Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48


New look for project navigation template and main page?

I'm wondering if there would be any interest in making two changes to the layout of the project pages:

  1. Changing the navigation template (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navbox) from the current banner-style layout to a more typical sidebar-style layout. Some examples of this style are {{WPMILHIST Navigation}}, {{Ships sidebar}}, Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Navbox, and {{WPBiography Sidebar}}; as can be seen, different levels of compactness can be achieved depending on how much of the material is wrapped within collapsing sections. Given the relatively limited number of subpages here, I would suggest having about half of them exposed and half collapsed, but other arrangements are obviously possible.
  2. Changing the main project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga) from a flat layout to a tabbed one. Some examples of this style are Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. The intent with such a style is to provide tabs with links to the core project pages (which doesn't necessarily include every subpage of the project) for easy access; this is particularly convenient when those links happen to be within collapsed sections of the navigation template.

These changes aren't pressing, obviously; but I think they might help organize things a bit within the project.

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support the tab layout if a change would to take place here. I feel the sidebar-style layout looks too cramped and I like the bigger layout feel to the project as it gives readers more of a good feel to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
If avoiding a cramped layout is a concern for the the navigation template, it might be possible to use a less compact variant (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Navigation). There's no particular need for the template to be heavily compressed—this project doesn't have that many subpages—but I think simply realigning the template to sit on the side of the page rather than across the top would help provide a more "natural" layout for the project pages themselves.
Another alternative might be to change the current layout from the banner box style (~70% width) to a full bar style (100% width). This would make the template a bit shorter, avoid having the bars of whitespace around it, and let it sit neatly under a row of tabs. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
A long as the first opinion has the template not cramped up its a yes by me =). I really like the 2nd proposed idea here as I feel the project main page should get a facelift. Sorry about that I got a little confused on the wording here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I like both ideas. A comment on the navboxes: I prefer the collapsible look of the WPMILHIST and WikiProject Japan Navboxes. And I would be fine with either tabbed look. :) ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just be sure to keep the Wikipe-tan images =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't actually looked at the navtemplate's code, let me point out that it makes use of {{Navbox}} with styles to force it to 70% width - as I recall, I did this to maintain some of the appearance of the older, hard-coded navtemplate (and given the amount of work I put into the template, I'm naturally biased against turning it into a sidebar, so I should probably recuse myself on that point ;) ). As for the tabs idea, I quite like it; it would also make it easier to move some stuff off our front page and shorten it up a bit. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the tab layout of those 2 choices.Jinnai 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Another example of the tabbed layout is found at Portal:Speculative fiction. It also shows completely different color schemes. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Manga Max #14

Our magazine page does not list it, but I know not everyone keeps all their holdings on it or keeps it up to date.

Does anyone have a copy of the issue or leads (besides the run of MM in Michigan State University)? There is an interview of Hideaki Anno in it that I would like a copy of. It's not available online, through commercial retailers, etc. I have already contact one editor, but they are retired so who knows? --Gwern (contribs) 06:44 17 August 2010 (GMT)

Jonathan Clements was an editor for Manga Max, it mightn't hurt to drop a query to him. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In particular, you can add your voice of support for a "Best of Manga Max" book here. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
His FAQ makes it sound as if an email would not be welcomed at all, especially since the only sensible question I can think of would be along the lines of 'hey dood can you send me a copy?' --Gwern (contribs) 05:35 27 August 2010 (GMT)
The editor replied saying they'd send me a scan in a few days. Looking good. --Gwern (contribs) 14:12 29 August 2010 (GMT)
Update: the check failed to turn up anything. I'm going to try to contact Clements on his next blog post; future updates will be posted to --Gwern (contribs) 18:48 29 September 2011 (GMT) -RS?

Ghibiworld hosts a bunch of exclusive interviews which are fine to cite, but I'm wondering if it's also reliable for its other content due to the level of recognition by these high-profile interviews, ie industry recognition of the site.Jinnai 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not enough. That high-profile people talk to them only means that they recognize the site's existence. For the page to be considered a reliable source for anything beyond information about itself (WP:SELFPUB), these high-profile people would need to recognize its quality as a source of information. Goodraise 10:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright. So put it down as a situational source then for the interviews only?Jinnai 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how that site is reliable even only for the interviews. Assume I create a website, and on that website I write that Jinnai thinks Wikipedia is stupid. Would you then consider my website a reliable source for information on your opinion? Goodraise 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Interviews by notable people have survived FA/FLC and RS/N discussions because it doesn't matter who the person is talking to, what they have to say is important. If their is a dispute on particular sources making stuff up, that's handled individually (unless the site has a history of such or is something like an open wiki). Usually this just requires the source acknowledged it in some way, like if you posted that above statement and I linked to it as a valid indicator of my thoughts, it doesn't matter that my site is not notable. However, in the case with that statement, myself not being a notable figure, my interviews would not matter. If, however, you had Jim Wales say that and he linked with a similar response from his page then it would.Jinnai 02:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Your writing is so incoherent, I can hardly make any sense of it. Anyway, who the interviewed person is only matters in terms of weight. Who they are interviewed by is of course irrelevant, as long as the interview is published in a reliable source. However, and that's the point I was trying to get across, publishing an interview with a prominent person doesn't make a site reliable, because everyone can do that. Goodraise 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────true, but that doesn't matter. If Barak Obama gives an interview to a 2nd grader who puts it on a website and then in some way he directs people to the interview, it doesn't matter that its published by a 2nd grader. It may not be on the guideline, but its as long as it can be verified, its generally considered a common sense exception since RS is a guideline, not policy.Jinnai 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now that I read this, your previous post makes a lot more sense to me. Sure, if an interviewed person explicitly recommends such an interview, then they are basically extending WP:SELFPUB to a third party. No argument there. However, such a recommendation has no bearing on the reliability of the rest of the website (including all the other interviews). At this point I'd gladly end the post, but I simply can't leave that phrase ("generally considered a common sense exception since [insert guideline name here] is a guideline, not policy") uncommented. "Generally considered" means nothing else than "in my experience" and "common sense" just means "in my opinion". Neither does anything towards convincing me of your position. Basically, you're saying nothing. As for "we can make exceptions, because it's a guideline, not a policy": That's utter nonsense. Firstly, policies are no less exempt from exceptions (or change) than guidelines are. (See WP:IAR.) Secondly, what is needed to make an exception to a rule is not that the rule is part of a guideline (that would make writing guidelines pointless), but a solid rational which explains why that rule should not apply in that specific case. Finally, I'd like to add that none of the sections I wikilinked are part of WP:IRS or any other guideline. They (WP:DUE, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:IAR) are all policy. Goodraise 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if you found it from a unreliable source or a fansite or so...then it's not necessary to add the cite itself aslong as you add in the interview itself and where the source came from. unless the interview was exclusive to that site, than i guess it would be self publishing.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some of them are exclusive.Jinnai 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
By exclusive, i meant interviews that they themselves did. Although if you could find more mention of this site on reliable oens, than maybe. and verify that these aren't fans who made the site.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what I meant. Interviews someone on their staff did themselves. As for finding other sources, I can't. That's why I asked.Jinnai 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lupin III Peer Review

Hello fellow wikipedians. I've just started a new peer review for Lupin III in hopes of getting the article ready for a featured article nomination. Please come and help out :) --AutoGyro (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help

I am currently having a small dispute with Juhachi about the validity of adding a Black Rock Shooter Characters page for the Black Rock Shooter page. His main argument is that some of my info came from the Black Rock Shooter wiki site and i had listed it in my site references Now i had not completed the page the day i posted it because i can only get on my local library's computer and i have time limit on which i could be on it. As such i was forced to post the page before i was done. I was going to try and finish it the next day and add the rest of my references and stuff when he had deleted it. The character page lists all the characters from the OVA and the other canon characters that have been drawn by Huke (person who drew Black Rock Shooter, Dead Master, and the others) who had not yet been animated. I spent 2 hours typing everything up. So i was hoping i could post the page again with all my referees and stuff. Mad Doggin 7 (talk)Mad Doggin 7Mad Doggin 7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

The wall hitting argument isn't the verifiability of the contents but the fact that we don't usually do separate characters list for OVA series especially a single episode one of 50 mins. You may say that this series deserve it but fact is that most people can only consider this list as an "Extra Superfluous Overkill". Note that i'm only giving my opinion on having a separate list of characters and not on the content itself which may or not be inserted into the main article. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it's not necessarily against the rules to make a separate character page, you just don't normally do it. But if i put in the time to do it, who is there to complain about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Doggin 7 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Per usually i mean, i never saw an OVA article having a separated list of characters from my limited 18 months experience here. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that it should be notable. Do you have reception for the characters, cataloging sales, reviewers' opinions, and, to a lesser extent, merchandise for the OVA? Do you have concept and creation information from the cast, production crew, and other official sources? While the latter is not necessarily needed, it is nice to have, especially in cases where the reception isn't that large of a section. For the timebeing, I'd recommend creating a subpage and write up a nice, healthy article. It won't be tampered with or deleted by anyone else, and you can return here and ask others' opinions on if it warrants being separate. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

but i DO have official sources, links, and creation information links that i was going to post, but as i said i ran out of time before getting them up and had to post it as is. I was going to finish it the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Doggin 7 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I highly suggest you create a subpage; it's quite easy to do, and will allow you to save your work and refine it before uploading. That way you do not have to worry about it being deleted and you can upload a complete article all at once. They're reusable as well. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I still think it's pretty unnecessary, but here's a subpage for you: User:Mad Doggin 7/Black Rock Shooter characters. The fact is, once you're good and done with the article, I'll probably go through it and clean it up, and then merge it into Black Rock Shooter. There's no reason to have a separate character list when most pertinent info could probably be easily merged into the main article.-- 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, we're not trying to disparage the effort you've put into this or discourage you from contributing, and it's quite nice to see someone new willing to come by and ask us about what they're doing, instead of just fighting over it or simply giving up. =)
Also, you can sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of it, since I noticed you seemed to have trouble with that. ;) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, it looks like the song this OVA is based off of could be considered a significant part of the franchise, which gives me the urge to add an infobox component for it, but I don't know if the audio component would really support a song entry in its current form. Thoughts? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I had toyed with the idea of adding in a section for the song, similar to what is done on the Japanese wiki page, but every time I thought I'd have to reorganize the article to be more about the song than the OVA, and I thought that would be kind of hard to do. It's more like the OVA was inspired by the song and its music video.-- 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that would really be necessary; it comes down to how significant to the franchise the song is, and it wouldn't be anywhere near the only example of the first infobox component not being the most-covered aspect of the franchise (Naruto, for instance, has the one-shot at the top of the infobox, even though most of the article covers the manga and its anime adaptations). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is, wouldn't the lead have to be rewritten to be "Black Rock Shooter is a song by Supercell..." and then go on to say "an OVA was adapted by Ordet..."? If that's the case, the entire structure of the article would come into question, since if the article was based on the song, then development and composition of the song would have to be written, as well as detailing how many times the song was released and in what media, plus a section for the original music video I assume. In terms of significance, I would say the song was very significant since without the song, the OVA wouldn't have been created.-- 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolding a Character's Names

I'm preparing a draft for a character article (seen at my subpage if anyone wants a visual aid), and I was bolding the subject of the article: the character. However, I'm having trouble picking what to bold as he is known as five different things: Claire Stanfield, Vino, the Rail Tracer, Felix Walken, and the young conductor. I seems ridiculous to me if I bold all of them, but I'm not sure if I must.

