Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Contents

Collaboration of the week

I came across it for the first time this weekend, so was wondering about the possibility of reviving Collaboration of the Week.

Although it may benefit more from "fortnight" or "month", this seems like a good way to get a few articles up to quality, which can be difficult when working alone, or as a small informal group. I can't speak for former members, but it seems to me that we have a group of regular active users who are able to do large scale work on articles, including complete rewrites. I don't have some grand plan to convince you all we should do this, I'm really looking for initial feedback to gauge interest. The Farix seems to be the only member still with us from that time, so they may have some insight that I don't having only been here a year or so.

Comments? Interest? Theres no rush of course, especially while the GAR's are in progress, but that doesn't prevent a discussion. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in participating. I noticed it awhile back when I joined, and remember wishing it wasn't defunct. The main problem would just be getting and keeping interest. For many of the articles, though, a few editors paying a fair amount of attention to it for a week/month/etc will be enough to bring it to a much better state, or ready for a GA review. Issues only come up with articles such as Pokémon (anime), when there is so much to add, new material is always being announced, and numerous edits may be difficult to keep up with. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean about keeping interest. There are several ways we can proceed with deciding what articles to work on. Combinations of importance, likelyhood of reaching ga/fa, and simply the amount of material available would have to be accounted for. Working on random articles from random franchises probably won't get a lot of interest. Working on articles that discuss the world of anime and manga in general, or of it's most important works/people will probably get more interest, and will benefit the project more. Of course, there are probably exceptions :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This is something I've also known about for quite some time, and have wished for, but I just never took the time to do anything about it. If we get it started back up, and can keep enough energy going into it, we may even be able to attract new members (or get some semi-active members to put more effort into the project). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A fortnight would be preferable as a week is just too short. A lot of time people just don't have time the first few days and by the time they get a chance to read the article and digest what could really need improvement, it's over. However, at the same time this limits the collaboration a lot. Thus I'd suggest 2 at a time for a fortnight, each one changing on alternate weeks.Jinnai 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, 2 weeks is more suitable. I guess theres no reason to suddenly stop working on an article if it takes longer. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd personally suggest doing a Collaboration of the Month, where, instead of just fixing one article, there would be a focus on an entire related set of articles. True, some series or movies only have 1 article, but others link to many different related pages, including episode/character lists, creator/director information, etc. Lupin III alone has a slew of pages that would benefit from a month of hard work. --AutoGyro (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps have both, to allow two options of articles for people to work on? This may bring in more participation as people may be interested in working on one article, but not another. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Then we can perhaps try having Project of the Month for what I described above, and Fortnights of Fun and Frolic for what Jinnai described :P --AutoGyro (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We should have such articles picked at random (and probably ignore FA/FL-class articles as they should already be the best). Otherwise eventually politics will get involved about why certain articles are chosen and others aren't. We can add further limits as well, but those limits should be reasonable.Jinnai 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Having a Project of the Month and "Fortnights of Fun and Frolic" sounds good. So, the monthly project would be more suited for large, popular series (Lupin III, Digimon, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, etc), while the Fortnights works with articles that can more easily be improved within that time? Randomly picking articles would work, though I agree that guidelines should be set in place. Perhaps articles should only be chosen if they show proof of reception/concept/creation/etc? Wikipedia does have many articles on series released only in Japan, that really cannot be improved because reception for Japanese-only series is so difficult to find, let alone finding concept and creation notes. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea, and the name "Fortnights of Fun and Frolic" just for the sheer amusement factor :) For possible projects, might I recommend starting with either taking some of our GAs to FA, or working on some of the recently delisted GAs to get them back to GA status. The latter would likely be good for the Fortnights since I suspect with multiple editors working, they could all be fixed up relatively quickly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bringing demoted back to GA status would be a great idea; so many were delisted. It could also work on maintaining GAs which have fallen in quality but haven't been delisted (Lolicon and Hibiki's Magic could be improved, for instance). Not to mention, many B-class articles just need a little push and they'll be ready for a GA review. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think limiting it to: GA articles (in the hopes they can become FA), B-class and former FA/FL-class. We can also extend it to C-class if they are missing 1 point from being C-class. I would generally ignore start- or stub-class unless they are top or maybe also high priority articles.Jinnai 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should do the monthly one for C-class or B-class and use it to improve to GA-class (or at least have it being peer reviewed prior to submitting it for GA-class). This would include working on previous GA- and FA-class articles to address the concerns brought up when they were demoted. I think the fortnight one should be used to bring Stub and Start class up to at least C-class by adding refs and other general improvement. This would also allow us to review them to determine if they are notable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason I added GA was at times it may be not much missing from them and it may just be needing more eyes to find the few missing details. I think something like:
  • Fortnight projects - 1 stub- and 1 start-class with goal of getting to the next level
  • Monthly ones would be 1 B-/GA- and 1 c-class with the same goal. B/GA would alternate each month.
  • All articles should be at least 3 months old.
  • To prevent a lot of potential articles that may get merged/redirected/deleted rather than improved (because they may violate one or more policies/guidelines) we should maybe restrict stub- and start-class that are low-importance and anything created within the last 30 days.Jinnai 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea, incorporating a few of Jinnai's restrictions as well to prevent pointless effort. Of course, though, wouldn't we be taking suggestions for collaberation projects that would then be reviewed for suitability? If that's the case, such restrictions aren't really necessary to be spelled out, except as a "please don't waste our time" preventative measure. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 01:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern is that we may end up covering only certain ones and politics may get in the way. That is what happened with the old collaboration project at WP:VG. More time was spent debating what should be collaborated on than actually collaborating because people felt certain topics weren't worth it, or other topics would benefit more or someones pet project wasn't being listed. This is why a randomized list avoids all that. It's totally neutral. Obviously the downside is it can pick stuff no one cares about.Jinnai 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If the selection is set up specifically to avoid that, it shouldn't be a problem - the easiest method would be to simply work from the oldest request to the newest. Anyone could make requests, and any project member could review them to be sure it wouldn't be pointless effort. If we had problems with a specific editor's reviews of requests, it would be simple enough to bar them from further reviews until they straightened up. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised by the reaction here :) However I still feel we are missing a trick, rather then work on "random" articles meeting a set of criteria, shouldn't we initially focus on out higher priority topics? For Top Importance we have 19 articles, but 13 are start class. For High Importance we have 88, but only 5 are B or GA. Looking more closely at the Top priority articles gives us Anime (B class), Manga (c class), Hayao Miyazai (B-class but in dire need of more references), and Studio Ghibli (start, and largely just a long list) as examples of topics that would all benefit from even a short collaboration, and should have a wide range of useable sources in English. I think that we should dedicate one of our proposed collaboration products to these higher priority topics rather then random articles. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur -- focus the efforts on the top and high priority articles. Possibly within those sort them by class, to work out which goes next. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. My comment was more on a way to approach both at the same time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur (It seems like all those hours spent on assigning importance was not spent in vain^_^). G.A.Stalk 05:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I still think some mid-importance and some low-class ones might be good. A lot of the lower-class ones are ones that attract a larger group as they deal more directly with the medium they see everyday and those at the high end generally have other WikiProjects/Task Forces to help aid them. I would limit the number of articles mid-class to at most 1 at a time, but I don't think they should be ruled entirely.
Basically we would have a 2-track system, top/high and mid/low. The top/high class ones would generally be more of them and be monthly while the mid/low ones would be 1 for a fortnight and mid-importance would take precedence over low-class in most cases. This would emphasis more the more broad articles, but still give those interested a reason to participate in the program.Jinnai 06:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Top/High articles have lack RS materials for more edits so that means resources gathering prior to even thinking of tagging them for monthly collaboration. By resources gathering, i mean it can go as far as purchasing the XYZ publication containing the needed materials and in my French case additional translation duty.
Monthly should target Top/High 33% of time and cluster of articles (aka topic) 66% of time. That would give the needed breather to gather scholar level materials for Top/High. --KrebMarkt 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I think it's safe to draw some conclusions at this point:

  • We're looking at two separate collaborations, a biweekly one more for Low/Mid-importance or Stub/Start/C-class articles, and a monthly one more for High/Top importance or high C/B/GA- (and former GA/FA)-class articles.
  • Requests can be made by any user, get reviewed for suitability by a project member (problem reviewers can be barred from the process), and then get filled generally on a first-come, first-served basis (with some bias based on importance or other objective factors)
    • An article might be unsuitable if the article itself is too young (3 months was suggested above, but probably just saying "within the reviewer's judgement" could suffice), if the article's subject is too young, if the article is potential merge fodder or doesn't demonstrate potential notability, etc.
  • Collaboration projects probably shouldn't focus on individual topics within a series (e.g. episode list or individual character's article) without good reason
  • That being said, such subtopics should probably be implicitly included in a collaboration project's scope, with more weight placed on them in the monthly collaboration

I'm probably guilty of biasing this a lot towards my own above recommendations and other thoughts, but tried to include everyone's ideas that seemed well-recieved - if you have something else to add, please feel free. =D Thoughts? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 08:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we would be wise to limit requests to a set number, say 10 for fortnightly efforts and 5 for monthly ones - we don't want to Get swamped with request we won't ever get to, but wecan "queue" a few. It may be wise to maintain a seperate page for the requests in order to allow us to process them better, such as preperational notes on potential sources etc. It would also serve to show declined requests. Do we have one page for both projects or a page for each? Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was one of many editors who tried to start this up. This was in a time where the article assesment was just getting underway (there was no C-class nor List-class). Some of the problems that we encountered were:
  • People were nominating and supporting articles but then not contributing to the ACOTW.
  • People weren't interested or didn't know enough about a particular series.
  • There were tasks assigned and people took on the tasks but didn't complete them or were unable to find enough information.
  • There was lack of numbers, the same handful of people were doing the collaborating.
Eventually Good article nominations and Peer reviews proved to be superior ways in improving articles and in my long hiatus this thankfully hasn't diminished. The peer review system is valuable if you have two editors doing the groundwork and then people keeping an eye on the improvements and suggesting new ones. (It seems that only single editors seem to do this these days). A full blown collaboratioin is what we wanted in 2006 and I'd be grateful if it were revived, just remember our issues from the past when planning it. --Squilibob (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the list, but I don't think we'll have so much trouble this time. You can't really do anything about people suggesting articles and not contributing, and limiting suggestions to people who contribute would be very anti-wiki. The lack of interest in specific articles is something I believe won't be an issue, we have many regular editors who will work on an article whatever it is, be it adding new content (if they have direct access to sources, or trawling the web if they don't), or improving what is there (quick or fullblown copyedits, fixing "obvious" layout issues, removing bad content etc). Same with lack of numbers, I don't think we we really expect more people then are already heavily involved in project work, and in a way having too many people may become an issue if they aren't experienced in creating quality articles, and try to do things their own way. It's interesting how you mention GAN and PR's, surely these are the ultimate goals of collaboration efforts - to get them to a stage where they can be peer reviewed before sending to GAN. Neither is the replacement for the other. IMO Neither of the two are for improving articles as such, they are the final steps in creating a quality article (unless you plan for FA/FL of course, but thats a whole different debate!) Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest a limit of 1 article per category if we have a 2-track system. And I also suggest we seperate them solely by importance level (if someone has a valid complaint about the importance level that would change it from one track to the other that should be discussed before putting it on the track. I would also exempt list-class articles entirely. For the mid/low class I would exempt stub-class articles unless there is compelling evidence to suggest the article is likely to make it to a high c-class or above as there are the most likely to get merged/deleted (ie the onus is on the nominator to make the case). For top/high class, that assumption can be waved. Thus for me the list would be:
  • Monthly (technically two fortnights if we want to keep it on track with the other list): Top/High importance articles Stub- through GA-class, except recently promoted GA-class articles (within 30 days).
  • Fortnight: Mid/Low importance articles Start- through GA-class, except recently promoted GA-class articles (within 30 days). Stub-class articles for mid-importance articles may be allowed if their is enough potential within the 2 weeks.
  • Anyone can submit an article for collaboration. To give everyone a fair chanace at getting an article they want collaboration with, a limit of one request per track, per person is allowed at a time. Problem requesters, including those who use ip posting to get around limits, will be banned or restricted.
  • Collaboration will largely be based on first come, first serve basis though importance rating and resource availability, recent collaboration, recent peer reviews and successful GA assements and other factors may play a role.
  • There will be a limit of articles up for colaboration (TBD).Jinnai 03:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have slowed down somewhat after the initial rush of feedback. Is there any more input? I'm concerned that if we don't jump right into organizing the basics, it will fall by the way side and nothing will be put in place. Personally I know one series with high profile articles would benefit massively from a month long cleanup and improvement collaboration that would make a good "opening" project to get our feet wet with. Theres something for everyone, merging, MOS-AM changes, removing original research, masses of reference cleanup required, writing style etc. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...seems like we have a good starting point, so let's get the Collab space updated and get the suggestions going :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see no point reviving the old page, may as well start afresh. Personally I think we should start a month long project, and nominate Template:Neon Genesis Evangelion's contents. The page contains two high priority articles (which imo should be merged like the relatively recent Haruhi merges of "franchise" and "tv anime"), and the other pages need a lot of cleanup. With the current revival of the franchise, theres a ton of sources out there now, and although we have a workgroup, i'm not seeig the benefits of it. If anyone needs convincing, I'll go into more detail of what needs fixing once this Lupin business is sorted (which i'm cracking on with now). I've already identified 16 merges within the Eva template :p I believe we have the editors capable of the amount of organisation and content reviewing necessary, and 5+ editors working together could fix a lot of issues. I think this would give us an indication of how well we will be able to handle other projects. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe just something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Collaborations to allow for both varieties to get going. I think it would be good to have a central subpage, though, for storing noms in a clean format and making it a little easier to see what's being worked on (and maybe by who) and the criteria and all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but Project pages aren't really my thing, so I'll let someone else sandbox something :P
It'd be nice if we could have this set up so one month = one collaboration (e.g. January 20XX = Series Y), but I'm not so sure about waiting another 20 days to start this up. We could have the inaugural collaboration project almost double-length, or chop off ten days, or just wait to see where we end up by the time August 1 rolls around (I think I'd prefer the third one, myself). Also, we'll need to add some new parameters to the banner; I'd prefer not to use the old parameters for much the same reasons I'm assuming AnmaFinotera recommended not reusing the old page, but if anyone wants a concrete reason, it's entirely possible (and highly likely) that a former AMCOTW project will be a future collaboration project, and if we reuse the old parameters, there would be no way to record both collaboration efforts (needless to say, I can handle adding the parameters, but I probably won't get to it until Monday or Tuesday, so no hard feelings if Farix or one of our other local code monkeys gets to it first =) ). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It'd be nice if we could have this set up so one month = one collaboration (e.g. January 20XX = Series Y), - i don't like that. It prejudices things only to popular series that likely have wikiprojects and task forces already pretty much exclusively. Smaller projects people may want help with collaboration would fall by the wayside simply because they don't haven't had enough spinout articles.Jinnai 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh? I'm not seeing the prejudice here; I was referring specifically to the monthly collaboration (but that would be my fault for not making that clear). Some method to make the biweekly collaboration line up nicely would also be cool, but that would require quite a bit of fudging on our part (either not having a biweekly collaboration running at times, or having a short/long one), so I'm not as worried about it. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
We should have some kind of process now, even if it's ad-hoc then otherwise i think it will almost certainly become institutionalized that only the monthly one matters.Jinnai 02:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A few notes for whoever sets this up (it could be me, if I find enough time): WP:CO has some advice for setting up collaborations, including links to existing collaborations useful for examples, and the old animanga collaboration is here. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Boku wa Imōto ni Koi o Suru - THEM Anime Review

