sources a long time ago before you told me about them, that's why I agreed with Dinoguy1000 with noting these sources. I'm not flaming at all, just a regular discussion which seems to me to be little silly. --ChuChu (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me; judging by your comments here, you thought I was simply asking for a source for shonen. I was actually wanting the discrepancy to be specifically pointed out in the article, e.g. "Akita Shoten's website indicates that Champion Red and the manga it serializes are shonen,[reference] but many online retailers and resellers mark the magazine and its series as seinen.[references]" Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether we should go with the single primary source versus the plethora of secondary sources, and much prefer KrebMarkt's below proposed solution of simply noting the problem in the article, with proper sources, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion. In the meantime, if anyone here who speaks Japanese feels so inclined, I also like your above suggestion of attempting to contact Akita Shoten and seeing if it is indeed a mistake on their part. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Something like the e.g. that you mentioned ("Akita Shoten's website indicates that Champion Red and the manga it serializes are shonen,[reference] but many online retailers and resellers mark the magazine and its series as seinen.[references]") is what I actually meant by noting it, but it being a mistake has already dissipated with the inclusion of the reference from the publisher mentioning it as a shounen magazine, and there are even more references to the publisher were the magazine is mentioned as shounen magazine that I can add if needed. If anyone still wants to contact the publisher and can make them correct their mistakes (if these are really mistakes) so we can correct them here too, go ahead. --ChuChu (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Mentioning that publishers and retailers view the magazine differently seems like the most encyclopedic approach, and should certainly be done here and on the pages of any other magazines affected by the issue. I'm still not sure what should be done with the series that run in these magazines, though; it seems odd to state that Shigurui is a shonen manga when the majority of retailers have it down as seinen. Some explanation may be required on the pages of those series as well. Doceirias (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem with explaining in Champion Red's manga's pages too, but as for the infobox, the stated target audience should still be shounen, as that's the target readership mentioned on the publisher's site. --ChuChu (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as there's an explanation in the article for why the infobox uses the 'wrong' demographic, I don't have a problem with leaving it that way. Doceirias (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, as long as its mentioned by the publisher as shounen manga, then its the right demographic. So the explanation should mention both sides, what the publisher is saying and what the online sellers are saying, and not explaining why the infobox is 'wrong' becasue as long as its mentioned by the publisher as shounen manga, its not 'wrong'. --ChuChu (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Confusing wording on my part - I'm not suggesting the information should be presented in a biased way. I just think someone who bought a manga or magazine in the seinen section with seinen content that they've been reading for years 'knowing' that it was seinen and assuming the "shonen" label is some kind of mistake is a more likely source of questioning/edit wars than someone who happens to have spent enough time on Akita Shoten's website to have realized what the publisher itself chooses to categorize things as. Outside of that publisher, the manga involved are effectively seinen; seinen in practice, if not in fact. This may simply result in editors like me coming through and correcting a 'mistake' that reflects the situation, but I could also see it causing a more seriously dispute, especially with an inexperienced editor. Doceirias (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It being mentioned as a seinen magazine and its manga being mentioned as seienn by online sellers I have known about that a long time ago, obviously I don't live my life in the publisher's website, but the fact remains that the publisher does not say on any of its pages that its a seinen magazine, the only things mentioned are "shounen magazine". As long as its mentioned by the publisher as shounen manga, I don't have to even consider any other sources, the fact remains that the one publishing the manga is saying they are shounen, that's enough for me to call them shounen manga. Anyway, in the manga articles it shouldn't be a problem to mention both sides, but also mention that the infobox represents the target readership according to the publisher, since its the official source. I and others, that don't live in Japan, don't have the means to see what is stacked in what section in Japanese stores, I only see upcoming manga using their site. --ChuChu (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent>There is no wrong or good side just a disputed statement. We should keep ourself siding either parties. --KrebMarkt 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant by explaining what the publisher is saying and what online sellers are saying, and not explaining that the infobox is 'wrong'. I meant that we should stay neutral. The infobox's demographic is a different matter, the infobox should stay coherent with what the publisher is saying, obviously because it's its manga. --ChuChu (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is no different from the main article, and choosing to go with the publisher for the demographic field is still choosing sides. Until such time as the publisher either releases a definitive statement clarifying the discrepancy, or corrects their website (it would still be nice to see if someone here could prod them into action), we must note both demographics to maintain neutrality. In this case, it means noting both demographics in the infobox, and providing specific commentary on the discrepancy, with sources, in the prose. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The manga that come from the magazine and the magazine itself are all mentioned to be shounen by the publisher. Noting both demographics in the infobox while the publisher is mentioning both manga and magazine as shounen, for what reason? While the target audience difference between the publisher and onilne sellers should be noted in the article, but that should not keep the article from being coherent with the target audience the publisher is aiming at. The infobox should reflect the official target readership, which is mentioned by the publisher. --ChuChu (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I still wouldn't mind the manga tankoubons from Champion Red being mentioned as both shounen and seinen manga in the infobox, but I still think the best way to handle this is to keep them mentioned as they are mentioned by the official source; the one that's publishing these manga. --ChuChu (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that the magazine is mentioned as Japan's Shounen magazine on the cover of one of its issues. So I also added that as a reference to Champion Red, this is the reference: http://www.akitashoten.co.jp/CGI/autoup/listput.cgi?key=list&mode=back&id=00906 --ChuChu (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll add another source to Champion Red where the publisher is mentioning the magazine as a shounen magazine. --ChuChu (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Random not very useful statement: the publisher's intended audience should be taken into consideration, and probably given more weight than other sources -- but what industry observers observe about the content and actual sellers say about who they are selling the magazine to also need to be taken into account. If everybody but the publisher agrees on a demographic, we should go with that all-but-complete consensus. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I agreeed with before, as mentioned by Dinoguy1000 too, noting about other sellers opinions about the magazine shouldn't really be a problem as long as the publisher's intended audience is mentioned. --ChuChu (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Also please notice that I already added a reference from the publisher mentioning it as a shounen magazine, which should be an enough proof, though the publisher's publication search page was proof by itself, but it seems it wasn't enough, so I supplied an even "bigger" proof. --ChuChu (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not put a note reflecting that issue which would be the most accurate way to deal that discrepancy. --KrebMarkt 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it should be the opposite, why not put a note reflecting the seller's websites. I already added a reference to the publisher proofing that its a shounen magazine. --ChuChu (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Either will do. The objective is to inform the readers that there is an issue and it's up to them to decide who is right. That will save us POV accusations and a going to nowhere discussion (we could discussion of it till death). --KrebMarkt 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, someone should go ahead and add a note mentioning the sellers' "definition" of the magazine. I don't see any problem with that. --ChuChu (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Harem (genre)