Claire Stanfield is his real name, and he buys the name Felix Walken and is called that afterward. He is nicknamed Vino. I don't have any problem with those. The young conductor title is treated as if it's his actual name. Up until episode 9 (of 16) the voice actors are credited as "Young Conductor", and until that episode and for what I believe is a good portion of two light novels, all characters refer to him as such. Heck, every official site lists him as Young Conductor. It's the same with the Rail Tracer, everyone goes around calling him the Rail Tracer for a good portion of the series. And to note, Claire, Vino, the Rail Tracer, and the conductor are treated as four separate characters. Any suggestions? ~Itzjustdrama ? C 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

try a google search on it and see which name is more popular, but in this situation i don't think it would be very affective. Name him the young conductor, then mention his history of his name-change within the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, Google will not help much. (Although I hope we can all agree 'young conductor' is just silly beyond words.) The hits equivocate:
  1. "Claire Stanfield", 59.3k
  2. "Rail Tracer", 66k
  3. "Claire Stanfield" -"Rail Tracer", 51.5k
  4. "Rail Tracer" -"Claire Stanfield", 58.1k
So weakly against "Claire Stanfield", though that's the most sensible single choice. I think best would to just be to bold both "Claire Stanfield" and "Rail Tracer", somewhat along the lines of "The character Claire Stanfield (alias Rail Tracer) etc.". --Gwern (contribs) 15:19 1 September 2010 (GMT)
A name-change history seems to be a good idea. But I'd rather not name him the young conductor. I think Claire Stanfield is perfectly fine. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the draft now, I noticed I already had some sort of a pseudo-name change history under plot summary section. Hm. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You could also add redirects to the page, so it wont be so difficult.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Also we should go more by common name. by your statement it seems young conductor is more common.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think we can just ignore WP:COMMONNAME. It would be a bit strange to name the article Young conductor. I'm still unsure if I should bold "young conductor". I've just decided to bold Rail Tracer. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that he is only called "young conductor" by other characters and in credits because the other characters and the viewers don't yet know his name. I think naming the article "young conductor" would be unusual, as I think most people who have seen the anime know him as Claire. I would also not expect reviews and similar reliable sources to call him "young conductor" unless they are specifically reviewing part of the series before it is revealed who he is, though I haven't actually checked any reviews to be sure of that. Looking at the version of the article on your subpage, the way you use the names seems fine as it is now (both in terms of bolding and which name you use as the primary name). Calathan (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

well i don't really care if it's unusual or not. whichever one is more recognizable would be great. i don't see a valid reason why we should ignore common name either.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Improving Star Blazers episodes

I think that all the Space Battleship Yamato articles need improvement really but I wish to focus on the Star Blazers episodes. Any thoughts and opinons would be welcome Talk:List of Star Blazers Episodes. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Back in action

I'm back after a break do to stress. I see someone has one again made another mess of the Gundam articles that will need to be cleaned up, essentially creating or recreating articles about every character and mobile suit that appears in a Gundam series. I guess I'll work on that first. Then I'll undo Codrdan's reorganization of the anime and manga categories. —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Anime/manga featured articles on the main page

I was noticing that Tokyo Mew Mew says the manga was first serialized staring in September 2000. I was thinking that might mean next month would be a good time to nominate it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. However, I know some people don't like featured articles they worked on to be on the main page because being on the main page attracts a lot of vandalism. I was wondering if the members of this wikiproject are interested in having anime/manga articles on the main page, or if people here would be opposed to that. Calathan (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with it, if there is alot of vandalism there are people who get on top of that and a page can always be semi protected and reverted. Show vandals no fear people! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The main question would be, has anyone really stepped in as that article's caretaker (being ever mindful, of course, of WP:OWN) since User:AnmaFinotera retired, and if so, would they be willing to go through a potentially increased number of vandal edits? If not, would we as a project be willing to step in and take that role? Even with these questions, though, it would be really, really cool to see one of our articles on the main page, and even if none of us stepped in, I wouldn't doubt there would be *someone* who would. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well i'm not against it, but the article would need to get at least 5 points as it doesn't have a relevant specific date in September. Currently it would have:
  • Promotion < 1 year = 0pts
  • Date relevance: 10yr anniversary = 2pts
  • Importance: non-essential = 0pts
  • Contributor history = 1pt, possibly (history)
  • Diversity: we have a lot of arts & lit FAs = 0pts
  • Main page representation: 2pts, possibly - if they deem anime is signfigantly different from other western animation or other Japanese culture. Potential roadblock: Flag of Japan, April 17 (unlikely, but someone might bring that up).
Basically only if we can get all of those, because the quene is full and this would need to go on a non-specific date since we cannot cite one from September 2000. If even one of those is off, we cannot bring it up.
Forgot timing was applicable for non-specific dates. I'll have to see if we can nominate for a specific date if only the month is known or else we only have 3pts tops and have to wait for the current 4pt non-specific to clear.Jinnai 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The non-date specific spot is new, and so far it hasn't seemed to be in much demand. My impression is that people are putting things there when they see it is empty, but not usually bumping articles from that spot. So if we want the article to run in September, that might be a good place to nominate it. Calathan (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently discussing it on their talk page. The key concern here is whether we can get an exemption for using timeliness for non-specific date. If we can we have 5pts, enough to bump it. If not, we have 3pts, which means the current one (4pts) is kept.Jinnai 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding. There are no timeliness points for the non-specific date spot. An exemption would allow us to pick any date in September, nominate the ariticle for that specific date, and then claim the 2 points. If we use the non-specific date spot, we can't claim those points regardless. Also, please don't bump anything from the non-specific date spot. Articles only stay there for seven days, and also there are currently still openings in August, so the next non-specific date article will probably run in August. There will be plenty of time to nominate an article there in September. Calathan (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The nonspecific date is open if you want to nominate it there.Jinnai 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this interfere with the retirement of an editor of this article? --Malkinann (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated this in the non-specific date spot. I don't see how it could interfere with AnmaFinotera retiring . . . are you suggesting that seeing an article he worked on on the main page might prompt him to start editing again? Calathan (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
More that it draws attention to the article, which draws attention to the major contributors, which may lead to people seeking them out. --Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera has stated quite clearly that she has blocked to ensure she isn't tempted to return to editing here (I believe she said it in her retirement note, but even if not, she was quite clear in off-site correspondence with her). I'm not sure she even knows the article was being considered here for TFAR. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't even FATHOM how anyone could even think of suggesting that an article shouldn't be on the main page because of one person's choice to stop editing WP. That's really, well, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That person's stated reasons for leaving, I feel, are more than enough to justify raising the question of if TFA would interfere with that person's departure, or exacerbate the behaviour shown by their stalkers. There is no points associated with the month or the ten year anniversary of TMM - renominating it at a later date would give more time for the links back to that person to fade. --Malkinann (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think anyone new will start cyberstalking him just because they see his name on an article, and the people who already were cyberstalking him wouldn't get any new information from the article being on the main page. I can't see how having an article he worked on appear on the main page could matter. Calathan (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur. The only potential concern is that she (AnmaFinotera is a she, as she constantly pointed out on her own talk page ;) ) might be tempted to return seeing one of "her" articles on the front page, and as I said above, she has WP blocked, so that becomes a nonissue. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Lupin III season 1 episodes should be moved to Lupin III episodes

I feel it should be moved to List of Lupin III episodes seeing as season 1 does not fit in there. Any experienced user's would mind leaving an opinion about this. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no season 2, right? Go ahead and move it. Goodraise 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It may be advisable to insert a hatnote pointing to the other lists after the move, since it's my understanding that all three series were simply named "Lupin III". ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
That should be done, but the 2nd and 3rd series are labeled as "Part II" and "Part III" to distinguish them from the first series. The Part II list on wikipedia is already a featured list :) --AutoGyro (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Evangelion MFD result

The MFD for Portal:Evangelion resulted in a decision to merge it to Portal:Anime and manga. Anyone want to tackle this? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

the merge proposals to anime and manga portal don't seem the most logical thing to do. things like this should be either kept or delete. i don't see much use to it if it were merged.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more of the content that should be merged (selected articles, etc.). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Bread. It's a nonsense decision. Ever tried merging a 500g package of salt into a TV dinner? That's what's being asked here. Goodraise 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense or not, it's what people decided. Don't shoot the messenger. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Nobody shooting you. Though I admit, I'm a little upset about the decision. I don't believe that any of them considered for one second the viability, let alone the merit, of such a merge. If I were to seriously merge those portals, it would be tantamount to a redirect. Then someone would undo it all, claiming that no real merge has taken place. In the end, it'll go back to MfD anyway, so why bother? Goodraise 20:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
All that really needs to be done is to add the material from that portal to the anime and manga portal (the sections for each are fairly similar). And it should be redirected once the merge is complete, which is perfectly fine. If people undo it, let me know and I'll protect it to keep that from happening. As it is, no one is taking care of the portal and its content is fairly thin. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if it had to be merged, i would suggest WP:EVA to be a better place.Bread Ninja (talk)
Exactly how do you merge a portal into a WikiProject? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I say similar way WP:SE has it. but i guess it wont work.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've redirected it and deleted all the supporting pages as there was nothing worth porting over. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "prequel"

A discussion appearing originally in .hack//G.U. article, then asked for third opinion on WP:VG. But since this mostly affects the category of the anime, i ask for anyone who wishes to discuss in it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about Dengeki Daioh demographics

The past, oh, couple weeks I've been seeing the demographics of a several manga series that run/ran in Dengeki Daioh being changed from shounen to seinen, even regardless of sourcing placed on the demographics. Admittedly, this is not a clear-cut thing, as there's disagreement among sources, but the one we've been using the most clearly identifies it as shounen (the magazine targets the upper end of shounen with some crossover). I'm not seeing a pattern of who's doing this, being a mix of editors and IPs, but it's odd seeing this happen now after a long period of quiet.

Just a heads up for something to watch for on your watchlist. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese article says it's both a shōnen and seinen magazine, so that might be contributing to the confusion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox in biographies

Recently, Go Nagai's infobox was changed from a general one to Template:Infobox Comics creator. The change seems logical but, for Nagai and any other manga creators, what fields describe them better? Right now, it's used "art=y", Artist, but I feel that leaves out his work as a writer, like most other manga creators. In my opinion, a "mangaka" would be closer to a "cartoonist" than the other fields, which are more oriented to American comic books.

Also, I've noticed that Naoko Takeuchi is not using Template:Infobox Comics creator but Template:Infobox Writer. Osamu Tezuka is using Template:Infobox Comics creator while Akira Toriyama is using Template:Infobox Person. Are there other infobox templates used? Is there any particular infobox which is preferred for mangaka? Was there a discussion about this topic before? What was the consensus? Because, between Template:Infobox Comics creator and Template:Infobox Person, I'd rather use Template:Infobox person. I'm not too fond of the Western-comics approach of Template:Infobox Comics creator. I even like more Template:Infobox Writer. Jfgslo (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


I have nominated List of Naruto characters for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blest Withouten Match (talkcontribs) 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anime Jump down

The website Anime Jump is down and the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine is also having problems. Any references citing reviews on this site may need to be updated. – allennames 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IA seems fine to me. I got at with no issue, as does --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 8 September 2010 (GMT)
Whatever was wrong with the Wayback Machine seems to have been corrected. &#150; I am not logged in. (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Tokyo Mew Mew

Its up tomorrow on the main page so it could use some eyes incase of vandalism.Jinnai 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is being taken care of so far, now if only AnmaFinotera were here to see it now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello Everyone, all young and old. I Alekhya Emani hereby would like to speak a few words about the Newsletter that i propose we shall start with. The Anime we all know is a great part of the modern day media. If we had a Monthly Newsletter, then every month, we will be able to put in the information about all the upcoming anime and special anime that has happened on that day, we can inform contributors about all that they can do about the articles that need to be edited for spelling and grammar and all that that they can do mainly with the list of episodes. I have noticed that many contributors are unaware of what is needed on the pages. If the newsletter is delivered to the talk page of every member, then they will edit the sections of the page that are in need of information. I hope you all understood the main purpose of having a newsletter. if you agree, i will start with the first volume. Alekhya Emani (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A newsletter would be a good idea, in my opinion, provided that there's sufficient interest to actually produce one on a regular basis.
Having said that, I'm not sure that discussions of anime itself as a topic—which is what I think you're suggesting, unless I've misunderstood you—would necessarily be appropriate; generally speaking, WikiProject newsletters are used (and tolerated) for informing members about work going on within the project, not about the topic of the project in general. This isn't to say that there couldn't be overlap between the two approaches—for example, a seasonal feature about new anime series could be perfectly legitimate if framed as part of a timely drive to create/improve the corresponding articles—but getting too immersed in the material would probably be looked upon rather poorly by the broader community. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That is what Alekhya Emani wanted to do, inform people about the upcoming anime, and also about everything that is going on in the project. Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Leo the Lion (anime)