The THEM Anime Review of Boku wa Imōto ni Koi o Suru is being repeatedly removed by IPs saying that the review incorrectly attributes the Westermark effect to the series. Extremepro (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved by AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs). Extremepro (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The article could use some other help, though. The plot and characters were copyvio and had to be removed. Anyone want to help redo them? I've only read a snippet of the series, unfortunately. It also is in need of more reviews. It was released in France as "Secret Sweetheart", and untranslated copies of the manga were distributed in the US by Borders at some point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could really use additional comments here as I'm tired of arguing with this guy, who apparently thinks only "special" reviews should be mentioned in articles, and because the THEM anime review has a minor error in terminology, it is not special. *shaking head* He's already hit 3RR so he stopped reverting, for now, but seems other views are needed before he will get a clue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the issue, I don't know how well it will be received since I never knew about the series until just now. MythSearchertalk 03:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah... that. I was originally trying to take care of it, but started down the wrong tack... and then completely forgot about it. Whether the review is factually correct is immaterial, as it isn't being used to source any information regarding sexual attraction or the like, but only the reviewer's opinion of the series. At this point, the user is full of bull. I've left a lengthier comment there as well. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Document of Rookies ~Sotsugyō

Should "Document of Rookies ~Sotsugyō", the documentary for the live-action for Rookies be added to Rookies (manga)? It has been listed several times as one of the weekly top selling DVD ANNANN 2ANN 3 and ANN 4. Extremepro (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a documentary about the making of the live-action version? Ordinarily no, though it would be useful for Production information, but that it's a best-seller strongly suggests its of interest in its own right. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Will add them to the page. Extremepro (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Anime Expo image

We need more input about the inclusion of an image of a group of cosplayers in the article about Anime Expo. You can see the discussion at Talk:Anime Expo#Cosplay Photo. --Farix (Talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) is now going around and stalking me. --Farix (Talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

galge.com RS?

Is Galge, which is owned by Vector Inc, reliable? Vector describes themselves as "the largest software download site in Japan. The products include PCs and peripherals as well as software download.[1]Jinnai 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragonflies as anime symbolism

A few days ago I was watching City Hunter: .357 Magnum and was puzzled by its use of dragonflies flying by when stupid things were done. It also used the similar symbol of crows flying by to symbolize stupidity, but I've seen this employed often and understand that it is pun between "baka" and the sound a crow makes. The dragonfly metaphor confuses me though, and it's been bugging me constantly so I just had to ask someone.--Remurmur (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never heard of dragonflies being associated with stupidity, though it wouldn't surprise me if there was a pun involved. Possibly someone at WT:JAPAN might be able to shed some light. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think City Hunter and even Angel Heart (for a modern context) do this more then any other show I've ever seen put together. Alhough surely it's usually crows? I'd also suggest it's more of a tumbleweed type thing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Not official, but this may give some ideas.Jinnai 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It probably has to do with the seemingly random way dragonflies move. If you've ever watched them, they tend to fly in all sorts of directions, with no apparent rhyme or reason to the movements. It may be similar to the "moving the finger in a circle around the ear" that's used in North America English-speaking countries to indicate someone is loopy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We have that in England too :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure since I've never been to that side of the pond, so I went with what I knew. Fixed. :p ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We probably stole it, I blame the amount of US TV we get. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thieves, the lot of you. I bet an American came up with Doctor Who, too. ;p ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
And yet you lot complain about us ruining the English language... ;D ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, surely it's "a-ho", at least in the case of crows - the sound fits more. Certainly City Hunter does that, and thinking about it Urusei Yatsura probably does it a lot too (usually regarding Ataru I suspect). I think it's very much a 80's technique for the most part. I don't recall many mid 90s+ shows oing it a lot, not even parody shows like Excel Saga or Gin Tama Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Checking back with the manga "The Crows, the Girl and the Yakuza", I see that they use the joke as "aho-ki". I got confused since the traditional English onomatopoeia is "caw". I certainly have an easier time hearing "baka" out of "kaa kaa kaa" than "aho", but such is the fickleness of onomatopoeia.--Remurmur (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The only Japan-centric symbology I can find, and not even from a reliable source, is that they represent "new light and joy", but that's for paintings.Jinnai 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I recall seeing it in Dragonball manga as well. I know it appears quite often, usually followed by dots as its tracks. To a certain degree of WP:OR, it is mostly used in situations where someone said a stupid joke that nobody think is funny, and the dragonfly represents the silence after that. MythSearchertalk 06:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A different take on task forces

What if we had specific taskforces (or simply designated users) that focused on different sections of articles? Specifically, I think it would be helpful to have a taskforce of people good at writing plot summaries and character sections (functioning in a manner similar to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors). These are sections that I loathe doing, and that quickly become a mess when multiple people try to work on them together (as everyone feels obligated to add more "important details"). Plot summaries are best written all at once by a single person with good grammar who has freshly seen/read the anime/manga in question. So basically, I'm suggesting a taskforce where users (who are ideally working on other sections of the article) can request for skilled plot writers to write good summaries. Just a thought; might be impractical.--Remurmur (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, being able to write plot summaries and character sections generally means having seen/read the entire series, which really limits the scope of articles someone can work with. That's one reason we're doing the collaboration above, though. So those skilled at particular parts and work on those, and we can combine our best skills to work on one article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty good at plot summaries and character lists, though it's best if I've seen the series (or the episodes I'm summarizing). In fact, I often write plot summaries and episode summaries directly after having reviewed the particular episode or series, when it's fresh in my mind. A also tend to work on the character lists then, too, (or as I watch the series, anyway) as I can then flesh out each character more easily. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I find that plot summaries and character sections tend to be related. Once you've done one or the other, you know where to find references. Anyway, I think we have plenty of people working on these sections, we just have such a mountain of articles to work on. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of anime

There is a WikiProject Outline of knowledge dedicated to creating outlines of topics. For an example of this type of articles, see Outline of France (there are more examples here). I've started a draft on an anime outline here. Any contribution or comments would be great.--Cattus talk 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Outline of anime and manga"?-- 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I already pointed out the absence of manga on the outline to him; he agreed but doesn't seem to have the time currently to really address it. In any case, this type of stuff is why it's still an outline, that way it's much easier to change. ;) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would almost say manga should have a separate outline. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Gin Tama chapters

List of Gin Tama chapters is lacking various chapter titles from volume 14 to volume 18. If anybody has access to such info, could you add them? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Awkward article naming

Hi, i feel the naming of A Gentle Breeze in the Village a bit awkward.

The original manga is Tennen Kokekkō which was adapted as live-action movie. That adaptation was presented in various film festivals as A Gentle Breeze in the Village.

The point is the original work is still better know as Tennen Kokekkō Ann profile and the live-action even if presented in film festivals isn't licensed outside Japan so that translated name can't be given too much weight adaptation imdb profile. While i'm inclined to rename the article, i prefer to ask the project on how our MoS handle it. Thanks --KrebMarkt 14:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was presented at various film festivals, then the most common name in English is going to be the one used at the festivals. Therefore, the name should stay the way it is. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The title used at film festivals tends to be the translation provided by the film's producers, and as such, until the manga itself gets translated, is the official and only English translation of the title. So, yeah, that's the correct article title. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. That will save me time --KrebMarkt 18:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Boredom

I'm struggling about what I can actually do here. I know lots about manga and anime but the articles that have catching my interest have already been rated as "some of the best articles in wikipedia" already. I'm looking for something to do, any suggestions? I don't mind clearing up articles and stuff. I'm not an expert editor (yet). NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the Naruto characters and chapters lists. Check other series you like.Tintor2 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As Tintor suggests. I'm here for only one series myself, but I do read other titles and so manage to be familiar enough about them to work on their articles as well. Poke about, reading, and see what catches your fancy. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, even with those, they are bound to have some article on them that isn't feature-level. Start with those ones.Jinnai 06:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're mildly masochistic, you may also like to have a look at our cleanup department - lots and lots of work there. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually found an article on Naruto thats not been done. The ninja clash of the snow. I done a bit to it but don't know what else to do. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Seasons of Bleach" FTRC

Seasons of Bleach, one of our few featured topics, is currently up for being removed from featured status. Sephiroth has pretty much offline since May, so the area currently doesn't have a single dedicated editor working on it. The issues that have it up for removal are that List of Bleach episodes (season 10) needs to be taken to FL, and List of Bleach episodes (season 11) needs a peer review. I quick glanced at 10 and I think it can be taken to FL with a quick copy edit and an editor willing to do the FLC and follow up with any fixes. The 10 PR just needs someone to initiate and apply any appropriate suggestions. It doesn't need to go to FLC until around October (3 months after it finishes airing). Anyone willing to step in to help with these to keep this featured topic featured? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago I tried working in season 10 balancing the summaries, referencing, etc. I guess they need some copyedit. Another thing is how to source the op/ed themes. I tried asking the user who sourced the previous seasons', but he does not respond. The only thing I guess we could use is the Amazon pages which contain the CD singles. However, I can start the peer review if it is needed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Template:Cite episode for the themes? They are clearly stated in the credits after all. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess that could work.Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The themes shouldn't need citing since the episodes themselves are the source. None of the other Bleach episode lists have them anyway...though if someone demanded them, as Dandy notes, just cite the actual eps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It became a fairly major issue in a previous FLC, I think it was a One Piece list. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Done the sourcing. Should I start the peer review (of season 11)?Tintor2 (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Started the PR. Now that Goodraise was commenting there, I was wondering something: is there a sources that justifies the article as being season 11?Tintor2 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Very good question. It seems it was split on March 9th and the editor who split said it was "announced", but it was then redirected back to the episode list until after Seph kinda disappearedded. User:SuperSilver901 is the one who did the split and made the claim, so maybe see if he can point out where it was announced. I'm not seeing anything on the official sites that do any season divisions at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The split is by arc. Now before everyone says that arcs aren't official splits, this is how the japanese (and as far as I can tell, the NA/UK) dvds are released. They are given titles for that series, and this is how the other seasons are done. However, the dvds haven't been announced yet. So I've no doubt the split is legitimate (certainly the first ep is the start of a new arc) , but proving it is difficult for a few weeks/months. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon GAR

Sailor Moon was delisted as a good article. One of its primary contributers disagreed with this delisting and has initiated a community GAR. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct romaji?