I have deleted the bulk of Harem (genre) as it was a conglomerate of people's personal annalists and observations, little of which could be verified through published reliable sources. This has reduced the article to a stub. However, it is iffy on whether it could service an AfD unless the article can be expanded with more reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than an AfD it could be mreged into fan service.Jinnai 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Jinnai proposal for now because Harem (genre) is not old enough to have much scholars getting interested in it. Afd will probably end with people tossing a craps load of anime & manga as examples of that genre leading to a no consensus. The point it exists & it is mentioned in manga & anime RS reviews but too few persons bothered to put some real substance to that definition and/or tried to delimit what its partakes. --KrebMarkt 19:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur, we can always unmerge if we aquire enough material. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be good to make an article discussing common anime tropes such as harems, magical girls, tentacles, etc. I'm sure there are references which could support it, and it could contain summaries for articles large enough to be on their own and small sections for others. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with merging, especially with fan service. I can try to work on developing a proper article for the subject, but genres in general are difficult to cite. And since we're on the subject, shall we clean up other genres such as Mecha anime? (Does this really need a separate article from Mecha anyways?) --Remurmur (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on a quick glance, I'd support a merge of Mecha anime into Mecha -- there's a fair amount of duplication between the two, and latter claims in the hatnote to include anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
@Remurmur The current state of Harem (genre) is nothing but a magnet for self-styled Expert in the field. Without enough RS third party coverage it could very easily turn into POV + OR. It's seems the meaning of this term is so obvious that none a the RS reviewers using it bothering to define it however we try to dig real coverage we find near nothing (currently). I hoped to find an article about it in the French Manga Dico and i found nothing while Yaoi was covered --KrebMarkt 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Granted, but our project is filled with such problems. One important note against merging I just thought of is that we have a Category:Harem anime and manga. In my opinion, it would be rather unseemly to have a genre category without an article for the genre itself.--Remurmur (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Technical argument for non-merge... That should be taken under consideration. Anyone else inputs ? --KrebMarkt 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: Reliable source? It's from ANN, but the casual tone bothers me a bit.--Remurmur (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like to answer the question "Reliable source?" with a plain "Yes.", ever. So I'll say it like this: It's one of their columns. Limited editorial control can reasonably be assumed. The four writers are experts. The casual tone is an intended result of the style of the column. I have no doubt that it meets Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion for anime related opinions. For statements of fact, I'd be a little bit more careful. Goodraise 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If it makes a difference in the discussion, while I've seen reviews that called a series a "harem" or "reverse harem" program, in Manga: The Complete Guide, I think it may be telling that there is no harem genre listed among the pretty exhaustive list of manga genres, and it is not defined it in the glossary. Having checked anime encyc yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Doraemon 2005 series episodes