This article appears to have been created by the owner of (see this edit, who also seems to have an account here at Kimbawlion (talk · contribs)), though that site doesn't have any copyright or licensing information on it. I don't believe we can do this. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that Kimbawlion (talk · contribs) seems to be mostly here to promote links to his site, though many edits have also been helpful and not spammy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Masters of manga for Online Reliable Sources

I'm not sure what the protocol for this is, but there's a website Masters of Manga that is doing a lot of interviews with and short bios on early, influential, or well-known manga creators. Can I suggest that this site be reviewed for inclusion in the Online Reliable Sources list? Sorry if this was already brought up, but I didn't see it mentioned anywhere. - JRBrown (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not discussed until now :p
Not an easy sell as the person doing the interviews is remotely related to the manga field and not right on the spot. That said i would give enough credibility to that website to say those interviews are not fake thus reliable materials for what the interviewed mangaka said. Grrr, i hate formulating things in such convoluted way but it reflects the fact that any random nay sayer can raise the "Prove me it isn't a fake" argument regardless how close to bad faith it would be on this case and we would be short of counter argument save of some cautious "trust" toward the source. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Strikes me as similar to our discussions over If I recall correctly, we ultimately concluded that while random n.n pages were not RSs, the interviews conducted by & exclusive to n.n were RSs, much as if a random blogger interviewed someone and put it up.
In any event, the site seems useful enough, so I'm sticking it in my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 23:30 11 September 2010 (GMT)
All of the information on net is verified before it's added. It's not just a random collection of "I heard this rumor online, so it must be true!" information. has been quoted in English- and Japanese-language publications, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What's rumorlicious about ? --Gwern (contribs) 00:20 12 September 2010 (GMT)
Sorry for any confusion, but I wasn't making a comment about Masters of Manga. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this page, it appears the owner/operator of the site is a professional translator of manga into Spanish and Catalan who has translated (according to the page) "hundreds of tankōbon into Spanish and Catalan." This indicates to me that this is more than just a fan, but rather a professional in the industry who has access that others may not have. Because of this, I think this is likely a reliable source for information. I think this is more than just cautious trust, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Release dates of OVAs screened before their sale

What's the policy regarding what release date to use in infoboxes and episode tables when an OVA is screened before its release date? For example, the anime to be featured in the "Anime Fes. 'VS' presented by Bandai Visual" in November which will be released next year. Jfgslo (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If there is an official release date known, use that in the infobox and mention in the prose there was a pre-release screening.Jinnai 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the prompt answer. I'll do that. Also, regarding the year category, I suppose that it will also be the one from the official release date (Category:Anime of 2011) instead of the screening date (Category:Anime of 2010), right? Jfgslo (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Giant Robot Week

I've been trying to think of what to do with this article. The only significant coverage I've been able to find have been blog posts and X Bridge, a spin-off of ToonZone. The rest have been announcements based on ADV's press release, such as ANN's coverage. ToonZone has already been to RS/N and determined to be an unreliable source. (discussion) Could someone else run a check to see if they can come up with any sources before sending this off to deletion or perhaps redirecting it to Cartoon Network. —Farix (t | c) 20:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than forums and brief mentions on assorted fansites, I can't find anything substantive aside from the press release. I'd suggest a merge/redirect to Toonami; it already mentions the event and this probably isn't of any real significance to CN as a whole. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I also suggest a redirect/merge to Toonami per Kirill Lokshin's reasoning. Fansites, such as ToonZone, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources and this article is also supported by annoucements made from the press release and ANN's coverage of the event. The Toonami article mentions it in there as well, so I feel a redirect is necessary here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, redirected to Toonami#Giant Robot Week after trimming the unverifiable information from the target location and moving the only RS reference there as well. —Farix (t | c) 12:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Anime and Manga Newsletter #1

Number 1, September 10, 2010

The Anime and Manga Newsletter

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Anime and Manga. The Anime and Manga Newsletter aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global Anime and Manga News. If you wish to receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the Mailing List. This newsletter covers all Anime and Manga events of August 2010

Anime and Manga News

Requested articles
Articles that have been requested to be created can be found at Anime and Manga and Seiyū.

Articles that have been requested to be merged can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force#Articles needing to be merged and Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged.

Articles that have requests for images can be found at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga

Anime Premiered in August

  • MonHun Nikki Girigiri Airū-mura Airū Kiki Ippatsu - 2010-08-05

Anime Premiering in September

  • Battle Spirits: Brave - 2010-09-12
  • Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! - 2010-09-23
  • MM! - 2010-09-26

Lists Requiring Help
These are lists that were demoted from featured list status and need improvement to become FL quality again.

Articles Requiring Help

Candidate Articles Requiring Help

These are well written articles that need improvement to become FA quality.

Featured articles The following articles reached featured article (FA) status and should be used as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to FA level.

Featured lists

This doesn't look too bad for a first run; good work! A couple of comments, though (in no particular order):
  • From a distribution perspective, simply copying and pasting the newsletter exposes a lot of messy code that people don't really want to see. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to place the newsletter on a subpage (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/News/September 2010, etc.) and then deliver it in the form of either links or transclusions.
  • The normal method for delivering WikiProject newsletters is by bot, with the mailing going out to the entire listed membership except for those who have explicitly opted out of receiving it. Once we have this up and running, I'd suggest contacting Cbrown1023 to help with delivery; he has a bot already written for it, and has been responsible for delivering the MILHIST newsletter for years with a very good track record.
  • We will probably want to have a nominal schedule for producing the newsletter, to make sure that anyone who has something they want to contribute knows when they have to do so. Assuming a monthly publication cycle, something like the first week of every month would be reasonable (although, once the newsletter grows, it's not uncommon to have delays of a week or more as everything is sorted out).
  • I assume all the current FAs/FLs are listed simply because this is the first issue, and subsequent issues will only list the items promoted during that month? Given historical promotion rates, it seems likely that we'll have months with no FA/FL promotion; it might be worth including GAs as well, to avoid having nothing to report in that area.
  • The new/upcoming anime series should ideally be linked to their respective articles, assuming we're going to take the approach of using the newsletter to drum up work on them.
  • The old FACs are, in many cases, very old; I'm not sure it's really worth listing them so prominently, as many other articles (e.g. current GAs) would probably make more easily achievable FA promotion targets.
  • Some other items that might be reported would be changes in article assessment and editor membership statistics; granting of project awards (although this would need some extra legwork, as there's no central list of recipients); newly created articles; ongoing and/or closed deletion discussions, particularly if some lessons learned can be extracted from them; a summary of major discussions within the project; and ongoing peer reviews, good/featured candidacies, and so forth.
Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock Shooter Article / Character Page

This has been brought up before by another user but the discussion was archived a little while back, it should be in the most recent archive box. The Black Rock Shooter article, more specifically the Black Rock Shooter characters article is in need of some cleanup. As it looks to me, the character page could be trimmed and fit into the main BRS article quite nicely as all the info is in-universe and rather fancrufty. Roughly half of the article is devoted to unnecessary and non-notable characters who did not even appear in the OVA. As well, there is a major slew of non-free images which have been bot-tagged for deletion due to improper licensing and template issues. There isn't any secondary sources or out-of-universe info to justify keeping the article and once cleaned up I don't think size will be a reason either. I'm trying to clean it up but not quite sure where to start aside a complete trim down and merge to the main. However, my initial attempt at clean up resulted in a revert [1] . Fox816 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been performing some cleanup such as an article move to the appropriate titling, replacing excess non-free free with group shot, removing non-notable non-ova characters and adding categories. I'll try and go over to improve the prose and hopefully find some out-of-universe info to add. Fox816 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly why I staunchly opposed the creation of such an article. I've basically washed my hands of the issue for now; I'll probably perform a merge in say 6 months if no one does it sooner.-- 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
i'm sure there is already enoughn otability, though the problem is it has too many details about trivial things, and it seperated in an inuniverse style and no reception (which i'm sure there is)Bread Ninja (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
In light of the past issue with these articles, there's a chance of edit warring in regards to editors wanting to retain separation as well as most of the information deemed unnecessary in the article. I'll attempt a merge upon consensus when the article is entirely cleaned up since it's still quite a bit away from done. When that's completed everyone can see what is left and that should make a merge smoother if permitted. Fox816 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If possible, some input here about character notability would be appreciated. Added Note: May be on the verge of an editor war as user Mad Doggin 7 has decided to revert [2] before discussing. I'm not going to revert or edit the article until this is resolved. Fox816 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin cover

Well i was looking over at rurouni kenshin article and saw it had the last volume cover on it rather than the first where i quickly discovered that the first volume cover wouldn't fit in the infobox. So i was talking to tintor about maybe about adding the intregral edition (kanzenban) cover instead of the last ocver of the tankobon,, since he uploaded them. well he said no due to the rule about it being the first cover of the first edition. so i thought on you're thoughts on it. should we keep the last volume or add the first volume of the kanzenban version.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the cover, we should keep the the Tankobon edition covers per our project's guidelines. The tankobon/first edition covers are important, so adding the Kanzenban versions are not necessary here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Status quo Main article should remain with last volume cover while Chapters list should stay with first volume cover. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like the rules are brought u[ as they come by...but since this is a consensus i'll just let it stay.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well we usually go with the first cover unless their is a good explanation. I don't know the facts here, but if there is a good reason, then it should remain.Jinnai 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Just feels off to have the last volume than the first. there really is no difference between tankobon and kanzeban format. it's just that kanzeban shows that it's complete.Bread Ninja (talk)
(e/c) I can't find any explanation; I can, however, say that the current image, which was uploaded by Tintor2, was added in February 28, and the image it replaced was originally uploaded by RadicalBender in March 2004 as a cover scan of the English volume 1 - another user uploaded a scan of English volume 28 in February 2007 without explanation. The only arguments I could see for sticking with volume 28 are "status quo" and "volume 1 is double-width", although it might be argued that volume 28's cover is a better example of the mangaka's artwork than volume 1's cover. *shrugs* ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont know. the kanzeban shows the main character Himura kenshin pretty well unlike the last volume of tankobon. And kanzenban cover could further imply that the series had finished.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I asked for status quo because manga covers can lead to edit & upload war as demonstrated by Dinoguy1000. The leaning consensus was first or last volume cover of the Japanese or English edition on a basis that no one should replace one cover meeting those loose criterion without a very good reason other than "I like it". --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember you asking for status quo. not entirely sure what that means but i get the idea. I say kanzenban edition is good, because it shows the series is complete (well manga is) along with a good image of the main character himura kenshin, where as the first cover doesn't fit and the last cover doesn't do the best in showing the main character. if it were for "ilikeit" i wouldn't have mentioned this in the first place due to me liking this cover a little more than the kanzenban or the 1st volume cover.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Do as you please then. I will neither support or oppose you but do not complain if someone replace this cover with the Viz Media, VIZBIG Edition [last volume cover] arguing that it's more significant because it's prove that this series is complete and English release is complete. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
that's why i put this up to discussion so we can have some form of consensus on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Who made the BarnLoli Award?