The article on Jiro Taniguchi lists two romanizations for one of his better-known works, both Haruka Na Machi He and Harukana Machi-E, and I've also seen it as Haruka na Machi-e. Since I will soon be adding a review of a work by another mangaka that's being compared to it (high praise, that), I'd like to get the right one. Which is it? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

へ as a particle is written as e on Wikipedia, per WP:MOS-JP. I would separate the "na" and "e" from the words they're modifying, but I don't know if that part is codified. Dekimasuよ! 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
So ... Haruka na Machi e? Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
"Machi-E"/"Machi-e" seem to come from a misinterpretation of romanisation rules like at WP:MOS-JP, which says "For words ending in 絵 (e), place a hyphen directly before the "e" in the romanized word (e.g., yamato-e, ukiyo-e).", However the "e" in "Machi e" is a different "e". I've come across particle spacing issues too before, maybe it would be good to make some consensus over this issue, as well as stuff like the spacing between two particles. And yes, Haruka na Machi e seems good to me. Akata (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The original script reads as 遥かな町へ, so I agree that there should be spaces between particles and normal words, so Haruka na Machi e.-- 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks -- I've edited his article to that. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato

Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato is in need of some cleanup and basic referencing. First of all, I don't think that Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato is the official English title and is definitely not the literal translation of the Japanese title. What brought this article to my attention has been the rash if IP editors that have been attempting to bump up the importance ratings of various articles. This article was bumped twice, first from Low to High and was reverted by Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs). Then again from Low to Mid and was reverted by myself. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we officially have an issue with importance levels being changed by IP's? Both AnmaFinotera and myself have reverted such changes on X (manga), but none of the other pages on my watchlist have been affected. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Some of the Saint Seiya related articles as well. I've probably undid 3 to 5 of these in the past couple of days. --Farix (Talk) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick check is showing that all of the IPs uping the importance ratings belong to the Brazilian telecommunications company, Brasil Telecom. This may in fact be the same editor who has a dynamic IP. --Farix (Talk) 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Back on topic, it's listed as "Shurato" in the Anime Encyclopedia. Shurato redirects to Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato, and the hideous article is List of Shurato characters. I'm inclined to go with Shurato as the title of choice, but I've not seen if its licensed or not. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I would probably go with the full romanization of the title, Tenkū Senki Shurato. Shurato seems to be shorthand for the title just like Evangelion is shorthand for Neon Genesis Evangelion. --Farix (Talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
As a note, the anime encyclopedia lists it with an aka of "Heavenly Chronicle Shurato" (I didn't spot the aka before). Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: While it was not licensed in English, it was in Spanish & French. From ANN the Spanish title is Shurato and from my personal experience the French title is also Shurato. So the article should be either named with the Japanese title or Shurato any other titles is home-brew fans made ones. The MoS is inclined toward the Japanese title --KrebMarkt 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Any translations made within Japan are fanmade? It seems some Japanese merchandise seems to use "Legend of Heavenly Sphere SHULATO". The anime and the anime soundtracks seem to use "Celestial Warrious [sic], Battle for GENESIS", which may be a very loose translation, if Shurato translates to Genesis. However conversely, the newer DVDs use "TENKU-SENKI SHURATO". Akata (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My bad, i'm sorry. Still not finding a steady ground for the name :( --KrebMarkt 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it would be considered WP:OR or not, but all of the official items I have from the show use the English title of "Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato" when they have English. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've started a requested move proposal on the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX

A user i can not rememebr there name but its on th history log, is gign against ocnsensus as removing the merge tag for media page to be merged into the main article and is removing the ifnormationt hat has been merged so far, i have reverted for now but i wont be around much for ht rest of the day so someone best keep a eye on it--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not gave thema warnign or anything as yet they have not broke any rules but have done good faith edits, but if they undo my revert then that might something else, i left a comment sayign why i reverted it.--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese translation help

Would anybody be willing to help with the translation of this page? I've been working on an article for The Embalmer, and this article has information from a press conference of the live-action series. Using online translators hasn't really helped, and meanings get lost in it (like, I can't tell whether it's saying there is discrimination against embalmers, or there is a lack of understanding about what an embalmer is, etc). Now, there is a bit of text (though, I guess not a huge amount or anything; depends on your POV), but even just a segment would be great. Thanks, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion merge proposal

Currently Neon Genesis Evangelion redirects to Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise. The anime has its own page Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), and the manga it's own page as well - Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga). Essentially, rather then one central article covering the series as a whole (and splitting off where appropriate), we have four separate articles, which violate WP:MOS-AM quite clearly. Additionally, between them the articles contain original research, trivia, excessive detail, bad sources, and a lack of focus (such as reception info in the main body mixed in with production comments), to be brief. Additionally List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media needs merging to a main article in order to be split properly (I already have a soundtrack article sandboxed)

I propose the following:

  • Perform a rough merge of the text from the above articles to Neon Genesis Evangelion. I have a very rough work in progress here for layout as a basis. I've left out the clear trivia, and have currently left out the production information because of the god awful mess it's all in.
  • Pick out the relevant production information that I haven't put in the sandbox to build a focused production section
  • Pick out the relevant "analysys" of the sub elements of the show from the nonsense, trivial information and original research
  • Involve the Evangelion taskforce in the sourcing and adding of relevant content within the MOS-AM layout, such as release dates for the games from gamefqs etc
  • At some point in the future, have the project run over the page.

I already have the seperate pages userfied for later use if necessary. A similar merge happened with Haruhi Suzumiya and I believe this will help focus the evangelion articles, as the important information will be in one central location, to MOS-AM standard, and without the excessive detail and irrelevant information that currently exists within the articles (and hopefully well referenced) . This will also allow the Evangelion task force to focus on improving a specific article, and allow them to improve their knowledge of creating a good page, both of which are currently lacking. It will also make it much easier to collaborate on reaching a quality standard on the page. I don't see anything controversial about this, but it's a significant enough change for me to discuss it first. I have alerted the Eva task force to this discussion. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To put it in the "official" record, I fully support this proposal and believe it would be a good starting point for cleaning up the Evangelion articles and getting them back in shape. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that things need reorganization, but I'm less sure about everything on one page - the new movies and the manga are each substantially different from the original series, which may justify the split. Neither of them has quite the volume of sources that the original series does, however. Doceirias (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand slightly. I'm not suggesting everything goes on one page, but everything necessary to have a understanding of the series and it's media. Just Without the overanalysis, original research and in a simple, easy to read manner. The new movies only need a small section, as we have a justifiable split for those for more detail. So basically, a paragraph or two on Death + rebirth/End of Eva, a paragraph on Rebuild, and link to separate page. As for the manga, being different isn't really an issue, they do follow a the same rough series of events, some of them just diverge or were added. Noting there are differences with reliable sources (in a concise manner!), and having a link to the chapter list along side the release information is all we really need, otherwise we get into Original Research and trivial information. As I say above, places where we can justify splits can still be split out where appropriate. But the manga page is partly repeat information, partly publishing details and partly reception. None of which justifys a seperate manga article. For the spin offs, it's much the same. Chapter/episode lists, video game article, soundtrack article are the obvious split candidates. Only the game article needs creating, but we can do that later. Soundtrack article is almost ready to be moved to mainspace. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks good to me.Tintor2 (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Why hasn't anyone assessed Enchanter (manga) and Dragon Eye (manga) yet? Extremepro (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Both are assessed at start class at the moment? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I listed the two articles for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment. Guess I was hoping the articles might be C-class, failing 2nd and 5th criteria of B class. Extremepro (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
dragon eye fail more than just 2nd and 5th, i just looked at it briefly and it defintely a staret class in my opinion it does not show c class, but i only know the computer project classing very throughly i still learning amp one but i know there similatires and i still under that context say start class but my judgement could be wrong--Andy (talk - contrib) 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Measured against the examples for C class (Low: [2], High: [3]) and Start (Low: [4], [5] High: [6]) I agree that Dragon Eye should be start class; however, "exceptions" are not too uncommon for C class (I would have required a proper lead, had I assessed the article, I would also have required a "production" section, however brief). B Class, on the other hand, is assessed much more strictly. G.A.Stalk 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh! I'll take a look at them in a bit if no one beats me too it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Both done and upped to C. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin Sony English dub

Right now I'm working on Rurouni Kenshin articles. I learned about a Sony English dub of the TV series (retitled "Samurai X") which aired outside of the United States (i.e. this is NOT the Media Blasters dub). However I haven't found any reliable sources on the internet which describe it (Sony has no web page that describes this) - Which books are good at describing mid-1990s dubs and would have information on this series? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the Anime Encyclopedia would have at least something on it. This ANN news story also seems to at least note it for the purposes of indicating it was planned (but fell through). This one from AWN seems to indicate it was completed an aired as part of a joint venture, while ActiveAnime's press release indicates it was under Aniplex which is owned by Sony. AoD/Mania's list[7] seems to indicate it was primarily for Japanese release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I mainly want to source info about dub names (the Sony Samurai X dub changes names of several characters) and voice actors. For the dub names, would it be sufficient to cite episodes of the Sony dub, or do I need to cite something else? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
For the dub names, there appear to be some snippets on YouTube (for how long, who knows since they shouldn't be there)...on the voice actors...hmm...that would be a tougher one. Anime Encyc wouldn't list those.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case I'll try to cite the episodes for dub names. As for YouTube, it depends on whether the copyright holder files a complaint with YouTube. If the copyright holder doesn't do that, the video stays on YouTube. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comic Book Resources RS?

Is Comic Book Resources RS? Like this review for example. Here's its article here: Comic Book Resources. Extremepro (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the WikiProject Comics may already have a determination on that site's reliability. --Farix (Talk) 11:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Its not on their resources page so I don't think so. Extremepro (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a reliable source for sales [8] so it's weird they don't also count it as RS for reviews.
I think that we should defer to them about the reliability of this website. If they don't consider it as a reliable source for reviews, then we shouldn't either. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not saying the contrary but pointing out an ambiguity. While it's clear yes for sales report, for reviews it's a big unknown. Ok let them decide. --KrebMarkt 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, it's not really for "them [to] decide". Just because 10 editors, at some point, gathered on some talk page and agreed that some source is reliable because they liked it, doesn't make a source reliable. What matters is whether a source meets WP:RS in regard to the information being cited. - On a side note: I find the use of the word "reliable" in "reliable for reviews" to be ill chosen. The blog of a blogger is of course reliable for the blogger's opinion. The real question is whether writing a statement like "AnimeBloggerXYZ comments that MangaABC is 'crap'." into the reception section of the article on MangaABC is giving due weight to the opinion of the blogger. Goodraise 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>
I agree on your second point each review is a POV that why we need more than one source of third party coverage to reach the best accuracy and balance.

For your first point, you have clearly an inquisitorial attitude toward Source. While it's mandatory when meeting a really new source, it becomes bothersome and not that much good faith attitude when facing recurrent sources. Explaining once why a source is reliable is ok but again and again to the same person not at all. I view discussing whatever a source is RS not an I like it/I don't like it party but a time saver so we don't re-invent the wheel again and again. --KrebMarkt 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're damn right: I don't assume good faith when it comes to sources. I assume good faith only when it comes to editors. When an editor declares that an article is balanced and reliably sourced (for example by nominating the article for FA-, FL-, or GA-status), then I assume that the editor is convinced that that declaration is true. I also assume that the editor has come to that opinion by doing appropriately thorough research. That is, that they have done a sufficiently detailed sourvey of the sources published on the topic as well as checking the reliability of the sources used in the article. An editor who has done that will have no problem answering a question as trivial as "What makes X a reliable source?" - If I gave the impression that I disapprove of this kind of discussion or of the project's "Reference Libraries", I assure you, that is not the case. I use them myself, I just don't trust them. - As for needing to explain things to me again and again, I wouldn't repeat a question if I thought that I had previously received a sufficient answer. (Yes, THEM Anime Reviews is still an open issue as far as I'm concerned.) Goodraise 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You may be annoying but that somewhat necessary so i'm giving you a cookie ;)
The "Reference Libraries" is to give a modicum of safe ground for editors (especially new ones). If upon reaching FA-, FL-, or GA their sole answer to the question why this or that source is RS, is it's in the "Reference Libraries" then they would have failed to exert their critical sense and were in full meek sheep mod. Knowing that source is RS doesn't spare you the necessity to understand why they were called RS at first. --KrebMarkt 16:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think ten editors did get together on some page and decide they liked something, but it's a nice brush to get tarred with. Opens up the debate at a nice level and let's everyone know where they stand, doesn't it. Anyways, regarding CBR. News-wise I've always found it to simply regurgitate press releases, so I've treated it accordingly. It may have moved on since then, I'm unsure. Regarding reviews, Greg McElhatton springs out as a name you'd point to as being an expert in the field such as it is. Founding writer of Wizard and former Eisner Judge, I think that qualifies under the provisions laid out at WP:RS. For interviews, it is what I would deem reliable. Transcripts are checked. It's not completely unreliable, and it's not completely reliable, so is pretty much like any other resource. Simply question what it is you are using, and what the bias may be. Regarding the link in question, [9], I haven't been able to satisfy myself as to why we'd consider Danielle Leigh's opinion of worth. That's the question we need to get at. What's the nature of reviewing on CBR? Do they review anything and everything? Is it a scatter-gun effect, or is there any sense of critical awareness? I'd much rather use a review from someone I can point to as a respected thinker in the field, or use a review published somewhere that has a discerning approach to reviewing, for example The Comics Journal. I'm not sure CBR has established that reputation as yet, so I personally would be very wary of using the review as a source, unless it was the most reliable source for a very popular opinion. Hiding T 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah there is something being overlooked. CBR is an award-winning site that has been recommended by educational sources. So, within their area of expertise (see last paragraph for more on this), they can be considered a reliable source for interviews (in as much as we can be sure that what the creator's said is accurately put on the page), they also have a number of columns from creators and well-known comics critics (although it is worth judging the content on a case by case basis so you don't mix up serious analysis and jokes or just their uninformed opinion) and there reviews are professional and unbiased (it is well worth reading Timothy Callahan's article on negative feedback on a review to back this up [10], Callahan has written a book on Grant Morrison and provides some of the more in-depth reviews on the site. The piece gets a little ragged and was probably unwise but he is clear they get paid for their work, so have to deliver an acceptable standard of work, and remain unbiased, despite the fact that there must be pressures from the industry to lean more in their favour). So, as long as you watch out for the press releases I don't have a problem with using the interviews and reviews, if you are looking for in-depth journalism then (at least according to a TCJ survey a while back) you are not going to find much of it on any of the major comics websites but that doesn't mean you won't find them asking useful questions or providing reviews that can be used in an article.
The complication arises because the review is on "Comics Should Be Good", a blog which isn't part of the main area of the site (in much the same way as the forums aren't, for the purposes of WP:RS anyway). I don't know what the criteria for getting an posting account is or if there is any editorial oversight but I wouldn't use a review posted there (or any opinion pieces) by default. The one exception is the Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed feature, which not only has impeccable industry sources, who they can ask directly about specific questions, but it is being collected into a book - which is good enough that it can't be ruled out as a source (although you do need to make sure the material you use is based on sources). Otherwise I'd avoid anything in the "goodcomics" subdomain, although there might be other exceptions, but you'd need to judge them on a case-by-case basis.
Worth also noting that the site rarely covers manga (or OEL manga, in fact its principle focus is on American comic books and graphic novels from professional creators, so this could also count for the small press, European material and, I'd assume, elsewhere in the world) and so it would be worth checking the expertise of the individual writer as it could vary and you shouldn't automatically assume they are well informed on manga. I'd look elsewhere for reliable sources where this project is concerned. (Emperor (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Source for Bleach season 11