List of Doraemon 2005 series episodes has been put up from Japanese through a machine translation. It's been posted on pages needing translation, and has been flagged as possibly non-notable. I'm posting here to notify the anime/manga crowd in case they want to help make it sourced and establish notability.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I flagged both List of Doraemon episodes and List of Doraemon 2005 series episodes for notability. While Doraemon is a notable manga and anime, I don't think the TV anime episodes, either individually or collectively, pass the notability tests. Please discuss on the flagged talk pages. -- Meyer (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If any episodes of any anime TV series are notable, then Doraemon episodes are. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Um. Yeah. That. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea. At most depending upon the length the 2005 might be mergable, but an episode list is notable.Jinnai 02:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The 2005 series has around 350 episodes at current count. The original has somewhere around 1600, IIRC. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally, I'd say "any episode list" has basic notability, but for Doraemon, I have to ask - should it have an episode list? Its sort of like Sesame Street, which has no episode list for sheer insane number of episodes and lack of any real plot. Does Doraemon actually have an on-going plot? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sort of, but it's a really weak one. Eventually Nobita and the girl get married. It's plotting is more like The Simpsons. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sesame Street is a dubious comparison -- an episode of that has no story, as it's an anthology of shorts. An episode of Doraemon has a definite story -- the overall arc is ... weak, but any given episode is a story. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Meyer (talk · contribs) is still being pretty militant that all lists must pass WP:N independently from the main article even after being pointed out that is not required. I've pretty much given up the debate as it's going nowhere. --Farix (Talk) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For someone whose been around as long as he has, you'd think he'd know better. He actually talked about AfDing the Bleach episode list @_@ Almost say let him embarrass himself if he is so determined to get egg on his face. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's probably my fault since I was pointing out that only one of the sources on List of Bleach episodes was technically qualified to establish notability. All the others are from the DVDs and other primary sources. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that episode lists should pass WP:N because that's what WP:EPISODE says. The only thing that's been pointed out to me is that there are editors with strong opinions to the contrary.
In general, I think the large majority of episode lists that currently exist add no value to Wikipedia and violate the principle "Wikipedia is not a directory," but I'm not going to go on a crusade to purge such lists from WP, especially the ones that are as well-done as the Bleach lists.
However, the Doraemon 2005 series episode list has been on the "needs cleanup" list in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since April without anyone making improvements. I've done translation cleanups in the past and took a look. Translation is only one of many problems with this page, but it occurred to me that there was a real question of whether it was a page worth having in WP at all. The page as it stands certainly does not establish its subject's notability, and I could find no guidelines that exempt it from the notability criteria that apply to any other article. Therefore I raised the issue for discussion by the prescribed method.
I say that after a time for this discussion of the pages' notability to run its course, if the articles have not been improved to the point of establishing minimal notability, they should be deleted and at least clear one item off the translation cleanup list. -- Meyer (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE is a content guideline, not a notability guideline, and it has almost nothing to do with episode lists. Those are covered under WP:MOSTV. And what you think doesn't really matter. Long standing consensus is that just about any television series that is notable enough for an article can have a standalone episode list which meets WP:STAND and almost always can establish notability through a little effort. The need for clean up is not a valid argument against notability. While you may not like episode lists, again, consensus time and again has been that they are notable and allowed here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It bares repeating, notability is not the only standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lists in particular, are not bound by notability, but relevance to other notable subjects. You can check through the history of WT:N for more details. But WP:EPISODE does not state that "Lists of episodes" must pass the notability guidelines. All it states is that if the program passes to the notability guidelines and has enough coverage, than a separate "List of episodes" may be created. It then goes on and states that articles in individual episodes should pass the notability guidelines before being created. As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there is nothing there that prohibits a "List of episodes". "List of episodes" are not collections of loosely associated topics, a series of genealogical entries, the White or Yellow Pages, a directory, a directory, an electronic program guide, a resource for conducting business, a sales catalog, non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, or a complete exposition of all possible details. --Farix (Talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There does appear to be come contrdiction though since this part of WP:EPISODE staes