Just curious here, I have added this award to Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject and credited User:DarkAp89 for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It originated in this discussion. I'm not sure there's any one person who could be credited with it, though; DarkAp89 originally uploaded the barnstar image to Commons (as you noted), sephiroth bcr then found the image and proposed its use in the current project award, Masamage was the one who suggested a second project award, erachima suggested the name, and Darth Panda created the template (albeit almost two months after it was suggested and first awarded). —Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) (what's this?) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay then =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Just thought I'd pass it along that the anime and manga exclusive Transformers character Ginrai is up for deletion. I don't know why this and other Transformer characters aren't cover by this work project. I would be beneficial if you guys (and gals) were. Sarujo (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't cover articles we don't know about, and we only get to know about articles if editors tag them with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. So, if you find articles which fall within our scope, don't hesitate to add the banner. Goodraise 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, could Transformer characters like Optimus and Megatron meet the criteria to be included in this work project's watch? They have featured in the Japanese exclusive anime and manga series. Japan holds as much of a hand to their production. Sarujo (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Fictional characters that play major roles in at least one anime or manga series are most certainly within our scope. Goodraise 15:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That's all I need to know. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
No I would beg to differ otherwise we open the floodgate to Star Trek, Batman, Highlander (series) and tons of historic figures, Japanese or non-Japanese because those have all had manga and many anime adaptations.Jinnai 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As of right now, the scope does include those characters. If you want to change that, go right ahead. Goodraise 02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that we do want to include such characters and figures in our scope; as it is, popular perception of such characters (whether it's masquerading as a trivia-filled "in popular culture" section or is actually a well-written, -referenced, and -integrated part of the article) tends to be very US-centric, and their appearance in anime and manga can be used to counter that bias; the major problem is sourcing. No one is arguing that we should move in and take control of such articles; that's not what we're here for, and other projects are much better equipped to do so. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that this should be treated per "Although its scope is broad, this project maintains an essential focus on anime, manga and related merchandise originally meant for consumption in Japan. This does not include works with incidental or minor association.". Thus, if the anime and manga link is incidental, unclear or unknown, i.e. when the anime/manga component is a passing mention (and likely if there is insufficient information for a dedicated section) the article should be excluded from our scope. I rather also that one consider whether our style guideline and infobox would be used when writing the specific article. G.A.Stalk 11:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Epic Gilgamech

I can't find any information about this series. As far as I can tell, Fuji TV has never broadcast an anime series by this title. None of the Japanese references I have for TV series (which are pretty close to comprehensive as far as I can tell) have anything about this series. Anyone know anything about it? I've tagged it as a hoax as I can't find anything myself, online or offline. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If that series exists, it can't be from 1974 like the article says. TV anime series at the time were already in full color and the screencap, uploaded by the same user that created the article, shows that it would be in black & white. Even Kamui the Ninja, which was also broadcast on Fuji TV, was in color despite being aired in 1969. Also, the original run doesn't make sense for six episodes, as the custom was to make weekly episodes for TV anime. Jfgslo (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I just spent a regrettably huge amount of quality time using a bunch of search engines and studying the contributions and talk page history of the only significant contributor. What I didn't find is a reason to believe that the article is not a hoax. Not a single one. Goodraise 03:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted it. The character in that image reminded me of one of Tezuka's characters from one of his older series or movies. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was the title changed?

Temple the Balloons is clearly the correct title in English since its on the official website as the offical title see [3] Dwanyewest (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any other sources for an English title? My suspicion is that it's a typo on the Tatsunoko website—"Temple the Balloons" makes no sense, while "Temple of the Balloons" would at least be a reasonable translation of the Japanese name (albeit a somewhat confusing one). Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
ANN lists "Temple the Balloonist" as an alternative title. --Mika1h (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the source for the ANN "Temple the Balloonist" name, that also comes from the official site (to see sources for information in the ANN encyclopedia, click on the "lookup sources" link at the bottom of the page). It looks like the organization for the Tatsunoko site has changed since the link was entered in ANN, but I was able to find this page that uses the "Temple the Balloonist" name [4]. If you click on the link from that page, it takes you to the page that calls it "Temple the Balloons". Since "Temple the Balloonist" is also given on the official site and "Temple the Balloons" makes no sense (either as a traslation of the Japanese name or in English generally), I think that "Temple the Balloons" is just a mistake. However, we may want to move the article to "Temple the Balloonist" as that name is given in the official site and doesn't seem to be a mistake like "Temple the Balloons". Calathan (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I would support Temple the Balloonist as that title at least makes sense. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would definitely prefer "Temple the Balloonist" over "Temple of the Balloons", unless there is a good source that suggests "Temple of the Balloons" is an official or commonly used title. When I first saw the title "Temple of the Balloons", before actually reading the article, I thought the anime was about a temple (i.e. a place of worship) with balloons in it. Both the Japanese title and the title "Temple the Balloonist" make it clear that Temple is a person. Calathan (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved it to Temple the Balloonist. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What makes a reliable source? has been listed by this project as a reliable source for over a year.[5] Our online resources library describes it as "A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions." I've been trying to answer the question of what makes it a reliable source, but so far my searches have come up empty. Anyone got anything? Goodraise 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I am in no way condoning or condemning the site as a reliable source.
The basic explanation is that its a lexicon of information that while user submitted comes entirely from what we would consider reliable sources. Other types of lexicon sites that can show this kind of clear sourcing from such reliable sources have been deemed reliable for that content in FACs and FARs.Jinnai 04:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with wording in series of episode list articles

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk · contribs) has created a fair number of "List of...episodes" articles, but he has used very weird wording and formatting in them, especially in the episode summaries. I'm all for having these episode lists created, but they need to be understandable by the average person, and these don't even come close. I'm posting here to see if anyone is willing to help clean them up. It may be quicker to do some of it using AWB or some similar tool, and I don't use that since I run on Mac OS X and it's a Windows-only program. I've also noted the former titles (in parentheses) these articles were at before I moved them. Here's the list of articles:

He also has some he's working on here:

Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think, he/she continues to do his/her way meaning that it will leave trails of messes behind his/her edits for us to clean-up and this is deliberate. He/she can't pretend to not be "aware" of our usual formatting, naming & editing practices after 4 editors pointed her/him to the right direction. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That' what i thought when i first saw the previous names of the articles....i'll try to fix some of it since i have had previous expirience with specific wording like this.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well if they continue to do this, he/she can have steps taken to stop it like disallowing them from creating new articles.Jinnai 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I would work on them myself, but I haven't watched most of these. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's why i'm having so much trouble with it. i'll look up two of the series of these articles online to see if i could summarize them even shorter. but if it takes too much of my time i might give upBread Ninja (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I left a strong message on his/her talk page. I doubt it will have any positive reaction & change from his/her part still i really tried. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese media and the tilde

There is currently discussion on whether or not to use the tilde/hyphen/etc. as found in titles of Japanese media as it appears in the Japanese media rather than modifying it into another punctuation format on the English Wikipedia. As articles in this WikiProject's purview may be affected, users here are requested to contribute to the discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

unless it's also known without the tildes the hyphen should be used as redirects in case.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would we keep non-notable characters out of our scope?

Responding to this edit and its summary: WP:FICT is not a nutshell and our project page is not an article. FICT is in fact nothing but a proposed guideline (i.e. a guideline which is currently without consensus). Linking to it is simply unhelpful. If I was a new editor, FICT is the last place I'd want to be sent. I also don't see why we should only cover notable characters. It makes no sense and it's contrary to our operational reality. We do deal with non-notable characters. We AfD them, we merge them, we cover them in lists... Explain to me: Why would we keep non-notable characters out of our scope? Goodraise 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't tinhk it should be removed completely, but i do agree it's not int he right section.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, then the question remains: Why should we link to FICT from the project page at all? Goodraise 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I helped depreciate WP:FICT from the Manual of Style a few months ago because it has been in development hell for the last two years and is currently too similar to the GNGs. Needless to say, I would be very happy if WP:FICT was also depreciated here.
I'm not sure what you're getting at about the notability of characters and how the project deals with them, Goodraise? Effectively, as the current WP:SALAT reading goes, characters whose articles do not meet the GNGs are merged into series lists, not deleted. (e.g. Cygnus Hyoga being deprodded and then merged into List of Saint Seiya characters). The nitty gritty of how articles are treated isn't really a topic for that section, I think. --Malkinann (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The scope of a project defines what topics the project covers. The statement of this edit is that we should not deal with non-notable characters. Whether the characters notability is determined by WP:FICT or by WP:GNG is irrelevant to the case I'm trying to make. I think we should (and already do) deal with characters like Zarbon just as much as we deal with characters like Son Goku. That's why I would like that edit undone. Question answered? Goodraise 12:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I agree. It's not that we don't deal with non-notable character (and works, episodes, and the like), but that they should be properly dealt with: merged, deleted, listed. I say just make it "characters" again, and, if someone truly wants it, just make a note about notability. It's a bit misleading to say the scope only covers notable characters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the emphasis on notable characters was due to straight-up promotion of the idea that 'everything must be notable or it goes' - 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'? ;) The wording of plain 'Characters, blah blah blah' does not appeal to me directly, as 'notable' currently applies to all the things in that list. (like merchandise) --Malkinann (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording change?

I've depreciated WP:FICT. The current wording of the section is "Notable characters, episodes, issues, and merchandise of the above media". If we lose the 'notable' in front of characters, we also lose it in front of merchandise, too - would 'Characters, episodes, issues and notable merchandise of the above media' work? but then we've got to decide what's 'notable merchandise' mean... :/ Any suggestions? --Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranma OVAs

User:Avicit38 has gone and created a number of individual episode OVA titles for this series and looks intent on creating more. It appears to be a single purpose account for creating those OVA episodes.Jinnai 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm it appears so, well I do not see a problem with OVA's as long as they are notable and sourced, might want to cherrypick delete the ones that are not notable and keep or merge content of the more notable ones to List of Ranma ½ episodes#OVA episodes (1993-2008). If all of them prove not notable deletion or merging is always an option. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith - the person in question has not contributed in almost two months, and it seems like a newbie behaviour that was common before the creation of WP:EPISODE and the WP:FICT wars. --Malkinann (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Aside from that though, is there any reason the articles should be there?.... or should we keep some and delete the rest? I have also notified the user for reference about this discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know for sure. The assumption of good faith is not dependent on the resultant article's notability. --Malkinann (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's just merge them all already. All the OVA articles only contain plot information and lack the notability to be articles themselves. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging The Rose of Versailles series of articles

Please come participate in the merge discussion for these articles. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Moe contest AfDs

I would appreciate additional input from the project members on those two:

The second one isn't within our project scope but i think it still fell on animanga lap.

View it as neutrally asking additional opinions.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

complex chapter lists?