By now almost 230 episodes of Bleach have aired in Japan. However, the TV Tokyo site only lists the first 226 episodes. Is there a source that features the following episodes? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/contents/bleach/episodes/episodes20/index.html :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow! How didn't I see that?Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

National flags in character infoboxes

Our anonymous Brazilian IP editor (contributions) mentioned above has been going through the Saint Seiya character articles, this time changing the nationality field of the infobox to include a flag icon. Since we don't do this for any of the other instances of the character infobox, I really don't see any benefit in include a flag icon. --Farix (Talk) 12:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, would seem to violate WP:MOSFLAGS as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Rolling back based on that MOS. I would question the use of the nationality field in these character articles since the characters nationality are not integral to the story, as directed by the infobox's directions. --Farix (Talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it further, the whole set of infoboxes for these articles needs to be cleaned up as they contain a lot of trivial information that shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with the flag issue. Putting flag doesn't give added value to characters description. It neither deepens the characters psychology nor their motives.
Go ahead. Character infoboxes have a tendency to scream "In-Universe" & "Trivia". I don't personally understand why we use them. --KrebMarkt 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
When used properly, they can give a general overview of the character. However, sometimes editors add in trivial information such as body measurements, boodtype, attacts/moves, and etc. --Farix (Talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That the kind of elements that made me negatively biased toward separated characters articles. --KrebMarkt 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the TV project is also now discussing the cruft in the character infobox and cleaning it up to remove some of those fields. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Age fields in fiictional character infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There are no "trivial" fields in {{Infobox animanga character}} when used correctly. In fact, several of the fields states that they should only be used if they are an integral part of the story or, in the case of gender and species, not obvious. Unfortunately, there are a minority of editors who will ignore the template's documentation and try to fill in every field. Of course, we also don't have stupid things like five relationship fields when one would do. --Farix (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Seiya characters

About our Brazilian IP friend mentioned above, he/she has undid almost all of the infobox cleanups I did to the Saint Seiya character articles and left a message on my talk page to not edit them again. Not that I'm going to follow along with his/her request as I restored the cleanups. However, the editor seems to be willing to engage in an edit war over the infoboxes contents, so more eyes will be needed. (Category:Saint Seiya characters) --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Count me in as i support the clean up. --KrebMarkt 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Air Gear (musical)

Is Air Gear (musical) something that would normally be kept and improved upon, or just something that belongs as a blurb in the main article? TTN (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Common practice (when it comes to anime and manga articles) seems to be to cover direct adaptations in the main article, even if the adaptation meets the GNG on its own, unless size concerns come into play (which isn't the case here). Goodraise 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, welcome back! :) Goodraise 21:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion at Lupin III

Currently Lupin III is awaiting a final quick copyedit before having its GAR passed. User:Marktreut is taking issue with the removal of his additions concerning the renaming of the series in France, and a third opinion is required. Essentially the issue is about the french name for the series and it's importance in the article and specifically within the production/copyright issue areas. Myself and AnmaFinotera believe the information is based on unreliable sources, but even if that was not an issue, that the french name for the series is of little consequence in this case. It can be argued the series was renamed to bypass copyright issues, but there are no reliable sources being used to claim this, with one source being likely unreliable and the other appearing to be used for synthesis of material rather then actually supporting the claim directly. This has been discussed on the talk page, but the advice is being ignored. Again. The user involved has a "issue" with AnmaFinotera, so a uninvolved editor is required as an alternate opinion on the additions from a factual, aand quality perspective. I believe the GAR will hinge on this detail. Series are renamed all the time, this isn't a necessary point to discuss in it's current form. No claim as to why its important is made, and if it was, it would likely constitute original research. Most recent diff at time of posting this is [11] Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are lots of serie that are renamed along the world such as Captain Tsubasa which became "Super Champions" in Latin America and "Oliver and Benji" in some parts from Europe. Since this is the English wikipedia I suppose only important changes regarding the series names could in English-region countries (I think I used the wrong term...)Tintor2 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if it was making a point that needed to be made with reliable, accurate sources of course. But it's not, it just comes off as a disgruntled editor not agreeing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Would a source like amazon.com count as reliable?Tintor2 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave you my fourth opinion Dandy Sephy. --KrebMarkt 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was only the French one that was renamed and has a reliable source, then it may be worht a 1-line mention as that could be noteworthy. If other country's rename it (beyond translating the title to their native language), then it's not worth noting.Jinnai 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen 4 alternate titles, excluding simple native changes. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea that series characters names localizations were awfully inconsistent depending the country, the licensor and the product. Even the North America releases weren't spared that fate. The point is that many series released during that period suffered similar treatments. So the question why is it worth mention in the case of Lupin III? --KrebMarkt 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How do articles in other area (books, films, plays) handle name changes? I know that English is always mentioned, but what about for other languages?
One way of dealing with this is the inclusion of an "International" section where licensing, language adaptations, and title changes can be mentioned. Granted that isn't the best name for such a section, but I think everyone can get the idea. This should help globalize these articles as well. --Farix (Talk) 22:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Most do not mention any name changes at all. Like with anime/manga, foreign releases are generally summarized in 1-2 sentences, with the article focusing on the original and English versions. International sections are highly discouraged in film and television articles, for example, and removed during clean up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB being brought up at RS/N

[12] - I'm bringing this up because we had issue with ANN sources which causes some articles to be delisted as GA/FL articles because of it. It seems there is currently a strong backing for using some of the info as reliable citing other reliable sources claiming they are reliable.Jinnai 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the standard for character bios?

List of Robotech characters it seems to assembled randomly how is some characters have their own page such as Rick Hunter and does not have any info beyond the official website I thought info had to be independent of the subject. I feel also T. R. Edwards should be merged to list of Roboech characters as well as Macross operators

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The best guide would be to look at other character articles that have achieved good article status, such as Belldandy, Himura Kenshin, and Sasuke Uchiha, as example of what should be in an article. Currently, there is no notability guideline for fictional elements, so we have to fall back onto the general notability guideline to determine if a character should have a stand-alone article or if they should be merged into a list. --Farix (Talk) 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Please Save My Earth characters

If anyone has seen the series, I just merged articles into List of Please Save My Earth characters. It was a straight merge, so it is still in need of trimming and cleanup. TTN (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TTN, I ask that you stop overly aggressively merging articles without any discussions. This is what got you in trouble the last time. --Farix (Talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently merging roughly three to five anime related articles a day, so anyone is free to request that I stop on a certain series. All of the articles on this series were created by a single person, most were only two paragraphs, and most were edited less than ten times each, so I made it a special case. TTN (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have no objections to this particular merge set on TTN's part - straight merge, ask others to handle the cleanup. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as the person who originally marked all those for merging, back when they were overly split out: Thanks, TNN. It's been on my (large) backburnered plate to get around to doing the work. I suppose this means I need to bump the cleanup higher in my queue. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Category for a volume list?

Suppose that, as sometimes happens, when a manga's serial installments are collected in bound volumes without divisions between them -- no chaptering, no numbers, no breaks, just continuous graphic narrative. Suppose further that, in the course of developing the article on the series the manga publication detail gets split off as a "list of volumes" -- because, after all, there are no chapters. That's clearcut at any rate, but then what category should be applied to this list -- Category:Lists of manga chapters still?

This is not a hypothetical question (ignore the sections below the manga list; as part of cleaning up I'll be moving that back to the main article, trimming down the OR as I go). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess so since we don't have anything else. You know...though we call them a list of chapters, maybe we should rename that chat to Category:Lists of manga volume and chapters or just Category:Lists of manga volumes or something? Or create a separate cat for just those types items and parent lists that have splits (like List of Naruto manga volumes)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters, since that's really what they are. Especially if they've been split off before someone has gotten to adding the actual chapters to the list. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In actuality, these are not really lists of chapters, though they do contain chapter titles. However, the fact remains that these lists are organized based on volumes instead of chapters. --Farix (Talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I've noticed that too...the lead notes the chapter breakdown first, and have the chapter titles, but in reality they are lists of volumes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree to rename into Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters more accurate and offers more flexibility. --KrebMarkt 06:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree as well but how do we handle the redirects to this category as Category:Lists of manga chapters is used in almost all of the List of X chapter articles. Extremepro (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Technically the above should rather be done via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (as the "renaming" is done by a bot). G.A.Stalk 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


<outdent> Added request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 28#Category:Lists of manga chapters. Extremepro (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (Do we really have only 145 manga lists? Feels like more.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
We have certainly more list articles but they lack the category tag. So you know what to do if you encounter one. --KrebMarkt 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for a challenge?

Specifically, a Gundam challenge? {{Universal Century ship classes}} links to all the articles for the classes of ships in one of the continuities -- and as you might expect, they're all completely in-universe and fail WP:GNG. But as you know, Bob, the ships of Gundam have been the subject of multiple books, just as the mechas, which means a list would pass. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to merge them all into a list, trimming down the in-universe trivia as you go. Think you have the huevos to tackle this? Do ya? Then dig in, soldier.

The context for this, if you're interested, is this AfD for one of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Did some merging of the ship classes. Unfortunately, there are a lot left to do. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"A lot". You and your droll understatements. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry i can't help :( My queue is currently full with that. Just don't get burned out and get traumatized of mecha until the end of your life. --KrebMarkt 17:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Right now, I feel a bit cross-eyed. Still was able to make some progress on the ship class mergers. --Farix (Talk) 20:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The idea is to take it one piece at a time. This is how some of the other Gundam mergers have occurred. For one, you are less bogged down by the work, but also, you don't have as much conflict with the fanboys. These ship class articles see very little activity and are a good place to start. --Farix (Talk) 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, do pace yourself. And a big hand for taking this on. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Down to 14 articles, one of which, White Base, will probably stick around. I've been redirecting a number of these articles to their respective series articles since the ships/ship classes simply are not notable. --Farix (Talk) 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yay! (I sorta see your point about keeping White Base, but it's a thinly asserted notability.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Annnnd Farix has finished the merges to List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units. Five pink cherry petals to da man. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea Kudos for Farix. --KrebMarkt 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This was a relatively straightforward merge to do. There wasn't a need to extensively rewrite the content, and the infoboxes were easily converted over. Still, I wonder about the worth of detaling every ship class that appears in the whole series.
The character and mobile suit articles won't be as easy to merge because most of them will need extensive rewrites. But right now, I think time could be better spent cleaning and beefing up the main articles on the series, which lack a lot of necessary information. This way, Gundam fans will howl less about future merges. --Farix (Talk) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
*nods* Sometimes cleanup is better started from the center, instead of the edges. A solid foundation that can handle having things collapsed onto it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of Bokurano robots

Following the closing administrator's comments in the recent AfD for List of Bokurano robots, I've opened a whether-and-where merge discussion. Interested parties are invited to offer input on the matter here. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Romance" genre