While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory. Should that be changed since it appears to directly contrdict exisiting consensus or am I misrading it?--76.65.141.43 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really feel that strongly despite everything we've just explained why episode lists are not beholden to notability guidelines and are not "directories" try putting up some episode lists for AfD with that reasoning.Jinnai 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I was actually asking if a change should be made to wp:episode due to what I perceived to be a confict between that and existing consensus. I was not sure if there actually was a confict or I showhow misinterpreted the content on that page so I did not feel confertable in making any chanes to the page myself. In short, I have no intention or desire whatsoever of trying to get any episode lists deleted. Peronsally I don't have any problem with the lists.--76.65.141.43 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Episode lists have nothing to do with WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is a red herring raised by Meyer above. "Directories" in this sense means business directories (contacts, promotional material), or lists of non-notable people (genealogies etc.), or disorganised lists of facts.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Child care" genre

An anonymous IP added this unsourced statement to Yotsuba&!: "Yotsuba&! belongs to a genre of manga called ikuji (child-care). Other examples of this genre include Baby & Me and Aishiteruze Baby." I've seen comparisons to the examples before (as well as Usagi Drop and My Girl by Mizu Sahara), but I've never heard of ikuji as a name for it. Has anyone come across this term in Japanese? with anything approaching a reliable source? And would Lone Wolf and Cub also be part of the genre? (What a way to make MY head hurt ... ) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of or seen such a genre before in any reliable source. Would just revert. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It was almost immediately pulled to the talk page for discussion/followup. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is a page about Childcare manga on the Japanese Wikipedia, linked to from the Japanese page for Childcare, which indeed does list Baby and Me. Searching on google gives an apparent 5,610,000 hits for it as well. Akata (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That page is the same Harem genre above...except that one at least had 1 reference.Jinnai 05:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It also mentions Mama wa Shōgaku 4 Nensei and Daa! Daa! Daa!. If I'm construing it correctly, all the examples involve infant (or at oldest toddler) care, and it's claiming that most examples run in materinity magazines aimed at mothers of newborns. Which would make (if we can find a better source for the genre) Yotsuab&! not an example. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Another one would be Mama Poyo. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
One that actually ran in a childcare magazine, no less. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
With the Light is another, too. It ran in For Mrs. (according to the Wikipedia page); I can't find anything on it from a brief search, but the title implies it's for adult probably-married women, many of whom are mothers. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My understanding, gathered from a list of manga that ran in For Mrs., that it's a generic josei magazine with a slant towards married women. A fair number of series are straight-up romances, and others are slice-of-life dramas and gag yonkomas, without any children. That said, With the Light probably counts, though the boy quite quickly grows out of being a small child, and is a teenager in the currently serialized chapters. (It's a very good series, btw -- highly recommended for anyone with an autistic person in your life.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that would make sense; thanks for the clarification. Though, I agree that it would most likely count. (I love it from what I've read; I bought the first English-translated volume, and have been meaning to pick up the others for quite some time.) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I really like this one. I have the first three volumes published in the States (I haven't checked lately to see if more are out). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>

Question: Now that we know it's not BS, how do we deal with it in practice ? How should we handle ikuji (child-care) term in article/infobox ? --KrebMarkt 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Duffield website RS?