How would one go about making a chapter list when there's been a complex publishing history? In Marginal (manga) I can't find any online information about the first print, only about the reprint, to say nothing of the publication history of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) or The Rose of Versailles (manga). --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have access to information that would give you a chapter list, then you can't. I haven't been able to do that with some manga.Jinnai 22:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
When there are several editions, do you cover them all, as in List of Codename: Sailor V chapters? --Malkinann (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No. If we cover rereleases, then we should also cover rerereleases and rererereleases. Before we know it, we'll have turned Wikipedia into an archive of manga publishing history. The first edition is enough. Goodraise 00:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
But what if you can't find information about the original release? (Thinking of RoV here - 70s manga would likely only be covered in Japanese print sources) --Malkinann (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
As Jinnai said: If you can't locate sources, you can't write an article. Goodraise 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If the situation is that there is sufficent information about re-releases, and less-than-sufficient information about the original edition, then what? --Malkinann (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can list the chapters using the new release as a source for the chapters' names and plot summaries, but the new release dates are, in my eyes at least, irrelevant. If you can't find the original dates, then it might be best not to list any dates at all. Goodraise 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're envisioning here? Not listing anything at all because the information about the original edition is lacking feels like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. --Malkinann (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but in my eyes re-release dates are irrelevant information, not worth including in an encyclopedic article. The original dates are the ones of interest. They, and only they, are the answer to the question "since when is the item available to the public". To stick with your analogy: If I was building a human, I'd rather leave the eye sockets empty than fake completeness by adding non-functional eyes of glass. If the sources exist, then it's best to wait for someone dedicated enough to go and get them. If they don't exist, then no information needs to be entered. Goodraise 04:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems really short-sighted to me, though. Using your analogy, if someone were to come up to your human and ask "So, where are the eyes?" and you said "Well, I couldn't get working eyes, so I just left them out", the next thing the person would ask would be why not just put in substitutes until you can find functioning eyes. Bringing it back to Wiki terms, Wikipedia has no deadline, so adding in info about the re-releases until info of the original releases can be found is far more informative than merely leaving out the information entirely. At least this way the reader knows a general idea of when the books became available (like what decade) rather than wondering if they were published more recently or are much older.
Furthermore, what if the re-releases were not just re-prints, but were updated, or otherwise changed from their original versions. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to include information on them for the sake of completeness?-- 04:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd use the exact same argumentation as you, but I'd draw a different conclusion. Wikipedia has no deadline. Therefore we can afford to wait until somebody finds the information we need. Gaps encourage people who pass by to add the missing information. That effect is lost (or at least severely reduced in strength) if we fill up the article with low yield information like re-release date. Obviously I'm talking about tables here. I wouldn't object to re-release dates being added to the prose of such a list, at least not until the original dates are filled in. Whether it's worth keeping them even after that would, in my opinion, depend on how much was changed. It'd have to be something major. Dragon Ball Kai comes to mind as an example. Goodraise 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
And then there's the question of how to handle it when the initial Japanese volumes don't match the first English edition. Such as if they translated the reprint bunkobans instead of the tankobons, or other more complicated situations. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a different question. Malkinann's is a "what should be included" question. Yours is a "how should it be presented" question. I'm afraid, if {{Graphic novel list}} doesn't work, there's no easy answer to the latter. You'll have to stick your nose into Help:Wikitable and create a suitable table of your own. Goodraise 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Would List of Oh My Goddess! chapters be a good case study of one possible way to handle it? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this discussion let me rather depressive as it show how limitedly we can work as a project :(

Now back to the matter.

@Malkinann Refs to first print ed:

First edition of Doraemon and Poe Clan dating from 1974 can also be found so why not something from the 80's.

Additional there are informations found in the Comics Journal #269:
Marginal (1 018 pages, Petit Flower, August 1985 - October 1987).
<ref>{{cite journal|last=Thorn|first=Matt|title=Moto Hagio Bibliography|journal=[[The Comics Journal]]|publisher=[[Fantagraphics Books]]|issue=269|page=176|issn=0194-7869|url=|accessdate=September 26, 2010}}</ref>

Now can we consider this thread as closed?

--KrebMarkt (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) For Rose of Versailles, the oldest thing I can find on Shueisha's website are these 1994 editions:
Can you please have a look for anything older? --Malkinann (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't that thread closed :p
Ok Shuesha sucks as they rarely keep there "out-off" print stuff. Now after a heroic dive into ;)
Fist print: v01 v02 v03 v04 v05 v06 v07 v08 v09 v10
The releases are between November 1972 & May 1974 which is coherent with the by then weekly serialization in Margaret and if you remember Moto Hagio interview in TCJ, The Rose of Versailles volume release started before Poe Clan thus before 1974. I think that settles the matter doesn't it? --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for a timed DYK?

Madhouse latest anime film will out on October 9, 2010 and there are already early screening reviews to work for an article.

Additional ammos:

The trick would be to get it DYK right for the October 9.

I'm pushing this one because that the very first time, i found something rated A+ on both Mania & ANN.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Count me in. I'm a little low on time right now, but with one more weekend before then, I think this should be doable. I'll get started right away. Goodraise 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura copyedit

After a long exhaustive effort, I've improved the Cardcaptor Sakura article greatly, as well as creating three branch articles and improving a fourth. Now I come to the project to ask for an editor or two to do a copyedit of an iconic magical girl shoujo manga series of Mid importance, before taking it to WP:GAN.-- 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers: Energon character list

I've proposed that Transformers: Energon's character list be split off into its own article. Input would be appreciated. --Malkinann (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just do it. This seems like a natural action that needs to be done so that the article can focus on the series itself. And take the cast listing with it as well by adding them into the character descriptions. —Farix (t | c) 23:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is a reliable source?

I noticed the article Mana Ogawa with a BLP PROD today. I was trying to source the article, as it seems like she would pass the notability guidelines. Specifically, I think she would pass WP:ENTERTAINER as I think she plays the lead roles in Sasami: Magical Girls Club and Gokujo!! Mecha Mote Iincho, and would pass WP:MUSICBIO since she sung theme songs for Gokujo!! Mecha Mote Iincho and Hyakko. I found a translation of an inverview from a magazine on [6], but I wasn't sure if that is a reliable source. It certainly seems to be used in several articles on Wikipedia, but just being used a lot doesn't mean it is reliable. Would anyone know if it is reliable? Also, if it isn't a reliable source, can I cite the magazine they are reprinting the interview from even though I don't have a copy of the magazine (and couldn't read it if I did), and would be trusting an unreliable source on what is actually printed in the magazine? Calathan (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

By their own admission, hello-online is a fansite, so they are not a reliable source. On top of that, they likely don't have authorization to make and republish the translation of the magazine interview. So linking to it will violate WP:COPYLINK. —Farix (t | c) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That is what I figured. If someone who can read Japanese has access to the magazine in question, then it oculd probably be used to improve that article. Calathan (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Links sorting


As harvesting reviews eventually lead me to interesting stuffs that i don't know what to do about.

  1. Manga Impact: How Manga Reinvented Comics an except from Manga Impact. It's about how the manga altered the rest of the Comics world art/narrative/techniques wise.
  2. A NHK TV show about manga with the list of reviewed manga here archived page
  3. Takehiko Inoue:123456 interview in six parts on Youtube. Unfortunately i failed to find the Reliable Source that was at the origin of this interview. If someone can pinpoint the source then the premium contents inside the interview could be put to good use in Takehiko Inoue biography.

Thanks everyone --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever stumbled across articles talking about long[-running] anime/manga series (stuff like this)? It's definitely a topic with fan interest, but I haven't actually seen any other articles on the matter. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I will see what can i find :p --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting - Manga Impact is actually out? I was expecting it to be delayed (again). --Gwern (contribs) 16:21 29 September 2010 (GMT)

Anime and manga articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anime and manga articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Before I submit suggestions, I think we should discuss them here. There are a couple on the list I'm concerned about:
  • Anime and manga articles cleanup tags - ones marked with {{original research}}
  • Dark Horse Comics - poor quality article. If WP:Comics wants to add it, let them. There are better, and more important to the medium, anime/manga articles out there.
  • Otaku - the major section of the article is flagged as original research while the second major section is flagged as trivial.
  • Seinen manga - stub (reassased it) fails even the most basic start-class critieria, references, let a lone reliable ones.
  • Shogakukan - stub article with only 2 sources and the article is basically a listing. Not really the type of article we'd usually want for a release.
  • Shonen manga -stub (i downgraded it after having noticing it was just basically a lead with references) article that is flagged with original research

We can replace them with some of our GA/B-class low ones:

  • Sakura Haruno or Sasuke Uchiha - GA/low - one or the other as we don't have a Naruto character article on the list although we have one for bleach, one-piece and DB.
  • Mamoru Miyano -related GA/low - our best biography article of a living person
  • one or two of the visual novels (we have a lot and i know as there are a ton more video game articles they are unlikely to include any of them)
  • One or two of the popular shojo manga series since we have 4 popular shonen manga series.Jinnai 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Question, are we also going to suggest having the latest Revision ID for the Wikipedia offline release? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know if that's possible to add, but it would be worth asking.Jinnai 05:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems to the case seeing as they're asking to have people review the articles and revision IDs they have chosen. Whoevers representing the Anime and Manga Wikiproject should compile a list of suggested articles and revision. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well they've only done so for our FA/GA articles.

Anyway if no one else has suggestions, I can review the ones they do have a specific revision for and see if there's a better one, otherwise I'll propose some of the changes above.Jinnai 03:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Weekly Shōnen Sunday might be better suited then Shogakukan. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should get a light novel on the list. ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 20:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems okay. I did not minor edits to the lead. My bigger concern is either cleaning up or finding replacements for those with original research making up the article. Anime seems fine inspite being on the list. I don't think Otaku can be cleaned up in time giving a look at it. Too much original reaserch and unreferenced material. Eroge is a bit more difficult. Seinen manga and Shonen manga are probably the most difffult do to needing to be expanded and the referenced, especially the former.Jinnai 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

() Any further changed? I'm going to make these proposals? Is there any particular light novel that hasn't had an anime/manga adaptation we cover?Jinnai 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Their revision of Case Closed is outdated, please suggest the latest revision with your proposal, thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

English Romanization Dispute - Bleach

Here at the Hollow talk page an editor from the Bleach Wiki is disputing the most common official English name translations and trying to have them all changed out to seemingly more accurate romanizations that are used in the Bleach Wiki as well as by scanlators. The editor does, however, provide an official reliable source for these romanizations: the MASKED Bleach Databook in Japanese. I proposed adding a notation to the prose for each character that has a more accurate romanization that can be properly cited by sources so that readers will know a more accurate and also official romanzation exists. However, the editor continues to push having all the VIZ names washed out due to their opinion of VIZ and their translations, considering the official published version of Bleach to not be a reliable source despite it being the primary English work. I've said my peace already in favor of keeping the Viz names in place as they are the most common and are official ENG names as well as adding into the prose additional official romanizations as cited by the MASKED Databook. More input would be best to reach a consensus. Fox816 (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing to dispute here; WP:MOS-JA and WP:ENGVAR leave no room for fan translations (there is a certain amount of potential wiggle room for series which are obscure in English, but Bleach is definitely not obscure). Alternate official translations are handled in prose. Wikipedia does not put up with fan wank. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of WP:ENGVAR in terms of guidelines and policies. Something to use in the future perhaps.Fox816 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look again, ENGVAR's link to the issue of translation is tenuous at best - it deals specifically with national varieties of English. I may have been thinking of WP:USEENGLISH instead (which makes a lot more sense, since USEENGLISH deals specifically with which translation/romanization gets used). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually no guideline/policy prohibits there use. That's why Zolo/Zoro One Piece case got so heated. This was before Funimation came in and used Zoro. Ultimately it was found that enough reliable sources backed that and the author's intention was to have the name as Zoro. I'd say there is some argument here, albeit much weaker, that there is a similar item. I'd say that with it being much weaker (not many English sources using those translations), its a matter of WP:UNDUE, ie you have one official source stating this is the correct version, albeit with a more offical backing vs. every English version out there.Jinnai 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured episode list questions

Well first off, why don't we have info boxes for them? It was brought up in my last featured list nomination and I had no clue. Secondly another argument that came up was the lack of English sources for episodes that never aired in English. Should we even have featured episodes lists that do not have English sources for the episode summaries? I have no counter argument for this either. Thirdly, why do episode lists source their theme music with the episode themselves? I need a counter argument for this too. Fourth, it seems a lot of featured episode lists need to be delisted, since they are not seem to meet requirements anymore. I'll list them and the reasons why I think they should be removed. I could also have been mistaken and missed the source (My bad and I apologize), and I'll strike them out when points are proven.

Single lists

*List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes - English airdates are unsourced since the site is dead. -Link works now, strange.