There are currently about 200 total mainspace links to the disambiguation page Romance, and a majority of them are a result of links from the genre classifications on manga and anime articles. The problem seems to be that there isn't an ideal link from that page to the genre intended--Romance (genre) is about medieval fiction, Romance novel is about novels, Romance film is about movies, and Romance (love) is extremely general. We have articles on various romantic subgenres of manga/anime, but nothing about the general genre. Can someone write a summary overview at a title like Romance manga, so the links can be sent there? Alternatively, is there someplace else you'd like these links to point? This is one of the top 10 problem dabs right now. Dekimasuよ! 10:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the split between Romance novel and Romance film, as so many notable manga have also been adapted as anime -- at which point, which do you point to? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Both, or the original work.Jinnai 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say that Romance (genre) needs to be rewritten to include romances from any time period. That's where the real problem lies in this situation. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Joe; as it stands now, Romance (genre) suffers from a rather obtuse form of systemic bias. As he says, it needs to be rewritten to address all forms of romance as a genre, with all the specific articles rewritten to serve as spinout articles (or merged back in). Is there a relevant project that can be pinged? (and in the meantime, creating a Romance anime and manga per Cattus's suggestion seems like an acceptable patch, since there should be *some* RSes that discuss romance specifically in regards to anime and manga) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The scope is pretty clear for that article, though (probably because they were trying to keep romance novels out of it). I'd think that if that's where you'd want the general article to be located, the current Romance (genre) article should be moved to a more specific title instead. Dekimasuよ! 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also Romance comics which, despite its name, is only about romance comics in the United States from 1946 to 1975. The solution may be a new general overview Romance fiction article, with sections for all different media (films, novels, comics...). For now, maybe a Romance anime and manga overview article might be the best solution.--Cattus talk 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A single Romance fiction seems like the long overdue solution to the whole issue. I've never understood why it was all broken down like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Dekimasu, you may want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature.Jinnai 04:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, nothing is broken as far as they are concerned. It's only the manga and anime articles that are suffering here. Dekimasuよ! 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've notified them of this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, the thing treated in Romance (genre) is something entirely different from modern "romance" fiction. Whatever you do with the mangas and films and modern novels, please don't mix it in with the Song of Roland – no connection whatsoever; entirely different meaning of the word "romance" here. Fut.Perf. 17:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see why they can't be covered in a single article. From the article you point to, it seems pretty clear that romantic fiction takes its routes in the romance genre. Yes, its evolved, but that doesn' seem like a good reason to cover the same basic material separately. At best, I could see romantic poetry being separate, as its a different form, but right now, honestly, it seems a bit elitist to declare modern novels are not worthy of inclusion in the root article. If nothing, all those silly subgenre splits of romantic novels should be covered under the single romance novel. And if, despite the current brevity of Romance (genre), consensus is strongly against merging in "modern" romance, then why not a single page of Modern romance (genre) or something similar. Right now, it seems clear that having Romance novel and romantic film, etc is fairly redundant, and then expanding it further into "romance anime and manga" would only make it worse (where would it end? "romance video games", "romance television series", "romance commercials", etc.)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Then the page should be moved to Chivalric romance or Romance (medieval literary genre) instead. Romance (genre) should cover the entire genre, not just one segment of it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there potential content for such a new cover article? If its content is just going to be "Romance fiction is any fiction that has somehow to do with love", then I don't see much use in it. Do the things you want to combine under this roof have anything in common beyond this triviality? It seems to me that the Romance novel page has a lot of good, non-trivial content that is really specific to novels. Is there corresponding potential content to be covered about manga/anime, or film, and is it related to the novel material? If yes, write it. If, however, all you want is to have some target page as a pretext to turn a link in an infobox blue, I'd say you can just as well link to Romance (love) and be done with it. In any case, I'm always skeptical about discussions where people plan large re-organisations of articles just in order to have something to link to. It's a bit like the tail wagging the dog. BTW, as a quick fix to remove the "unfixable" links to the dab page, I'd really suggest the following: turn all the links from the manga/anime infoboxes into a new unique redirect, say Romance manga and anime, let that redirect to some provisional stop-gap target (Romance (love), if nothing better offers), and then if you come up with some better solution later you need only to change that single redirect. Fut.Perf. 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is most definitely potential content for a more general Romance (genre) article. It should cover how romance has been treated in fiction throughout history, with individual sections (and main/seealso links where appropriate) covering specific noteworthy subdivisions of the genre, such as the medieval "chivalric" subgenre that currently occupies the root article. This discussion is about far more than just delinking a dabpage in our articles, it's about the very real need for reorganization, expansion, and general cleanup on a group of articles. Surely there is at least one general, decent-quality genre article somewhere around here that could be used as an example? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I just don't see that the chivalric romance, being a narrative of "marvelous adventures of a chivalrous, heroic knight, often of super-human ability, who goes on a quest", is a "subgenre" of the modern notion of "romance" in any meaningful sense. The two share not much more than the name. And if you look at the "Romance (genre)#Relationship to modern 'romantic fiction' section, which indeed does a decent job at explaining it, you'll see that it describes a non-relation, more than anything. Fut.Perf. 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
@Fut.Perf. ☼
Does it means that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature won't help and considers it not within its "jurisdiction" ? Does it mean we have carte blanche to do whatever required to address the issue as long we don't edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature articles along the way ? --KrebMarkt 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not part of the Wikiproject Literature. I just happened to come across this discussion because I spent some time disambiguating misplaced links to the Romance dab page earlier today. (Incidentally, I followed an idea brought up in this discussion and changed the bad links in the manga articles to point to the redlink Romance anime and manga. Somebody reverted them all to point back to the dab page, which is incorrect. They could just as well have turned the redlink into a redirect to whatever provisional target they thought best – like Romance (love) – rather than undoing my work to reintroduce a technical mistake. But whatever, it's not as if I cared much.) Fut.Perf. 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To set aside the confusion over the various extant romance articles, I still think it would be independently advantageous to have an article at Romance manga or Romance manga and anime. Romance comics is a respectable article on the Western phenomenon, and as far as manga is concerned, we go so far as to have Magical girl. Since "romance manga" would seem to be a parent of, but not limited to, several of the shojo subgenres, it seems to me like there must be content available. I'm just not qualified to write the article myself. Is anyone willing to give it a shot? Dekimasuよ! 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a no. At any rate, I hope that when the links are put into a repository they won't be reverted next time. A redlink with potential is an improvement to the encyclopedia in a lot of cases. Dekimasuよ! 05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Survive deletion?

Recently someone moved an article from my sandbox to Defense Devil, which I let slide for a while. Anyways, I'm just wondering if the article could survive a deletion or should I move it back to my sandbox. DragonZero (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The question could also be ask for few other newly serialized series Beelzebub (manga) or Ane Doki. --KrebMarkt 06:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Without looking for third-party coverage, I would !vote to delete (err... userfy - you asked about whether it should be moved back) Defense Devil if it came up in AFD - the series started in April, and the only references in the article are to the publisher's website and Amazon.co.jp. In addition, the only potential claim for notability the article currently makes is possibly the fact the series is being done by our favorite Korean manXa team (and that's a stretch). It was definitely too soon to move to the mainspace, and I would strongly recommend moving it back to your sandbox. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It should be immediately userfied as it's not ready for main space. I was going to move it back for you, but apparently you've edited the redirect. It will now take an admin to move it back into your userpage space. I've contact Rejinreeza (talk · contribs) for him to explain why he moved the proto-article to main space in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it back. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Character (arts)#Gathering material on character into one article

Other thoughts are needed on this matter. I fully expect some to disagree with me on this matter and am not simply looking for people to agree, but also consensus. Two editors by themselves going back and forth on this -- whether the article is best titled Fictional character or Character (arts), or whether we should have articles with both of these titles -- is not going to solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist publication

According to most article the manga started serialization in 2001, but their months contradict each other. Is there a corret source?Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can get ahold of the fist Japanese volume, it should include serialization dates. That's the best possible source aside from the actual magazine issue the series premiered in. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Or get ahold of someone with the first Japanese volume. It says that it was published in August, Heisei 13 to November, Heisei 13. Judging by Shōnen GanGan's website, each issue comes out close to the 12th of the month before, so likely 12th July 2001, which was dated as August 2001. (V-Jump is the worst magazine I know for forward-dating, the September issue's already been out for a week or so.) Akata (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In what page is it the date (just to add the source)?Tintor2 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
平成13年8月号 is written on page 180. Akata (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Robotech characters need streamlining

I have added citations for the characters see the following Rick Hunter, Scott Bernard, List of Robotech characters and Ariel (Robotech) I hope this has been done in the correct format. Also I still maintain T. R. Edwards and Macross operators should be merged with List of Robotech characters.

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Space Battleship Yamato help

Since I have created several Category:Space Battleship Yamato I could do with some harvesting info from the references since I am unfamiliar with space yamato.

Also I have question I was think of using this [13] as a source for List of Space Battleship Yamato characters. As it is sourced from the official star blazers website is that permissable. [14]

Dwanyewest (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist issues

A newer editor is causing some stink at Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist#Science of Fullmetal Alchemist Section regarding the desire to have multiple "science" articles for FMA and extensive in-universe information about alchemy, etc. He also tried to recreate four articles on Alchemy in FMA, Equivalent Exchange, the Philosopher's stone, and Transmutation Circles, despite consensus seeming to be against him. Additional views and eyes would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same editor that came to my page saying I should "trust experts on the subject" after I reverted his/her wide-scale reformatting of a talk page? --Farix (Talk) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep...that would be the same one. Talk about an arrogant remark from someone who has been here less than a month. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well there is one bone I need to pick, but that's more with Tintor2 (talk · contribs) in the first place. Talk page comments should not be removed when the article becomes a redirect. They should be left as it and the project banners either removed or set as redirect (depending on preference). --Farix (Talk) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If that's so, should it be restored? Or was it already restored?Tintor2 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Its been restored. As noted, the project banners should be removed and the talk pages marked as an archive. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The only time it should be cleared is if the posts are all forum type stuff (off topic) or bot notices.  :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Content on living persons still applies to talk pages as well. FE, if someone starts making false accusations about the creators of FMA in order to slander them, the policy would apply.Jinnai 02:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think project banners should be left (and marked as redirect) when there's valid discussion on the redirect. If there isn't any, though, it should probably fall to editorial discretion. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New Notability tags

Recently tagged a few articles for notability that I found while doing the demographic link fixes. Posting here to call attention to them before doing any prodding or AfDing.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought anything that had an anime adaptation (Oku-sama wa Mahō Shōjo: Bewitched Agnes, Magical Tarurūto-kun) and manga published in America (A, A Prime) was already notable.-- 05:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just being an anime doesn't make them notable (or having an adaptation for manga). Nor does being published in English = notable. They must show notability per WP:N (anime) and/or WP:BK (manga). There are quite a few manga titles published in America that are not notable and have been deleted or merged to author pages because of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Query what of WP:BK #3? Magical Tarurūto-kun should pass that one, 87 episodes broadcasted in 2 years period can't be a trivial adaptation. I must add to the mix its three movie adaptations [15] [16] [17] and verified by Toei page. --KrebMarkt 09:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed A, A Prime from the list. Rationales: Licensed in English by Viz Media, reviewed in The Comics Journal issue #269 by Rob Vollmar pages 134-136 & can be read on reviewer blog. Reviewed in Pop Culture Shock [18]. It pass WP:BK criteria #1. Edit: Almost forgot that this mange receive the Japanese Seiun Award sci-fi prize adding more weight to the book notability. --KrebMarkt 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclined for Afd for Mink (manga), found no review in English and only one website covered it in French and it was rather superficial & more concerned on adaptation issue than on the work itself. --KrebMarkt 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed Ludwig Revolution from the list. Seriously covered in France. Manga News reviews: vol. 1 vol. 2 vol. 3 vol. 4 ; Anime Land: covered in paper issue #136 & short take on vol. 4 ; Manga Sanctuary reviews ; Planete BD: vol. 1 vol. 2 vol. 3 vol. 4 --KrebMarkt 09:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Utsurun Desu. has been adapted into an NES game GameFAQ. The game has its own article but I suggest we merge the game into the manga's article. Extremepro (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on Baoh as it is a failed series both in manga and OVA but still notable failure does exist. In Baoh case, the OVA adaptation was review by ANN and Mania.com but no manga review. --KrebMarkt 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oku-sama wa Mahō Shōjo: Bewitched Agnes does indeed have an insane amount of plot -- as a cleanup project I had been working with the primary editor there on cutting it down, but he/she hasn't shown up for several months now. As a nationally broadcast television show, it's notable per WP:OUTCOMES (and I've seen at least a couple reviews from the likes of THEM Anime, though I'd have to dig them up). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Maniac Road has been multiply reviewed by Mania (v1, v3), among other places. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny the spin-off Pretty Maniacs is more notable than it Mania vol. 1 Mania vol. 3 Manga Life vol. 1 Pop Culture Shock IGN Comics UK vol. 1. How do we handle such situation?
Unless they're direct sequels, if they're independently notable, independent articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for tag

Could someone please take a look at the Hanasakeru Seishōnen article and tag it for me? Thanks.Yariau neko (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagged article. The lead is too short. The characters should be merged into the plot if possible. Only the major characters should be mentioned. Since the character descriptions aren't that long, each of the character summaries could be on one line. This can reduce the amount of blank space generated on the article. For example:

Name of character Description of character {{anime voices}} with voice actor of character

The manga volumes should be listed inside {{Graphic novel list}} if the chapters of each manga can be listed. Release date for each of the volumes should be referenced inside the Graphic novel list as well. The anime section does not need a list of the entire staff, just the director, producers and production studio. The anime's theme songs should be in prose, not a list. Most importantly, all controversial statements should have inline citation. Extremepro (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit: Each episode of the anime should be listed in {{Japanese episode list}} and a summary for each episode. Ask me if you need any help. Extremepro (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Last Exile rewrite

Hello, I just recently started rewriting Last Exile, List of Last Exile episodes, and List of Last Exile characters. They've been tagged with multiple issues since all three articles were merged/rearranged/split again over a year ago. (It's a shame to see the shape of the articles given the good reputation of the anime.) However, this is my first time working with WP Animanga articles. I'm wondering if anyone would like to help or will be able to take a look at some of the changes I've made. In particular, I currently need someone to check the Romaji spellings in the two associated lists since I speak no Japanese. Thanks in advance for any help. Arsonal (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The first rewrites have been completed. I have requested the main article for peer review and nominated the episode list for FL. I'd appreciate it if someone from the project can take a look at them. Cheers! Arsonal (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More DragonBall Problems