Patricia Duffield, who has written numerous articles for Animerica Extra, Animerica, and Manga: The Complete Guide, maintains a website with some of her published articles at MindSpring.com (in particular links from here). Anyone see any reason not to add this to our online RS page? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't one cite the place where it was originally published, rather than from her site? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In general, yes, but I don't have access to any of the actual publications (besides which, there's no telling what's on her site that hasn't been published anywhere else yet and that someone might find usable somewhere). Besides that, she seems to note the source of the articles on her website (like this one, which I just used as a source on Cooking Papa), so it seems easy enough to construct a proper reference anyways. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Listing it as a resource by way of ready access to her published reviews seems like a reasonable thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
All right, added it. Feel free to reword as necessary. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

A stub for artist, Yoko Molotov came up for Speedy deletion and I came here to see if you had notability guidelines. This review has more info on the artist [15] but I don't know how significant she is. Rmhermen (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BIO, specifically the section on creative people for the biography notability guidelines. I'd say not notable (and an Amazon review is not a reliable source). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering in particular if this project had it own guidelines. Rmhermen (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Projects do not determine guidelines and a project can never create is own (valid) notability guidelines. Guidelines are made by consensus Wikipedia-wide and are all based on the general notability guideline. More specific ones, like WP:BIO come from additional discussion and consensus bringing together N with other policies and guidelines to help clarify what may be notable for specific scenarios. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that isn't at all true. Rmhermen (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but yet it is true. Projects can not create a notability guideline (well, they can create one all they want but they will be ignored/rejected). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Manga Maniac Cafe RS?

Is Manga Maniac Cafe an RS? It's used in a handful of articles here, so I thought I'd ask. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to meet the qualifications as a WP:SPS. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It's marginal, I think. It's a single-author blog, but one that other reliable sources (including PopCultureShock and About.com) link to and pay attention to, indicating the author has a certain amount of standing in the field. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Only time and acknowledgment by others players of the manga/anime field can make it a RS. Until then it's a trustworthy blog and nothing more. You can still use it as a stepstone to reach RS websites mentioned in it. --KrebMarkt 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Kekkaishi chapters assist?

Does anyone here have ready access to the Viz editions of Kekkaishi, and be willing to enter the official translations of the chapter titles here? (If anyone with mad nihongo skillz is willing to add romaji for the kanji titles or supply translations for the occasional missing chapter, that would also be a help.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is The Manga Critic RS?

The manga review blog of Katherine Dacey, former long-time reviewer for PopCultureShock (a RS for us) and continuing manga reviewer for School Library Journal (one of the RS for children's books); per the about page, she's been a panelist at New York Comic-Con and is occasionally interviewed as a manga critic. Sounds like a valid self-published source by an expert in the field. Thoughts? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

+1 support. Valid source for manga review. --KrebMarkt 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have Megami Magazine 32-41

Looking for these issues, specifically every issues there except 32 and 40. If anyone has them I'd appreciate it.Jinnai 01:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

SlightlyBiasedManga RS?

Yep, another one. According to her about page, Connie (the author of SBM) has written reviews for Mangabits, ListerX, and Anime on DVD. Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be good to run some of these over at the RSN to make sure our views are matching those from outside the project. I'm inclined to say yes, though I'd also like some confirmation on her doing reviews for the stated sources (my brain can't remember seeing a Connie on any AoD review in memory). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Her reviews for pop culture shock [16] --KrebMarkt 05:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comic Holmes RS?