The reason I'm asking all this is that I'm intending to send List of Buso Renkin episodes to featured list soon and more knowledge about the current featured lists would be helpful. I have no intention of sending the articles I listed to be delisted. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes's airdates link works... Maybe some of the others can be linked to MSN as well? G.A.Stalk 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. But my questions are still unanswered. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 10:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I do not really know the answers to many of the questions, but will try: (1) Very few lists have infoboxes, and I am not sure of the content one would add for them. These lists, are after all, an extension of the main article (which has the main infobox/s. Note: I had a look at WP:FL, and though some lists (in general) have infoboxes, they do not add value, in my opinion). (2) Episode summaries are sourced by the episodes themselves per WP:PRIMARY. (3) Some series do list the theme music in the credits, thus acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. (4) Agreed that some of the lists need new sources. G.A.Stalk 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not that infoboxes are prohibited on episode lists, but caution should be used when using them. In many cases, the lead section is simply not long enough to contain an infobox before the episode table begins. This causes an unsightly amount of whitespace between the section header and the table. Even if you put a break between the TOC and the section header, there can still be quite a bit of whitespace. However, if you beef the lead up enough, this shouldn't be a problem. List of Shugo Chara! episodes as an example where the lead is long enough. List of Shugo Chara!! Doki— episodes is an example of where the lead is just barely long enough, and if any more information is added to the infobox, it will cause the format of the article to break. List of Shugo Chara Party! episodes is a example of a lead that isn't long enough to contain the infobox if an image is included in the infobox. —Farix (t | c)
This can't really be used as a solid rule of thumb, though; on my screen (1366x768), I see a fair chunk of whitespace between the lead and episode table on both the Shugo Chara and SC Doki lists. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For series that airs on network television, referencing MSN TV is a viable option. For series that air on Funimation Chanel or Anime Network will be much more difficult as I do not think they keep their first run dates. Japanese airdates should always be referenced to the official website of the series or TV Tokyo (depending on the situation). Just be sure to archive them to WebCite at some point.

  • Bleach: [7]
  • YuYu Hakusho: [[8]]

Farix (t | c) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The TV MSN link for Bleach only goes up to episode 128, can be sourced up to season 5 and most of season 6. YuYuHakusho is still missing its Japanese airdates and the MSN TV links contridict the English airdates on the article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I also just noticed that the dates for Bleach are different from the article as well... back to square 1. (Or am I missing some hidden setting with MSNTV?) G.A.Stalk 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think MSNTV should be used afterall. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That website seems to only count episodes that aired from 2000 and later, unless I missed something. With the lack of sources, would the lists up there have a chance of being delisted of nominated? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, its only 2000 or later. As for delisting, its possible. It depends for some of them whether they would allow a listing that said a program was run weekly from X-Y to be considered a RS for all the dates. I've had one member who insisted on each date being citable with Popotan, but others saying that the first and last dates were fine since it gave the day of the week and said it was weekly (ie its not wP:OR to use a calander).Jinnai 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I like that database, somsone should add it as a reliable source, seeing as its published by Rakuten. I'll be sourcing the unsourced airdates and whatever remains, I'm nominating them for delist. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That's all I'm doing, someone else will need to fix the rest. I think I will send Yuyu in for delist next week. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The only online source I can find for original airdates for Minigoddess is this one (the only source I trust, that is). That site has a lot of good info, including a lot of other airdates. Obviously it's a fan site, though, so it wouldn't be considered reliable for our purposes. I think it's absurd to require sources for every single airdate, though, per the reasoning given by Jinnai above. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Buso Renkin Featured list

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buso Renkin episodes/archive1 I think the alert bot is still down. Drop by if you can. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters autobot merge

I've proposed the merge of Ranger (Transformers), Road King, Metalhawk, Lander (Transformers), Phoenix (Transformers), and Sixknight into List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters as I don't believe they'd survive an AFD. Would appreciate comments at the talk page, thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The merge has now been completed. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Transformers templates being removed

User:DragonZero has gone and replaced several of these on the talk pages with our own by replacing rather than adding a new template, even when one exists. I'm going to inform their wikiproject, but if anyone knows some particular articles, please check them.Jinnai 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I added around sixty Transformers-related articles to the anime project recently, leaving them unassessed for a modern/non-Transformers-literate perspective on their quality. This sounds like an honest mistake, probably caused by the sudden influx of articles. --Malkinann (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I've been copy pasting the ratings on and replaced transformers instead of Wpanime. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 17:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems I only did this mistake on a small amount of transformer articles I rated. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of longest manga list

List of manga series by volume count has been put up for peer review; would anyone care to comment in the review or to fill in the (still numerous) gaps in the list itself? I'd especially like any help in narrowing serialization start/end dates for various series.

Also, I'm wanting to split the list into sections according to the publication frequency of the magazine(s) series are published in, so there'll be one section for weekly series, then biweekly/semimonthly, then monthly, then quarterly/seasonally, then not serialized (speaking of which, does anyone have a clue as to what the longest non-serialized manga series is?); after the split, each section could have its own inclusion criteria. Any thoughts or suggestions? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm wanting to rename the list to something along the lines of "List of longest manga" - any thoughts/suggestions there? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
list of longest volume doesn't sound very wiki like. i think the name is good enough.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it would describe the list better than the current title - "List of manga series by volume count" implies an indiscriminate list, sorted by the number of volumes, whereas "List of longest manga" at least shows that there is *some* criterion for inclusion in the list. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
it still sounds indiscriminate with the proposed name.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the proposed new name - it's simpler to understand. --Malkinann (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to think these types of list are unnecessary.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for any other media (including anime, where long series tend to have far more complicated histories anyways), but with manga, at least, there is a considerable level of interest among fans as to what the longest series are (though admittedly this arises mostly in the form of "my series is longer than yours"), and there is at least some academic interest - Jason Thompson has written an article about it on Comixology, and I would be very surprised to learn that none of the English language manga-related magazines have ever covered the subject (and I've never even *looked* in Japanese, since I wouldn't know if I found anything).
As for the title, I'll be the first to say I don't think "List of longest manga" is optimal, but it *is* better than the current one, IMO. There's really not much more that can be done about how indiscriminate it sounds; "List of manga series with at least 35 volumes", while (currently) completely accurate, is also way too specific and hard to remember. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but other than the review on it, i just don't see how all that reasoning is reassuring. We shouldn't go by fans, and i dont see a reason for a list of manga that's over 35. the same goes for anime by episode count.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New York Anime Festival Attendence

Since the two are sharing the same building, when attendence numbers are posted should a special note be placed on the larger decieving numnber? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Naruto shippudeen episode list

Some ip users has been adding english airdates up to 2012 for ever siongel episode past seaosn 2 i have rollbacked seaosn 3 to 8 as htere no way that can be confirmed jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Request comment

There's a dispute on whether an "official" fan site should be included on Sora no Otoshimono. I've provided reasons for its removal, but a user does not agree with them and continues to add in the website. Please provide any comments at Talk:Sora no Otoshimono#Re: US "official" fansite.-- 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Twitch Film reviews


As it was discussed in few places but not yet here, i'm centralizing all the clues here.

Clues of why Twitch Film reviews are worth mention in articles and given a modicum of weight in review section:

--KrebMarkt (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Crayon Shin-chan character lists

I don't know why the following are still separate articles:

Neither article cites any secondary sources, and neither article has any mention of creation and conception.

After considering the discussion at Talk:List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (Shin'ei), I think it is time to merge them now. There is no need for further discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold and merge them then. - (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
And so I did: List of Crayon Shin-chan characters WhisperToMe (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Animerica Features online

Wasn't sure if this was already in the Reference library, but while researching YuYu Hakusho, I found an archive of transcribed Animerica feature articles from the magazine's website here. The articles are very good and could prove useful for anyone wanting to expand articles for these major series. ~ Hibana (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that index! This stuff will be useful WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to link them in all the relevant External Links sections, although some of the titles give me pause (Sailor Moon vs. Buffy? Where does that go?. --Gwern (contribs) 20:50 10 October 2010 (GMT)


I could use extra pairs of eyes on Sailor_Moon_(English_adaptations)#Beginning for WP:NPOV when discussing SOS/Save Our Sailors. In a few reliable sources, (Animefringe, Animerica, Anime Explosion!, Anne Allison,) SOS is credited with returning Sailor Moon to the air, however, in fandom circles, the picture is muddier. There's a discussion here. --Malkinann (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline proposed for deletion

the article is proposed for deletion here. It would be gret if it got some attention.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GetBackers manga reception

Stealing Krebmart's idea (sorry), I made an archive about reception that can be used in GetBackers in Talk:GetBackers#Reception. However, I could not find any manga review that isn't from Anime News Network. Could anybody check if they find a manga review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This article may need to be deleted.

Someone with good knowledge of the Wikipedia guidelines, please check whether Team Animazing should be deleted. Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any real potential for a stand-alone article here. At the very least, any salvageable material should probably be redirected to the broadcasting network's article(s). Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Kuro-chan community reassessment

Cyborg Kuro-chan is up for a community good article reassessment - please feel free to weigh in on its status, or be bold and have a go at improving it to meet the GA standards. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of YuYu Hakusho episodes delist

I have nominated List of YuYu Hakusho episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. No harm intended. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Speaking of Raruto... I just learned that it was mentioned in Spanish newspapers: Commons:User_talk:WhisperToMe#Re:Raruto I'm going to see if I can build an article about it. My draft will be at User:WhisperToMe/Raruto WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help resolving a difference of opinion of some sort between two editors of this project

I'm in need of help. Jinnai and I are having a difference of opinion of some sort, that we can't resolve on our own. He suggested to me to start an RfC on the matter, but I think asking here first is preferable. Normally, I'd sum up his opinion at this point before providing a summary of my own opinion. However, as I'm often having trouble comprehending what he is trying to say, I won't, so as not to risk misrepresenting his view. Instead, I've created a list of chronologically ordered diffs of our conversations, which took place during two FLCs of List of One Piece manga volumes. Suffice it to say, that it is about what the article's lead should contain and how the lead should be worded.

I realize that it's a lot to read. My apologies. I tried to reduce the number of diffs and total amount of text as much as possible by omitting resolved issues and combining consecutive edits. Please comment. Thanks in advance. Goodraise 22:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Toon Zone, once more

  • Previous discussions: Here and at RS/N

This possible source of information was originally brought up because it provides English air dates for anime episodes. Sadly, I missed the RS/N thread or I would have commented there. The claimed citations by Oakland Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times are proving to be a little bit harder to find than I hoped, but, all in all, I think Arsonal came up with enough examples of usage by others to support Toon Zone's use for air dates at least (which is, I think, the most valuable part as far as we're concerned). Normally, I'd have added the page directly to the reference library, but considering that the standing consensus apparently sees this differently, I figured it would be better to come here first. Goodraise 05:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A list of artiles that need work that some may be familiar with

here's a list of some articles that need some work that i'm currently looking at. I hope some of these are very familiar.

some are easily recognizable, some aren't. but i do hope they will be taken a good look at and possibly fixed to a certain degree that is very noticable and more presentable. i currently don't have time as much as i use to unfortunately, so my edits have been to a minimum.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I've started a chapter list for Cyborg 009 in my userspace; it needs a *lot* of work, though (for starters, this is one of those series where the English volumes don't line up with the Japanese ones, at least as near as I can tell). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you can indent the numbered and side stories so it's easier to distinguish.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a navbox for Android Kikaider. I will attempt to add a wikitable for the episodes list. A bit more trimming here and there, but the main concern i have for those articles is references, there is none.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For Android Kikaider I did a few restructuring, but still needs ref. If anyone is familiar with tokusatsu series, it would be a great help to add ref where they can be added.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started sprucing up Outlaw Star myself. Any extra help is appreciated. ~ Hibana (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw, good job. I'll see what i can do for that article, though it looking pretty good now. I'll see what i can do with the characters article.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg 009 Voice cast

Considering that the series has adapted to an anime, a anime remake, another anime remake, and 3 films. I was thinking we could add a wikitable for all the main characters voices. What do you think?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please give an answer to me or suggestions? The article is too long and the main reason is due to the Voice Cast. I really don't know how to do a wikitable for this certain article.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that a List of Cyborg 009 characters be split off of the main article. – Allen for IPv6 06:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...i agree, still, it would take up too much space to explain all the voice actors the characters have had. i'll look up reliable sources though.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Vampire Hunter D "film"