User:DBZfan29 keeps trying to make an article for the Dragon Ball Kai soundtrack. As it is an unnotable soundtrack, per WP:MUSIC, it was redirect to the List of Dragon Ball soundtracks, but he continues restoring it, inappropriately using IPs to edit war. He is also apparently intent on making 5000 possible spelling variables as redirects. Clean up aisle 2? Additional eyes would be helpful here (as would someone leading the effort to do the LONG overdue merging of most of the DB album article pages to the List to help avoid this on-going issue in the future). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He also keeps recreating Yeah! Break! Care! Break! and Dragon Soul (Dragon Ball Kai theme song articles) and adding a redundant paragraph to List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes. Help would really be appreciated as he is ignoring all of my attempts to talk to him and continuing to abuse his IP (which has now been blocked). None of these are notable songs and should be merged into the Soundtrack listing, at best. I've started a merge discussion at Talk:List of Dragon Ball soundtracks -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam cleanup project

Anyone want to take a stab at merging some of the character articles into List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam characters? --Farix (Talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming names on Online reliable sources

Currently, our Online reliable sources page only lists sources by website. By and large, this is a fairly useful schema. However, there are often individuals whose reviews and comments qualify as RS because they are recognized as industry experts, but they don't post to one website in particular, or they may post to a variety of different websites beyond their regular venue. Therefore, I think it would be beneficial to add an "Individuals" or "People" section that lists such people with a note stating that reviews or other pieces written by them are always RS, even if the RS status of the website a given piece appears on is up in the air (with another note stating that this only applies where there's no reason to doubt that the author is who they claim to be), and then individual entries can provide information on why that person is RS. Thoughts? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There are some other problems with it like grouping all the foreign language items together even when they are of different quality.Jinnai 04:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've started a section (amidst some other cleanup, fixes, and tweaks) at WP:ANIME/RS#Individuals. Thoughts? (the intro paragraph in particular feels like it still needs some tweaking) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening shot for me :p

Looks pretty good to me, anyone else see any problems? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with that. Extremepro (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this Jason Van Horn the same one from IGN? In his site he makes various reviews from manga/anime series while in IGN I remember this one. He also seems to be related to Gamezone according to this.Tintor2 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

bk1 reliable for its reviews

bk1 - As a retailer I know it's base level reliable for publication data, but are the reviews they post considered reliable? The one the page linked seems to be an official review.Jinnai 04:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Trinity Blood characters

I've proposed a reorganization of this character list to use the protagonist/antagonist/supporting structure. Additional views (and if approved, help figuring out who goes where) would be helpful at Talk:List of Trinity Blood characters#Reorganization. It would also be great if we had more people watching this list who are familiar enough with the novels to help weed out the minor characters from the rest because the list currently still has a heavy anime bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about "trivial" info in manga chapter lists

See this. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting milestone

Cross Game is our first GA article on a series that hasn't been licensed in English, neither manga nor anime. A big thanks to User:KrebMarkt for making this happen using reviews in French (they love this series over there). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe had the guts to start it and Quasirandom joined in. I'm just the passer by who got caught along the way :p
Project wise it proved we can write Good Article on something not translated in English. --KrebMarkt 06:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't create the article (it was created by this anon IP on 28 September 2005, and I didn't touch it until nearly two years later). I did expand it significantly (from a 1200 bytes stub to over 20K). Quasirandom, Scythe87, and I did the majority of the expansion to its current state, with KrebMarkt and several other anons assisting in various ways in the expansion. Now we need to try to get the spin off articles up to snuff so we can have a topic. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
A Good Topic, let alone a featured one, is going to be a lot of hard work -- getting the character list up to snuff will be difficult, given current resources. (Contemplating getting even something as popular in English as Fruits Basket up to a Good Topic is hard enough.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention, until the series ends, an FL will be impossible because the chapter/episode lists are inherently unstable. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Believers was actually our first such milestone to fit that specific criteria, but has since been delisted. Unfortunately, there is barely any information out there to help build the article back up, so is doomed to be undersourced. Also, I think all of the visual novel (which include manga and anime adaptations) GAs were promoted before being licensed. --Remurmur (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which

I'd like to see if we can bring High School! Kimengumi up to good status, but I could use some help with it. There are good bones in the article, but it needs some fleshing out. It will be harder to do as it's an older series, but it remains popular, with two full series DVD releases so far, and several reprintings of the manga in different formats (as well as prequel and spin-off series). It's been released in France, too, so perhaps Krebmarkt can assist with French-language reviews of the series. This one has never been released in English. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How very nostalgic. Recon gives me the feel that it's going to be a difficult one. Lack of RS reviews for the manga release while the anime is incomplete and never made it in VHS or DVD in France. I can't even prove with RS the original French broadcast that was on TF1 :( --KrebMarkt 10:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, most of the references for this one are going to be print references due to its age. There are likely all kinds of manga reviews in Japanese (again, most/all in print, not online), and the same may be true in France. I don't know when AnimeLand started publication, but they may have been around long enough to do one or more print reviews of the manga. You may also try contacting the person who added the TF1 information to see where they got it and if they know of other sources. Do you know of any programming guides which would show the series being broadcast? In the US, there are guides like TV Guide.
Mentioned probably in TV guides back then. The anime was first broadcasted by the end of 1989 and the manga in 2000 in France. I'm not going to look actively for resources because it would be very frustrating but i adding it to my grab on the spot list like anything related to Aria (manga) or Yotsuba&!. --KrebMarkt 19:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting several scanlation websites up for blacklist

I've requested a number of scanlation websites to be added to the blacklist. You can see the full list at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Scanlation websites. --Farix (Talk) 23:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Bakuman

The article has been tagged for notability since January from this year. However, it has had some good work in the reception section considering the English volumes have yet to be released. Shouldn't the tag be removed?Tintor2 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done and added a plot tag. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Need advice

Stumbled up that: 6 Love 2009 F4 Group
Article on the characters of Boys Over Flowers (TV series) the 2009 Korean drama adaptation of Boys Over Flowers and created by an unique purpose account User:6lovef4.

Facepalm. Any idea how to handle it?

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say redirect back to Boys Over Flowers (TV series) however "6 Love 2009 F4 Group" is a made up phrase. It looks like she copied part of the TV series article, then added in the stuff for her fanclub or something. Will try CSD as a hoax after cleaning out the copied content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you. --KrebMarkt 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to say outright delete it. The user page indicates that this group has different people representing the characters in Boys Over Flowers but is not notable from what I can tell. The term "F4" originated from the boy band that was created when Hana Yori Dango was adapted into a TV series in Taiwan. From the sound of their names, this group is likely to be of Singaporean origin. Arsonal (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for claim at List of Gantz characters

User talk:Chiu-chan has been adding information to the Gantz character list that says that a character was based on Kill Bill character. There is no source for that and he uses only a quote in the manga and an interview with an actress from Kill Bill, which do not confirm such claim. Although I have been talking to him, he still says it is "obvious" and keeps reverting my edits from the page (and keeps breaking WP: Civility). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and left him a triple warning for the OR, civility, and edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tankobon release practice

Does anyone has information concerning the practice of releasing two tankōbon the same day to launch a new series in Japan. Is it common, uncommon or rares. If it's a new practice any idea of when publishers started it is welcome.
I'm just doing a quick fact cross checking.

Thanks --KrebMarkt 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Something like that happened with volumes 8, 9 and 10 of Pokemon Adventures as all of them were part of a new story arc.Tintor2 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
So an uncommon practice in Japan.
Thanks you, Tintor2. --KrebMarkt 20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Popotan soundtracks

Should this be recompiled into a list? There is no reception for any of the soundtracks and only a bit more release information (beyond dates) for the radio drama. As we don't have any lists for soundtracks, I'm asking what is the best way to go as right now all those minor paragraphs can be easily summed up in the lead and it would be hard to expand them.Jinnai 01:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a List of Clannad soundtracks. Arsonal (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And List of Aria (manga) soundtracks. One thing to ask for expanding, is whether any of the releases charted. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
None of them charted in the soundtracks themselves from what I can tell, though some of the songs did under other compilations. Actually now that I think about it, one or two of them may have, though I'd put it as unlikely. Problem is they'd be from 2003-2005 which I can't find any RSes with that (and I also think it would be more individual songs.Jinnai 05:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, List of Aria (manga) soundtracks is the way to go. I've recently tried to go through the Key Sounds Label lists, like List of Clannad soundtracks, and update them though I'm still iffy about whether the infoboxes should go or not, and beyond "Toki o Kizamu Uta/Torch", I'm not sure what other ones even charted (well, at least the other KSL albums didn't, as "Toki o Kizamu Uta/Torch" was the first KSL release to do so) (it seems the Clannad Original Soundtrack charted once, much to my surprise). Anyway, I'm saying I'm trying to emulate what List of Aria (manga) soundtracks has done since I think they're going in the right direction. Oh, and I'm currently phasing out {{Japanese track list}} in lieu of the more standard {{Tracklist}}, so I'd suggest you do the same. List of Clannad soundtracks has already been fully updated.-- 06:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
KrebMarkt worked with the Discography people for working out the format of the Aria soundtracks, with some adaptations for it being a different from a single-artist discography. The hope was it would become a model list for this sort of thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not directly worked with them but borrowed a lot from Discography and bit from Album. More precisely i looked into GA discogs all video game soundtracks and the usual FA discography like Alice in Chains discography. Usually for animanga series we have the content + verifiability refs, some development info & the charts. Reception is limited unlike video games music which has dedicated columns from RS on the web. Anime News Network even drop "Hai fidelity", their chronicle on anime soundtracks. The most advanced list of soundtrack is probably List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. It needs work and copy-edit but probably the closest candidate for GA Discography. --KrebMarkt 15:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for the misstatement. Tsubasa is another good model list, yes. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Any easy way to find RSes for chart listings 2003 to 2004? *sigh* more work for adapting track lists...Jinnai 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess, Oricon is rather wacky with small independent label and not speaking of the difference between free & non-free access. Here my finds: AIR OST 鈴の密かな恋の唄 / Mission:Love sniper Last regrets(Kanon) Tomoyo After Piano no Mori Tomoyo After OST Little Busters! OP Planetarian OST Little Busters! OST Little Busters! Ecstasy Tracks Planetarian Drama CD OTSU Club Music Compilation Vol.1 OTSU Club Music Compilation Vol.2 OTSU Blasterhead Probably not exhaustive but you know for those ones which ranked and which did not. --KrebMarkt 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I know I can find info there about albums (see ぽぽたんe.p.). The problem is that it doesn't help with finding chart information that much. I also don't know what to do as to when certain songs were used in other unrelated compilations that did chart seperatly. Should that info be included in the lead or in sections (especially if the information contained multiple sections). What about if a particular song charted as well? I believe that is the case with "Popotan Kiss".Jinnai 21:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the article should be mentioning releases as singles as well as part of albums, yes, it should also mention when a song charted. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
@Jinnai Check Popotan talk page. Ouups why did i not posted it on Popotan soundtracks talk page? Sorry. --KrebMarkt 05:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Media Network

Is Advanced Media Network RS for reviews. There's a page for their staff. Extremepro (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are. Anyone else have thoughts? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Inclined to agree too. They started from the video game field to expand to Anime & Manga. That could be a refreshing view. --KrebMarkt 05:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. That staff page doesn't exactly fill me with joy and respect for their critical acumen. Are we going on their being paid staff or what? The page makes them seem like unpaid volunteers. --Gwern (contribs) 21:51 3 July 2010 (GMT)

Dragon Ball films

Should the twenty-one animated Dragon Ball films (and the two cheap live action film) be merged to the main list? I can't really imagine much notable reception being found for them, but I don't really know how such films are usually handled. TTN (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen reviews of some of the English releases. I think this is something to be handled case-by-case basis, searching for reviews for each. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't hurt to go ahead and merge everything anyways, then re-split individual films as notability is established for each - would probably be the fastest way to clean up the film articles, which badly need it anyways. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can this be added to chapters list?