Comic Holmes looks like a publisher-run website, but I don't read Japanese, so I can't be sure. Of particular interest are pages like this (main index of such pages here). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, the website is not affiliated in any way with Hakusensha. I used the database often for Hakusensha affliated mangaka: Hiro Fujiwara, Julietta Suzuki. Amaya Sakura (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Author of Gin Tama's light novels

The light novels from Gin Tama were written by 大崎 知仁, but I don't know kanji. What is his name? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tomohito Ōsaki (he also did the Black Cat novels) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
For the future, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Other Resources and it links to a Kanji converter, which includes romaji. It's not 100% perfect, but as long as you include the kanji, if there's a problem someone can fix it.Jinnai 01:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember doing something like that for List of Shaman King chapters, but there were lots of errors in romaji.Tintor2 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Occasionally that happens. Usually if I suspect that, I do a quick goodle search for the name and see if it pops up under anything related to the series. Also, google translate is sometimes helpful, but its far more prone to using the wrong meaning. There are a few other tricks to use if you know a bit more about Japanese.Jinnai 01:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ANN cleanup reboot

A reposting of the remaining FA/FL/GA articles that need instances of the ANN encyclopedia (but not reviews, news, or release pages) scrubbed if we want to keep them at those ratings. We've already had one article delisted in part because of this. Everyone is encouraged to jump in the pool and sign up for one, just one -- because together, we can do it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added cites for all of the English air dates of List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, except episode 9 (no The Click that week on ANN :( ). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Lupin is done, but the page will need quite a bit of work to keep its status. I found several date errors from the ANN refs that I've corrected, there are a lot of claims that need checking or removing (or have had sources/the claim removed due to being unreliable), and some that didn't have any sources at all. I'd appreciate it if a fresh set of eyes can go through and tag any obvious issues, so I can do some cleanup before the GA Review. Else I won't have the time to bring it up to scratch if it's left till the review. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Managed to find the anime release dates for Suzuka (manga), but no luck on the manga. Furthermore, there are some statements left with the ANN citation that may still be addressed.Jinnai 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Serialization or volume release? The volumes are almost trivial to source (I love Kodansha for a reason =D ), serialization... not so much. =P ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Serialization. I found numerous sources for the volume releases. At this point it may take someone with access to actual copy.Jinnai 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The serialization dates are almost always printed in the Japanese volumes.-- 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Japanese volumes of Suzuka, notably volume 1 in this case. Nor do the websites list the serialization dates that list the manga.Jinnai 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still looking for scans of the first volume -- the ones I've found so far didn't include the copyright page. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the chapter list it appears we have conflicting dates and issues. *sigh*Jinnai 04:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. *facepalm* —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I worked through the chapter list a while back, but never stuck with it long enough to start looking at refs. I'm not seeing the discrepancy, though (or has it been fixed since it was pointed out?)... ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • cough* *skuffles foot on floor* Um. Yeah. I forgot about this too -- been too busy with my own cleanup projects, each of which free-associates to another, till I have may hand in twelve different pies at once -- none of them this one. *pauses to sweep up the shattered pieces of that metaphor* So should we reboot this again, or will this prod do? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it looks like it's dried up. Sadly, people tend to not look up at the top of the page unless they have a specific reason to do so.Jinnai 20:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been searching for refs about Yuyu's episode lists in both Japanese and English, but I can't find them. Not that I forgot about this, it's that I can't find refs.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It may be that we've done all the readily doable ones, which to be fair is the vast majority of them, and the rest will have to be caught during GAR/FLRs (which will draw attention to the issue individually). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Cough... Some of the remaining lists are already FL :p
Yea, should we wait for the nect batch of FL re-assessment. when ? --KrebMarkt 20:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what I meant, yeah. Of those left, two are GAs, neither scheduled for review, and the rest are FL. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Acutally Suzuka is scheduled (see the list right GA Sweeops list above).Jinnai 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Gnah. Blind today. I need this weekend. You're right. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to let this one slide into rest among the ghosts of collaborations past, and let the rest be taken care of in reviews (unless someone feels fixing things before then). I've changed the date that was keeping this from autoarchiving, so it should vanish soon. —Quasirandom (talk) on this twentysecond day of the seventh month of 2009