The Vampire Hunter D "film" is actually an OVA according to all the Japanese sources I can find. Even ANN lists it as an OVA. I propose moving it to Vampire Hunter D (1985 OVA) instead and updating the infobox accordingly. I bring it here first because it's a well known work and I don't want any edit warring when it gets moved. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the Japanese sources that I consulted, the 1985 anime is a movie, not an OVA. It was theatrically distributed by Toho and later in video by Sony.
1, 2, 3
The most convincing source in that aspect is Production Reed (formerly Ashi Productions), the studio behind the animation of Vampire Hunter D.
Works (Japanese) Works (English) Jfgslo (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There are a fair number of OVAs which were later theatrically released, so the question is how it was released first. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The 1985-12-21 appears to be the theatrical release date. I do not know when it was released on video. I'm inclined to believe that the anime is a movie because Production Reed clearly divides its OVA work from its movie work and also because there is a theatrical trailer of the anime from Toho, not Sony. Jfgslo (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense, then. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

NGE timeline merge needs more eyeballs

Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline was deprodded, by Gwern with an edit summary suggesting a merge. When the deletion of the article was first floated by Bread Ninja in September of last year, Gwern had suggested a merge to Neon Genesis Evangelion. I presume Gwern's reasoning was something like per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. I proposed a merge and invited Gwern to participate, but he has not. I'm not really fussed about this article, and am not really sure why it could/should be merged. I would appreciate it if more people could please participate in the discussion so that we can get a consensus on what to do with the timeline. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons category: Naruto

The Commons category Commons:Category:Naruto and its daughter categories have many images that need English language descriptions of their categories. For those of you with spare time, please make sure all images have descriptions in English Once all images have descriptions in English, make sure the Japanese Wikipedians understand that they need to add Japanese descriptions to all Naruto images

BTW many of these images were uploaded for use on the French Wikipedia, which does not permit uploading images of nonfree characters. It could help for EN to use some of these images. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many of those images are not free images because they are derived from copyrighted images of the original work. Because of that, they are in violation of Common's policies. —Farix (t | c) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Whichever images are in violation need to be dominated for deletion, and the original uploader should be notified. Commons has a "Nominate for deletion" tag which may be used to nominate a file for deletion. For speedy copyright violations (See Commons:Deletion#Speedy_deletion), tag the image with {{speedy|''Insert reason here''}}
I referred to your post at Commons:Village_pump#Naruto_images_copyright_concerns, so hopefully people on the Commons will help determine which images are free and which images are not
And I posted a reminder about the category (both about Japanese descriptions and about copyright concerns) at ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Commons:Category:Naruto
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Which images? Pictures of cosplay is perfectly free, so saith the Wikimedia lawyer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much everything in Commons:Category:Symbols of Naruto, Commons:Category:Object (Naruto), Commons:Category:Eyes (Naruto), Commons:Category:Mudras Naruto, Commons:Category:Naruto characters and Commons:Category:Raruto are derived works based on the illustrations of the original manga and cannot be used without fair-use rationals. There are also three images in the main category that are also derived works. Someone will need to check up on the images in Commons:Category:Naruto Stats but I believe those images are recreations of ones found in the character books, and thus would not be free-use. Since Commons is for free-use images, they are in violation of commons policies. —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Prosfilaes responded at Commons:Village_pump#Naruto_images_copyright_concerns - Raruto is listed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Raruto) - For the others, people familiar with the series need to look at the images and determine individually which ones are okay and which ones are not. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Oct#Naruto_images_copyright_concerns WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

International Manga Research Center

Found a site called the International Manga Research Center which is supported by Kyoto Seika University and its subsiduary, the Kyoto International Manga Museum. Found a really big publication on various aspects of manga. I believe the IMRC should be added to the Internet RS list. --Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I got a question that's very vaguely related to that site. What is the list here supposed to mean? I found Case Closed on it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks vaguely like a list of manga reviews from Asahi Shinbun? this describes it as "Weekly series "Hot Blooded! Manga Research" / "Everyone's Manga Research" in Asahi Shimbun. A relay column by imrc researchers introducing the appeal and social impact of popular manga, with a special emphasis on post-war Japan." The name's clickable, which gives this in google translate. --Malkinann (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I would support this as a reliable source for information. Matt Thorn is an associate professor in the Department of Manga Production at that university, too. Maybe he has something to do with the site? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem so. Jaqueline Berndt, a German manga scholar, seems to be the boss, under Keiko Takemiya, of course. I'm a bit concerned about the wording of the call for corrections here for the BIG pdf I linked above: "Please note that this is a tentative version which had to be uploaded to prove the volume’s very existence to the funding authority. We welcome your corrections until Nov. 20, 2010." - does anyone else interpret this as 'the draft will be freely online until the 20th, but we will be taking it down after that'? Or am I over-cautious? --Malkinann (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heeuuuu. I guess i'm up to write few lines here :(

  • First add the Kyoto Seika manga department, research center and museum as bundle in the project RS list.
  • Second remember that the whole Kyoto Seika works by private founding so they do have to create events and write publications to appeal their donors, sponsors, patrons...
  • Third, i'm a bit surprised that Kyoto Seika wasn't mentioned sooner in the project. The Moebius Exhibit in 2009 or Thierry Groensteen few comments (the posts dated from January 2010).

Note: Thierry Groensteen is probably one of the most prominent if not the #1 comics scholar in French. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Biography infobox

This is coming out of a discussion over at Go Nagai - Talk:Go Nagai#On WP:BLPNAME and family...

The upshot is that an infobox template has been put together tailored for mangaka - {{Infobox mangaka}}

This is to bring it to the attention of the Project, see if it is something that is useful, and to get some feedback on it.

- J Greb (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we not have a singe infobox for biographies, such a {{Infobox person}}, instead of all of these mostly minor variation thereof said template? This just make things more confusing then they need to be. —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There have been attempts to roll everything in to {{infobox person}} before, but they've gotten bogged down due to the sheer number of different parameters; unless the fields and labels are made individually configurable on each article, the base template would need to support every variation.
Having said that, there's a way to modify the more specific template such that it can be used either alone or as a section within {{infobox person}}; see, for example, Template:Infobox military person/testcases. If there's interest in exploring this, I don't think it would be too difficult to set up a sandbox version. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to comment why {{Infobox mangaka}} was created and what are the main differences with other infobox templates. As most of you know, manga creator biographies do not use a single type of infobox. For example Akira Toriyama uses {{Infobox person}}, Naoko Takeuchi uses {{Infobox Writer}}, Leiji Matsumoto uses {{Infobox artist}} and Osamu Tezuka {{Infobox comics creator}}. Most mangaka biographies are currently using the generic {{Infobox person}}.
The idea of using a specific template for manga creator biographies is, like with other Wikiprojects, to have specific fields for relevant information to our area, for example, "Alma mater" and "Academic advisors" in {{Infobox scientist}} or "School" and "Main interests" in {{Infobox Philosopher}}.
One of the things that J Greb and I were discussing is that mangaka and comic book creator, although similar, are different enough to warrant different fields. For example, editors are notable in American comic books, but rarely mentioned in manga. Also, a mangaka is more related to a cartoonist because it regularly creates all aspects of a Japanese comic and is the copyright owner of his work, but since cartoonist has the connotation of being someone who draws for children or in newspapers, it wouldn't be accurate to use "cartoonist" to describe a mangaka. What's more, several discussions have occurred in the past regarding a possible merge between cartoonist, comic book creator and mangaka, but all have ended with recognizing that there are enough differences to have them in different articles.
Therefore, the idea is to have a consensus to have a single infobox for manga creators so that we can standardize all mangaka articles with a single format, like we do for all manga. We could also follow Kirill's idea, but, nonetheless, we still , would need to define which fields are relevant for mangaka.
The ones that I suggested are relatives/spouse for notable relatives, like Naoko Takeuchi's husband, and something like writer/illustrator for the few mangaka that are more notable for a single area, like Kazuo Koike. I also commented that perhaps these fields could be used for light novel creators. Another suggestions was that, instead of influences/influenced, it could be Assistant of/Notable assistant(s) since it's common that mangaka start as assistants, like Osamu TezukaLeiji MatsumotoKaoru Shintani
As I told J Greb, these are only suggestions from my personal perspective. More opinions and suggestions regarding an infobox for mangaka are needed in order to have a consensus. We could, for example, use the infobox to automatically add categories like year of birth or place of origin or some other stuff. Please share your ideas here. Jfgslo (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The solution isn't to create {{yet another biography infobox}}, we have too many of those already. What really needs to be done is to consolidated many of these bio infoboxes together and avoid creating more highly specialized infoboxes for biographies. —Farix (t | c) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And how would you propose going about that for instances where the "basic" doesn't provide the context a specific set of articles needs? I can see 4 options there:
  1. Use the "kitchen sink" principle and add every possible field to the base - making it a pain in the ass to use for the "uninitiated"
  2. Use a core set of named fields and relegate other content to variable fields that would have to be set up on each article. Which all but defeats the purpose since consistency within a set gets shot to hell.
  3. "Overlays" which are a variation of #2 but still creates more templates. The Overlay would be used to create the consistency and use the existing overly flexible base. Note that this is pretty much what all infobox templates using {{Infobox}} are.
  4. Use of a infobox tailored to the content and broad topic in question.
- J Greb (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As far a manga artists and authors are concerned, I don't see why {{Infobox person}} cannot be used. Most of the "specialized" fields of the other biography infoboxes are just cruft 99% and don't add anything of relevance to most biographies they are on. —Farix (t | c) 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't agree with that. I think that those special fields, most of the time, add relevant data for particular areas of knowledge and are easier to handle for editors than the generic {{Infobox person}}. Like most other WikiProjects, I think we could use a specific template for mangaka.
But TheFarix makes a good point. Do we use {{Infobox person}} or do we need a specific infobox template for mangaka biographies? It would be good to have a consensus so that we standardize this project's biographies. Even if it's decided not to use a specific infobox template for biographies, which are the relevant fields that a mangaka biography article should have and which aren't? Jfgslo (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, {{Infobox person}} already has all of the fields we need for most biographies. As for "specialized" templates, I really don't see the need for them, especially if you can document how to use the basic template for specific types of biographies, like we do with {{Infobox animanga/Video}} and {{Infobox animanga/Print}}. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Would someone else like to share his opinion? As this discussion is right now, I believe that there is no consensus either way. Jfgslo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
More specific template and more complicated it would be for new editors to get on the train. Beyond that i feel this whole topic a luxury as there are still too many unsourced or badly sourced mangaka articles hanging around. --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Son Goku vs. Goku

Son Goku is more commonly known as "Goku" in english. So shouldn't it be changed to son goku? this was probably argued before, so maybe someone could just show me it's previous discussion.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. "Goku" was found to be the most used term in English sources. The last discussion that I know of took place here: Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters/Archive_2#Character_Names. There were some problems with how to do the searches because some of the names are easily confused with other things (like the other Goku), how to use other terms to include only Dragon Ball related websites and a few small similar tweaks needed. As far as I know, the names weren't changed because the discussion pretty much got forgotten but there was a preliminary agreement to make the changes once the name searches in more reliable sources were done. Jinnai may have a better insight since he was the one that did most of the research about the names. Jfgslo (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically I found that even a few who used Son Goku. In addition, Jason Thompson uses Goku while noting that Son Goku is the offical name used in the manga when doing his manga reviews. This would more strongly imply that Goku is more commonly used. In fact the anime uses for all the DB names trumped the manga with the possible exception of Lord Piccolo.Jinnai 02:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok i see now. so if anyone objects, we could change it to Goku sometime this week?Bread Ninja (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Project page redesign, take one

I've put together a first draft of a redesigned project page and navigation template. This is obviously a rough cut, intended primarily to demonstrate the layout and formatting; I haven't really done any editing of the text itself, which is probably something that would be worthwhile at some point.