Shonen Jump Posts 1st Japanese Chapters of 22 Manga for Free. Is it notable?Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, and thought it was pretty interesting. Too bad they aren't posting original release dates, too... Other than that, I think at most, probably a mention in the main articles is sufficient (but I'm really not the one to ask ;P ). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
For some series like Kochikame and Gintama where we don't have all the chapter names these may be useful. I'll through check them tomorrow and add the names that we don't have. Akata (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ip edits to School Rumble

I'm not sure what to do. Since removing the unsourced material from School Rumble there have been daily additions to re-add the unsourced material from IP addresses in the same range. (114.xx.xx.xxxx). The material is always exactly the same and always by an address in that range, and always an ip. I have done some fairly exhaustive searches to the best of my ability, but can't find anything to verify the claims, which is why they were removed in the first place. The info was also some time ago added by the same range of ip addresses. I'm not sure if I should request a ip range block for editing the article, but I do not doubt this will continue to be added almost every day. Since it's a dynamic ip address that changes every time leaving a message on the talk page is pointless. The other ip edits have generally been constructive so it's not a problem with ip edits in general.Jinnai 04:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably go for an RPP on the page. Generally if you note the on-going issue and his IP hopping, they've been fairly good about filling those requests as we've had similar problems on some of the Bleach episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Japanese

I found this source that mentions the original broadcast dates of Zaion: I Wish You Were Here, but the Babelfish translation confuses me. I'm wondering if anyone can look at it and decipher the dates. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

October 4 and November 3. Context suggest year 2001--KrebMarkt 06:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it just on those two dates? Arsonal (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It usually helps to check multiple online translations: in this case Google Translate and Excite Translate seems to give better results. G.A.Stalk 07:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be saying:
Episode 1, distributed on "Entertainment goo" over the internet from Thu. 4th October.
Episodes 1 and 2, broadcast as part of "Kids Station"'s "Anime Paradise!" from Thu. 4th October, shown 'Tuesdays' at 25:00-26:00, 'Thursdays' at 26:00-27:00, and 'Fridays' at 24:00-25:00.
All 4 episodes, broadcast on "Kids Station" from Sat. 3rd November, shown 'Saturdays' at 25:00-25:30.
I don't know enough to know if they were repeated weekly, or only for one week at those times. Akata (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews linked by ADV Films

In case you didn't know, the ADV Films website is back up and running (albeit slowly). I was browsing through their catalog, and then I discover that they are linking to reviews that haven't been deemed reliable sources. For example:

Would this make the individual reviews (or the rest of the website like the case of Japan Hero) any more reliable, on a case-by-case basis perhaps? Arsonal (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since reviewers cherry-pick their reviews to be the most favorable, these need to be identified individually. That said, it is worth checking them out to see if the site meets editorial standards even if the particular reviewer does not. Basically that means more staff and the more levels of editorial oversight the more legitimate a site is (although it is possible to meet the standards with one clear level of oversight). Also if the names are real names as opposed to alaises then that also lends more credit and accoutnability.Jinnai 19:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree usually one must be careful on such information. Use of aliases doesn't mean not RS, just need to be more cautious. Some French RS websites use pseudonyms for reviews --KrebMarkt 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking on Demographic

While doing minor things in my user page I came to wonder: What is the appropiate link for demographic in infoboxes. When clicking in Naruto, Bleach, Gin Tama and others I found myself at Shōnen which refers to youth and not manga. There is an article for the genre named Shōnen manga but it is not linked in the articles. The same happens with Shōjo that there is an article named Shōjo manga. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lately there has been a small campaign to change it to use pipes and go to Shōnen manga and Shōjo manga, but its still pretty much a work in progress. Be cool if we had a bot that could do that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. But doesn't Farix do this kind of things. I wonder how he does it. It must be very tiring.Tintor2 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
How do I do it, painfully with AWB. ;) Actually, it's not that painful, but I have other things on my plate that are a bit more important right now. Plus there is that last userbox on my user page. >_> --Farix (Talk) 02:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. I was just curious.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Going to try going through some now with AWB as well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yay, my advanced rule worked...going through around 3000 articles using the template to fix the links in there. Not checking article text unless I happen to notice it in the lead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Approximately 500 done. I've also added in italics and did the same link mods for seinen and josei (though those redirect to their manga articles anyway). Pretending I don't see the other massive issues with some of these articles :P Stopping now as I have a headache. Approximately 2800 remaining to be checked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I am totally going to copy that userbox for my page ... mañana. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: 2286 articles left to check. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont know is this is still active but im still finding what I can and fixing them up to help as well. How many are left to do? —Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope question: Composers, bands and musicians

I've noticed quite a number of singers and bands tagged with our project banner. However, their connections with anime or manga is an opening or closing theme song or soundtrack. While the project's scope does include composers, bands, and musicians based primarily around anime or manga are within the scope. How tenuous of a connection must there be before it falls outside the projects scope. For example, SMAP did the OPs and EDs of Hime-chan's Ribbon and Akazukin Cha Cha with two of the members having minor voice roles in each. But the full body of their work does not consist primarily anime related. This on contrast with Buono! who's entire discography is related to Shugo Chara! and is unquestionably within our scope. --Farix (Talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that unless the band does have main roots with anime/manga, they shouldn't be under our scope. Even with minor voice-acting, several actors in real life voice characters, even the lead roles, in films. However, they aren't classified as "voice actor" but as "actor", with notes on how they have played voices as well. It's the same for musical roles as well; just because a band was featured in a film or show does not mean that they are just associated with movies/shows. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Basically yea, they have to have a fairly solid foundation. I don't want to set a abolsute minimum or percetile minimum because there are always exceptions, but bassically if you look at their track reacord and it doesn't look like they had a at least a signifigant foundation or overall contribution to anime/manga or closely related media then its probably outside the scope. If you have a question about particular articles, those can be brought up an discussed. In general a few opening/closing songs in a decent career isn't enough.Jinnai 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dual episode lists

Not sure if this has happenes before. A question of procedure: What happens when you try to split off the Twin Spica anime and live-action adaptations into new lists/articles? What would be the names of each? Arsonal (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Either drop the drama episode lists all together or just do one List of Twin Spica episodes that has a section for the anime and one for the live-action. I.E.
==Episode list==
===Anime===
===Live-action drama===
Or, if they have separate names, use the names instead of just "Anime" and "Live-action drama" labels. Neither is so long as to justify two lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivial data in manga lists

Discussion moved here from Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Trivial data in manga lists. Goodraise 03:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I've avoided reviewing manga and anime lists like the plague, but I took a look at the current FL candidate List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters and was a little concerned with what I saw. Namely, there is alot of what I would consider trivial/fancrufty data in these tables which really don't have much relevance to anything. Specifically, chapter titles and characters featured on the cover. My main problem with these two sets of data is that they largely have almost no relevance to the topic as a whole. The chapter lists I think of in much the same way as tracklistings in a discography. In a discography, we don't care what track #12 from album #3 is called, simply because it doesn't have much bearing on the rest of the discography. The same could be said for manga lists: does it help the reader's understanding of the topic to know what Chapter #7 from Volume #4 is called? Is this information useful to anyone? Especially when there's already a plot summary included? Or is this just piling on data? The same could be said about the characters on covers: does this help our understanding at all? Does the cover play such a vital role to the manga as a whole that which character is featured is something we need to note for each entry?

I realize I may be a little late in the game, and alot of these types of lists have already become featured, but this seems like a problem to me. Please share your thoughts. Drewcifer (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The chapter titles are the very core of the chapter lists. The lists are not volume lists for a reason. The discography analogy is flawed. Music is typically released as albums first and sold as singles later. With manga, it is the other way around. The chapters are published in various anthologies first and then collected in volumes later. If there is a problem with the chapter lists, it's not that the chapter titles are given, it's that the chapters' dates of first publication aren't. The listings of the cover characters are a different matter. As far as I can tell, their intended purpose is to provide a means of visual identification that is in line with WP:NFC. Goodraise 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are correct about the cover characters. The first few manga chapter list FLCs had cover images, and this was deemed not appropriate. Listing the cover characters was the compromise worked out (wither negotiated or imposed, I don't know). As of a year or so ago, if you tried to bring a manga chapter list to FLC without listing the cover characters, you'd get dinged for not including them per precedent. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As Goodraise says about the chapters -- manga is a serialized format, with chapters initially published in magazines/periodicals then collected in volumes afterward. As such, comparisons to a discography are apples-to-pomegranates. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see, I see. Good points all around. I'm not a manga-reader, so I guess I was just misinformed about the serial nature of the format. So I guess that point is a little moot. That said, I do like Goodraise's suggestion about publication dates, and I might even add in the original publication it was published in. As the lists stands, I still don't see the lists of chapters being all that useful, at least the way their implemented right now. They really don't give any information besides the title.
As for the cover characters, I understand that they are meant to replace non-free cover art, but they clearly don't serve the exact same purpose. A cover might be useful since it would show alot more than just the characters: what they're wearing, the expression on their face, their environment, whatever action they're doing, which characters aren't featured (The Sopranos DVD covers come to mind, but I digress), etc, etc. Whether or not the cover characters is a compromise or not, at the end of the day it just seems awfully trivial, and tells the reader very little. Drewcifer (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Any FL level chapter list already includes publication dates and the original magazine it was published in as part of the lead, usually within the first two sentences. That is already sufficient. I do not think the chapters need individual dates on them. Covers is not an option - it would completely violate WP:NONFREE which is why they were removed in the first place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ditto what Goodraise said - manga is released in chapters first, then collected in the volumes. It is a core part of a chapter list (hence the list names) and the basic unit of a manga. And yes, there are some lists that are on-going or incomplete series that list both the volumes with the collected chapters and any unreleased ones. The chapter titles are certainly "trivial" in any sense of the word and they are entirely relevant to the topic as a whole. For the cover characters, I'm more ambivalent. In some series, the covers can be a bit indicative of the series. For example, in Marmalade Boy, each cover has only the female protagonist until the final volume when she and the male are together, showing the solidarity in their rocky relationship. For other series, the covers are more decorative. As Quasirandom notes, they were originally listed in text form to appease the demands for inappropriate cover images, and honestly, I don't see how they are overly trivial. Could it be removed without any real harm? Probably. Do they harm the lists? Not really. There are many other lists that have details I personally find trivial, but I see how they could appeal to a number of other readers. However, one could argue that the readers are fans, so it could be seen as trivial and, so I can see both sides. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm definitely not suggesting putting non-free content back into these lists, I'm just pointing out that listing the cover characters is a poor substitute for images. So poor that they fail to tell the reader much of anything in most cases. In cases like Marmalade Boy, where there is something to be interpreted from them characters on each cover, a sentence or two in the lead would be much clearer and informative then to list the characters for each volume and assuming someone might figure out the pattern or the relevance. And on the other extreme, I look at List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters and see front AND back cover characters listed. Since it appears the front cover characters for all five volumes are the same three characters (which means there isn't really much to be interpreted there), of what use is it to list the back cover characters? Is this where the real story telling is going on? It seems to me that since these volumes are basically anthologies of a bunch of different chapters and story arcs, the covers are usually pretty vague and just mostly just eye-candy that represents very little other than the characters in a cool pose. And whether or not listing cover characters does any harm or not isn't really the point (WP:NOHARM).Drewcifer (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I raised the issue of listing back cover (and spine) characters on chapter lists a while back, and the minuscule discussion it got (only AnmaFinotera answered *casts mean glances at other project members*) suggested they shouldn't be listed. For front cover characters, in cases where the same character or group of characters appears on every cover, I typically just place a note in the lead. Other than that, in most cases, cover characters could probably simply be removed - I really don't have much of an opinion on it. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) For most series, yeah, they are pretty much eye candy to pretty up the packaging of the original chapters, so on the whole, I'd have no problems with removing the cover characters. I would, however, disagree with putting a text description in the summaries. Summary should be summary only, not descriptive. Manga volumes take the individual chapters and collected them in bound volumes. For the large majority of series, these are in the same order originally published and an on-going story line. There are some manga series that are anthologies in which the chapters are not necessarily related except perhaps by a common theme (such as the manga adaptation of Calling You). So removing cover characters - fine, though implementing is another whole ball of wax. Removing the chapter list, again, I would strongly disagree with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think I've clearly shown my ignorance in suggesting removing chapter lists. They do seem important, so forget I ever suggested it. As for mentioning the relevance of cover characters in the lead, that was just a suggestion; something like that may be better suited to the actual manga's page, rather than the list. Not sure about that, just a suggestion. As for actually implementing said removal of listed cove characters, I don't think it would be that hard. There's only a handful of FLs that would need to be fixed, and we wouldn't necessarily have to remove them from every b-level and below list, just fix that type of thing during FLCs. If something is required of FLs, it usually tends to trickle down eventually. Drewcifer (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Removing the cover characters seems good. There are some manga series that use over twenty characters in a cover (like the last volume from Shaman King) and removing them would help with the weight from the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Love Hina is another one that has lots of cover characters - in most volumes, there're more cover characters than chapters. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems like the best option to me. In most of the examples you guys have provided, the right column is reserved for mostly cover characters, and a few volume titles here and there. Removing the cover characters would leave a big empty gap in most of the tables. Whatever extra information is in that column could just be combined into a single cell, since there usually isn't much of it in the first place. Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Another issue I found is that in List of Gin Tama chapters there is only one character per cover, while the chapters titles tend to be very long. I don't know about templates but maybe the division for vol titles could horizontal instead of vertical?Tintor2 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool, then what I would suggest is to merge the two cells which currently are reserved for chapters (left) and cover characters (right) into one cell for the chapters. Many of the chapter names are long and require a line break in the current format, so this would also help that. In cases where there's more info in the right cell (like the Shaman Kin example above gives volume name), this can just be incorporated above or below the chapter list, and into the same single cell stretching across the whole width of the table. How does that sound? Drewcifer (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that several series have volume titles like the case of Shaman King. Maybe instead of using volume extras it could directly use Volume title whenever a series has volume titles.Tintor2 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As Tintor notes, the cells can't just be merged. The second sale is not reserved purely for cover characters, but for other additional information. In addition to characters, many contain volume titles and other English release info when its not included in the main cells. The cover characters will have to be removed manually once the discussion is done (and presuming consensus remains as it is now for their removal). The single cell was rejected when the template was first designed as it was really ugly in practice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
How many lists actually contain vital (read: non-trivial) information in the volume extras field that is neither volume title nor cover characters? If it is just a neglectable minority, we could change {{Graphic novel list}} to provide a variable format, depending on whether titles are present. {{Graphic novel list/sublist}} is already doing that (in its transcluded form). Goodraise 22:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
How about something like this? (See example below this post.) Goodraise 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
# Title Release date
English Japanese Japan US
1 The Tests of the Ninja うずまきナルト!!
(Uzumaki Naruto!!)
March 3, 2000[1]
ISBN 978-4-08-872840-7
August 16, 2003[2]
ISBN 978-1-56931-900-0

Chapter list:

  • 001. "Uzumaki Naruto!" (うずまきナルト!!)
  • 002. "Konohamaru" (木ノ葉丸!!)
  • 003. "Enter Sasuke!" (うちはサスケ, "Uchiha Sasuke")
  • 004. "Hatake Kakashi!" (はたけカカシ!!)
  • 005. "Pride Goeth Before a Fall!" (油断大敵!!, "Yudan taiteki!!")
  • 006. "Not Sasuke!" (サスケ君に限って...!!, "Sasuke-kun ni kagitte...!!")
  • 007. "Kakashi's Decision" (カカシの結論, "Kakashi no ketsuron")

For the first twelve years of his life, Naruto Uzumaki had to live a life without parents and endure the apparent unsolicited hate from the villagers of Konohagakure, never knowing what it was like to be loved or have friends as a result. On the day that he learns that the Nine-Tailed Demon Fox was sealed within him soon after his birth and is the reason he is alone in the world, Naruto's fortunes begin to change. In addition to finding a father-figure in the form of Iruka Umino, Naruto achieves his dream by finally becoming a ninja. In doing so, Naruto is added to Team 7 along with Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno under the leadership of Kakashi Hatake. To see whether or not the three are ready to become ninja, Kakashi administers a test to see if they have what it takes. Each fails independently, leading Kakashi to believe they will never become ninja.