There are a couple of main questions with the draft:

  1. Does the tabbed layout work for everyone? I've selected a few of the major pages to link to, as well as several new ones that hold material split off from the main project page; what other pages should appear in the tab bar (keeping in mind that only so many tabs will fit on the screen)?
  2. How does the navigation template look? There were some concerns about making it too dense, so I've tried to keep the structure somewhat easy for a visitor to follow; is the template itself easy to navigate? What changes should be made to the organization and/or layout of the links? Do people like the sidebar, or would everyone prefer a draft with a (probably modified) full-width box?
  3. What should we do about the color scheme? I've mostly kept to the colors of the existing navbox, which focus on light shades of blue; it's pleasantly understated, but may also be too monotonous. Are there other colors that should appear? (I was originally thinking of using the pink shade from the BarnSakura for highlights, but that may be too garish.)

On a tangential note, a few observations I made while collecting links for the navigation box:

  • The peer review process appears to have last been used more than a year ago. It's probably worth considering whether an attempt should be made to revive it (either as a stand-alone entity or under some broader umbrella) or whether it should be marked historical and archived.
  • A number of subpage talk pages (e.g. the ones for cleanup lists, etc.) are empty except for a project banner. Unless there's a real need to have these pages tracked through the banner, I would suggest redirecting them up to the closest "active" talk page, to avoid having new users leave messages there that never get answered.
  • Somewhat more generally, a consolidation of some of the lower-traffic talk pages up to a higher level might be useful for centralizing discussion to venues with a critical mass of participants.

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think it looks okay, I like the layout but the images are small, and there is no real bar of a top to add to the design. I also liked the green colors better. All in all though I would give this one a 70% - 75% Make the wiki-tan images a bit bigger, and add a top header along with the tabs under that and its a go by me =). This is just my opinion mind you, I will wait for other editors input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • By "top header", do you mean a (decorative) block under the tab row (as in, say, WP:MILHIST), or something above the tab row? If it's the first, then that's easily done; if it's the second, then we're somewhat constrained because anything block-like above the tabs will interfere with the visual impact of the tabs themselves—in other words, a bar above the tabs will make them look like buttons rather than "tabs". It would be possible, I suppose, to put something like a line or two of text there (some sort of "Welcome to the project"-type message, perhaps?), without a border, but I'm not sure if that would be useful. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I personally like the idea, but don't like the headers (title of the sections) is. Soundsa little like jeopardy. you should try not to make each headline a question.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That was actually based on some discussions at WikiConference NYC 2010; apparently, first-time visitors are often confused by our normal dense, jargon-heavy headings, and respond better to headings that are in the form of questions that "walk" them through a page. It's a minor issue, however, and I can certainly change them to the normal style if that's what people prefer. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Though, none of the headlines seem like they would be filled with jargon-heavy headings or be completely Dense if we put them in a normal non-question like manner especially if the opening sentence explains most of it. what's new? can be Announcements and How can we Participate? seems to complicate things just because it's not technically correct. More like Join Wikiproject would be more easier, and it could explain what the wikiproject does. members list doesn't only see who is participating. What Guidelines do we have? can simply be Guidelines, What Awards do we Offer? can simple be Awards, What are other Related Project? can simply be Related Projects. we don't need questions for these sections because you added an explanation on the bottom, and the titles aren't as dense. in fact this helps more the idea you wanted.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough; I'll make those changes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I really don't see the need to redesign our project page. I'm not particularly enthralled by the "tab" layout and the "boxed" layout seems awkward and amateurish. The only good thing about it is that it moves the "Recognized articles" and "Articles that require attention" off the main page. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, we could certainly consider each part of the redesign (split project page, new navigation template, tabbed layout) individually, if that's what everyone prefers; there's no particular reason why all three would need to be adopted as a package. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the proposed layout in general. And while we certainly don't need to redesign the project page, I think the organizational aspect of the tabbed/boxed layout works very well and serves to make more content more easily accessible than having it buried somewhere in the depths of the current page. It may even encourage people to participate more in those areas since they don't have to hunt for them to know they are there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Related wikiprojects should be moved to a dropdown tab like TFs. They essentially serve the same purpose so there's no reason to have TFs there, but related/descendant/parent wikiprojects.

    I'm also not sure "Showcase" is the best descriptor for our Feature/good articles. FE, "Showcase" could theoretically include showcasing Wikipe-tan since she has become a widely popular mascot.Jinnai 19:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

    • By "dropdown tab", I assume you mean a collapsing block in the navigation template? It would be pretty trivial to add links to the related projects there, but the drawback would be that using the "related changes" tool on the template would list edits to all of those projects, most of which would probably not be relevant to anyone here. This could be mitigated to some degree by linking only to the project pages, not their talk pages, since those are probably lower-traffic; but there would still be some unrelated changes mixed in.
    • As far as "showcase" is concerned, it's a fairly common term among projects for pages listing their featured/good/etc. material (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Showcase, etc.), but if anyone has a different term they'd like to see used, that can always be done. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • For the nav template, I think that would be worth it. It makes things look consistant and there are times when easy access to what has changed in say WP:Japan may be relevant to someone reading the page.
      • Well I don't think its obvious to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedian practices. Also it exists elsewhere is not a reason why we must do so here anymore than it applies to articles; if it did, nothing would ever change.Jinnai 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Related to the tabs, here's another way to do the tabs that would allow for a header: Portal:Energy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That would work if we moved that first paragraph in there and put the news coverage at the top.Jinnai 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I've put together a rough draft of the top-facing tab variant here. I'm not sure whether the project news is the best thing to put up there, at least in their current form—the text integrated into the tab block will be highly visible, and might better be used for more pressing announcements—but it is an interesting design. Comments would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually like it. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see the need to completely redesign the project page. A few tweaks here and there to aid navigation and splitting the "Recognized articles" and "Articles that require attention" sections off onto their own pages is all that needs to be done. I honestly don't like the "boxed" layout that you want to do. Can you provide a draft using normal section headings instead of the "boxed" layout? —Farix (t | c) 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough; here are variants of the first and second drafts using regular headers as opposed to highlighted boxes. (The alignment of some of the collapsible blocks is a bit rough, but I think this is enough to evaluate the general approach.)
Personally, I think the regular headers are too subtle. They're fine if a reader is only navigating via the TOC, and not actually looking at the entire page, or if we're talking about something like an article (where the intent is to make continuous reading as smooth as possible); but as far as visual impact in a brochure-like welcome page is concerned, they strike me as quite bland. Your mileage may vary, of course. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I've tweaked both drafts, especially putting the Project's scope at the top after the lead. Now if only we can get rid of that body line. —Farix (t | c) 23:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're referring to the line around the bulk of the page, it could be removed on the second variant, since the tabs are mated to the top block; on the first, we'd wind up with tabs floating without an actual tab body, which I think would confuse people.
More generally, I'm not really convinced that these drafts present a better visual effect to viewers—I think the appearance is a bit too pedestrian to be eye-catching—but I'll go with whatever everyone else thinks.
On a tangential note, I'm not sure that it makes sense to have the instructions/code for the awards placed so prominently on the page; it's probably not something that visitors would need or want to see. Collapsing blocks may not be the best approach here, of course; perhaps there would be a point to simply moving those instructions onto an award template documentation page and trimming the material on the front page to a simple link? Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the project's page be visually different from a policy, guideline, or any other page in the Wikipedia name space. It does not needs to be "eye-catching", which to me is code for "bad design". The project's page should covey information in an organized, easy to find. Regular section headings can do this job beautifully. But the "boxed" look you are proposing is too much of a visual jigsaw puzzle and hard to navigate around.
As for collapsed boxes, my view is that they should be used sparingly and only to high large bodies of information that would otherwise clutter the page. The documentation for the barnstar awards doesn't take up that much space and frankly, doesn't need to be hidden. And since there are only two awards recognized by the project, I don't see a need to create a separate page for them. —Farix (t | c) 13:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that comparing the project page to something like a policy/guideline/etc. isn't the best approach; most Wikipedia policy pages are proverbially difficult to read.
More generally, my view is that the primary objective of a WikiProject's main page is to cater to first-time visitors, not to existing project members; the page must not only provide essential details about the project, but also implicitly (or explicitly) act as an effective recruitment tool, keeping in mind that the amount of time and effort a casual visitor is willing to devote to perusing the page is significantly less than what might be reasonable for a regular project member. From this perspective, non-essential details (or, more broadly, details that aren't relevant or meaningful to visitors) should be pushed from the main page onto deeper project pages, to avoid unnecessarily lengthening or convoluting the page.
Is there any reason why a first-time visitor would be interested in the precise code used to award the BarnSakura, for example? The existence of the award itself might be of interest—and I say "might", because there's an argument to be made that even that level of detail is excessive—but certainly not the template documentation for it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess you and I will simply agree to disagree. Drafts 1.5 and 2.5 will work find after removing the body line around the page. —Farix (t | c) 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; I suppose we'll just have to see which layout everyone else prefers. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Further Drafts

Well there is still the one I designed User:Jinnai/AnM if that might give some inspiration.Jinnai 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. That's not all that different from some of the drafts above, except that it uses the full portal-style box layout rather than a hybrid one.
On another note, does anyone else have a preference for any (or all, or none) of the new designs? We currently have four different drafts:
  • Draft 1 (bottom-facing tabs, hybrid box-style headers)
  • Draft 1.5 (bottom-facing tabs, regular headers)
  • Draft 2 (floating tab box, hybrid box-style headers)
  • Draft 2.5 (floating tab box, regular headers)
Any thoughts on the current drafts, or suggestions for modifications and/or new drafts, would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer either Draft 1 or 1.5 with no particular lean on either. I like regular headers since it's just simple and the block colors of the box-style is a bit distracting for me. Then again I also like the box-style since it gives the page a more organized look by having that visual segmentation. I didn't like any of the Draft 2's as I think the top box with the news is too large and misplaced. It reminds me too much of large top banner ads which I'm not fond of on any website ^^; Fox816 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer 1 or 2, but I still think that bottom section should be added to the navbox.Jinnai 02:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added the related project list as a section in the navbox. Should it be left at the bottom of the page as well, or do we want to remove it from there and just use the navbox version? Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward Draft 1. But I wouldn't mind if we go with 1.5. ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 12:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion? :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I prefer Draft 1. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion so far, it seems that Draft 1 might be marginally more popular than the others, but obviously there are some strong objections to it as well. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no support for 2.5 and only one for 2. I'd say relist this with some those two and maybe addressing some of the issues raised so far.Jinnai 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good idea; I'll fiddle with 1 and 1.5 a bit based on the comments so far and we can go from there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Second set of drafts

Following Jinnai's suggestion above, I've put together updated versions of drafts 1 and 1.5:

I've condensed and/or trimmed some of the redundant material, and copy-edited most of the remaining text; the resulting drafts are essentially identical, with the only major difference being the use of block-like section headings in 1A versus normal section headings in 1.5A.

Personally, I'm leaning towards 1.5A; with the collapsible blocks in some of the sections, the normal section headings look a bit neater. What does everyone else think? Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I like draft 1A better. :) ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I like neither of them. The 1.5 draft was better than either of these. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
There isn't (or shouldn't be) all that much difference between 1.5 and 1.5A, except for some sections being condensed; is there something in particular that has gotten worse between those two versions? Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer 1A.Jinnai 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Interim approach

I still don't really see a solid consensus on which of the drafts people find preferable. I also think we may be losing everyone's interest in the discussion (it has dragged on for almost two months!), and I'm not sure that the minor differences in formatting are something that everyone has a clear preference on, or are worth spending too much time on in any case.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has objected to common elements between all the drafts—the new navigation template and the use of a tabbed approach for reducing the main page size—so I've gone ahead and implemented both of those without changing the rest of the page layout. We can continue going over the formatting of the section headers and the use of the collapsible boxes (which are the main differences between the drafts) if people would like that; alternately, we can just leave those question for a future discussion, and just stick with the basic format change for now.

Personally, I think the reduction of the page size helps a lot in and of itself, so I'm not too concerned about the finer points of the section formatting; we can always work on the individual sections one by one as people have time and interest.

In either case, any comments would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a poll at the bottom of this page might generate more discussion. A lot of people just scroll to the bottom automatically.Jinnai 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone fix the assessment page, cause of the graph, the page is stretched. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fixed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)