Ewwww...no. that would be horrible. Really, this discussion needs to move to the template page and/or the anime/manga project as its moved beyond the scope of FLC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Constructive as always, I see. :p Are you referring to that work-in-progress example I gave or to something else I said? I can't really tell. In any case, it's nothing new that we don't see eye to eye when it comes to aesthetics. Point is, removing the cover characters will leave a lot of white space in a lot of already unappealing tables. Something will have to be done. Goodraise 03:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I mean that work-in-progress. Squishing the summary to the side is just not a good option at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way what would happen with series without vol title?Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The same that would happen with the series with vol title? I don't see the problem. Goodraise 03:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
While I could see removing the cover characters, there are cases like School Rumble where commentary on their appearances (or lack of appearance) has actually caused debate and questions that were answered by the author (in this case) or publisher, thus it can rise to the level of non-tirivalness. However, in general I would agree they don't add much. In other cases, alternate artwork is also used. However, right now I'd say the 2-cell format is unbalanced imo with too much info on the one side.Jinnai 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My knowledge about table code isn't that comprehensive, but is there something that would allow for a collapsible row? The title of the volume work can be written like titles are currently written in {{Japanese episode list}}. The list of chapters would be collapsed between the title/date row and the summary row. Arsonal (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We can't use collapsible boxes in the body of an article for accessibility and printing reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(random indent) For an example of a (featured) list that uses the right-hand box for info other than cover characters or volume titles, see List of Yotsuba&! chapters. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If a chapter list has the chapters removed, they should be called "List of... manga volumes". Removing them would be like removing songs from a discograhy article. Tintor2 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, we do remove songs from a discography article.--Crzycheetah 01:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That table as above would often be unbalanced if the chapter names are too short, volume names are too long, or you end up with multiple releases, some series have releases in the United Kingdom, North America and Singapore. Some series also happen to have titles in one language, but not in another. Here's an example from xxxHoLic. Akata (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
# Title Release date
English Japanese Japanese English
3 none だから言ったでしょ、「宝物庫はタカラの山だ」って。
(I told you before... The Treasure Room is a Mountain of Treasure! Remember?)
March 3, 2000[1]
ISBN 978-4-08-872840-7
October 12, 2004[3]
ISBN 978-1-56931-900-0 (NA)
unknown
ISBN 978-0-09-950409-2 (UK)

Chapter list:

  • Chapters 16–22

To help out a friend of Himawari's, Watanuki is sent together with Dōmeki to investigate strange phenomenon caused by people using Angel-san, a Japanese equivalent to a Ouija Board. Later, a woman arrives at Yūko's shop, and Yūko gives her a container she was interested in, in exchange for promising never to open it. However, it slides open after being touched by Himawari, to reveal a Monkey's Paw inside. She uses it to try and help her in her job, only to have her killed by it in the end. Later, Watanuki arrives at an oden stand run by foxes.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough up there (or maybe the example I gave distracted from what I was saying). I was not suggesting to squeeze every manga series into the same table layout (much less the one I gave as an example). I was suggesting to rewrite {{Graphic novel list}} to change its appearance depending on what pieces of information are there (which incidently {{Graphic novel list/sublist}}, to some degree, already does). As for your example: It is my understanding that the world-wide first English language release is of interest, not local ones. I also don't see why this volume needs a "Chapter list". A rewritten {{Graphic novel list}} might present this volume like this. (See example below this post.) Goodraise 06:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
# Title Release date
Japanese English
3 だから言ったでしょ、「宝物庫はタカラの山だ」って。
(I told you before... The Treasure Room is a Mountain of Treasure! Remember?)
March 3, 2000[1]
ISBN 978-4-08-872840-7
October 12, 2004[3]
ISBN 978-1-56931-900-0

Chapters 16–22:
To help out a friend of Himawari's, Watanuki is sent together with Dōmeki to investigate strange phenomenon caused by people using Angel-san, a Japanese equivalent to a Ouija Board. Later, a woman arrives at Yūko's shop, and Yūko gives her a container she was interested in, in exchange for promising never to open it. However, it slides open after being touched by Himawari, to reveal a Monkey's Paw inside. She uses it to try and help her in her job, only to have her killed by it in the end. Later, Watanuki arrives at an oden stand run by foxes.

  • I'll support this version. But what about the chapter titles? Extremepro (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Goodraise want to create additional graphic novel template variants to cover presence/absence of chapters titles and/or volumes titles. The one above is volumes titles without chapters titles. --KrebMarkt 06:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • With that cleared up: Support. Extremepro (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I like this version for one that have no chapter titles (rare) but do have volume titles (also fairly rare). I will not support ever squishing the summary and chapter titles on the same line. It just will not work in far too many situations where chapters have long titles, such as List of The Wallflower chapters, (especially when the nihongo is included). List of Chrono Crusade chapters currently has no cover characters listed. There is some white space at 1024x768, but it is not excessive and would be fixed if the list had the Japanese titles. With List of Rave Master chapters, if the cover characters were removed, it would not have excessive white space because it has the full titles, as seen in List of Excel Saga chapters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Problem with the current version is with the removal of cover characters that leaves most with just volume title on the right side (if that as not all volumes have titles, see List of School Rumble chapters. It's imbalanced the way things are when there is a lot of info on one side and almost nothing on the other. It also takes up massive amounts of space. Yes I know Wikipedia isn't paper, but that's not an excuse to bloat the size of things either.Jinnai 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is one I have been thinking since the discussion. Although the chapters and volume titles are not divided I thought of using "contents" instead of chapterlist.Tintor2 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Japanese release date Japanese ISBN English release date English ISBN
1 March 3, 2000 ISBN 4-08-872840-7 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN. August 16, 2003 ISBN 1-56931-900-6
Volume title
  • The Tests of the Ninja (うずまきナルト!!, Uzumaki Naruto!!)
Chapter title
  • 001. "Uzumaki Naruto!" (うずまきナルト!!)
  • 002. "Konohamaru" (木ノ葉丸!!)
  • 003. "Enter Sasuke!" (うちはサスケ, "Uchiha Sasuke")
  • 004. "Hatake Kakashi!" (はたけカカシ!!)
  • 005. "Pride Goeth Before a Fall!" (油断大敵!!, "Yudan taiteki!!")
  • 006. "Not Sasuke!" (サスケ君に限って...!!, "Sasuke-kun ni kagitte...!!")
  • 007. "Kakashi's Decision" (カカシの結論, "Kakashi no ketsuron")
For the first twelve years of his life, Naruto Uzumaki had to live a life without parents and endure the apparent unsolicited hate from the villagers of Konohagakure, never knowing what it was like to be loved or have friends as a result. On the day that he learns that the Nine-Tailed Demon Fox was sealed within him soon after his birth and is the reason he is alone in the world, Naruto's fortunes begin to change. In addition to finding a father-figure in the form of Iruka Umino, Naruto achieves his dream by finally becoming a ninja. In doing so, Naruto is added to Team 7 along with Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno under the leadership of Kakashi Hatake. To see whether or not the three are ready to become ninja, Kakashi administers a test to see if they have what it takes. Each fails independently, leading Kakashi to believe they will never become ninja.
Just to clarify, we are going to leave the VolumeExtras= parameter there, for backwards compatability and for those cases where there's other information to include, yes? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Definately! :) Removals of the cover characters should be done on a manual basis only. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If volume titles are going to be above chapter titles, we should have an example in {{Graphic novel list}} document for that entry of what would be a volume extra as cover characters will no longer be acceptable.Jinnai 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached?Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing several issues here. Let's see:
  1. Chapter titles stay. They are essential and not trivial. (Very clear consensus)
  2. Cover characters should be removed, except maybe in some special cases. (Almost equally clear consensus)
  3. The table layout should (somehow) be changed to compensate for the removed character names. (Slightly less solid, but still a consensus)
What's left to do is deciding exactly how the table layout should be changed and whether it should be different depending on the information it's supposed to hold. Once we've done that, we'll have to change {{Graphic novel list}} accordingly. (I'd be pushing this, but I find less and less time to edit at the moment.) Goodraise 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A question of naming

I'm trying to wrap my pointy little head around a part of our guidelines. This is easier to explain with an example: Suppose there's a manga series, and it gets an anime. We write an article, a chapter list, and an episode list (it's that sort of popular). One of the two formats gets licensed (because it's only so popular) with a translated/otherwise altered title, and so we change the main article (and relevant list) to match the licensed title -- so far, so good. News reports still refer to the unlicensed format by the original, untranslated title. Do we change the name we use for the unlicensed format? And the relevant list?

Consider this a subset of anime and manga get different licensed titles scenario. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had that problem with the Black Butler articles. However, I changed the name of the unlicensed format for consistency. Although I'm not sure if it actually complies with the guideline or not... I'm not really sure on it. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I remember that problem arising with another set of articles as well, but it's been so long ago that I've forgotten the name. I do remember there being some discussion on it at the time, though. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't suppose you remember where that was discussed? I'm not finding any in this page's archives. (Of course, that might be because my search fu is weak today. Can't even find e-mails I filed last week. Lose my head next.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion might have been Higurashi no Naku Koro ni and its related episode list.-- 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Still not finding the discussion. Or did you mean in those articles? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Aah, I just figured it out! It was Pani Poni (discussion here). The problem was that there was an original, unlicensed manga series titled Pani Poni, and an anime adaptation that had been licensed under the title Pani Poni Dash!. So, it definitely wasn't Higurashi, but looking back at the discussion, Higurashi was cited as another example of the same basic situation. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Thankee. That does shed some light on the matter. But only some -- that's half the above situation: if the derivative anime is licensed but not the original manga. How about when the original manga is licensed but not the anime? Should the episode list be renamed to reflect the manga name? Even when news reports mention the original title for the anime? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably, the same solution should be used in both directions. At the very least, I'm not seeing any convincing arguments of forcing the licensed name onto unlicensed adaptations... ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the episode list as that has no direct correlation to the manga. It should be based solely on the anime or live-action adaptation as it is a spinoff of that section.Jinnai 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm, could you clarify? I'm getting the distinct feeling we're talking about two different things all of a sudden... ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's get more concrete. Rin Sato writes a manga named Hana no Kaze -- it runs 14 volumes, gets a 26-episode anime, wins the Kodansha award. Manga (but not anime) gets licensed under the title Flowery Wind, and ANN's news releases about this T-pop edition mention that Flowery Wind was adapted as an anime called Hana no Kaze. By guidelines, the main article should be "Flowery Wind" and the manga list is "List of Flowery Wind chapters" -- so far, so clear. Is the anime list "List of Hana no Kaze episodes" or "List of Flowery Wind episodes"? (Note that if the anime then gets licensed as Windflowers, the episode list would become "List of Windflowers episodes".) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To make my above "same solution" statement absolutely unambiguous, I feel in this case, the episode list should be named "List of Hana no Kaze episodes". However, I would also recommend redirects from both "Flowery Wind" and "Windflowers" (since I'm assuming in the latter case, there is strong suspicion - with good reason to suspect - that the anime will get licensed under the title "Windflowers"). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
That's my reading of the guidelines as well. And a good point about generous redirects. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you pay any attention to when I address the issue of page names, you'll notice that I'm always waxing eloquent about the use of redirects (actually, half the time, I'm kinda afraid someone will get tired of hearing me talk about it ;P ). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c "NARUTO―ナルト―/1" (in Japanese). Shueisha. Retrieved 13 October 2007. 
  2. ^ "Naruto, Vol. 1". Viz Media. Retrieved 13 October 2007. 
  3. ^ a b "xxxHOLiC, Vol. 3 by CLAMP". Del Rey Manga. Retrieved March 2, 2009.