Talk:Rozen Maiden

Ages

Recently someone has been adding "ages" for the dolls; putting them in their teens, rather than at their actual creation dates. Until (assuming it ever happens) their "ages" are discovered via official means, please do not do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeagger (talk • contribs)

Re: Second manga's title

This is the English Wikipedia, so placing ローゼンメイデン as the title we use for the second manga without romanizing it is, simply, ridiculous. The fact of the matter is it has the exact same title as the original manga, and while Japanese has the luxury of having multiple scripts to differentiate titles, English does not have such versatility. WP:ATLANG is also a huge issue, since even if a majority of computers/browsers will be able to natively render Japanese script, not all of them will, so not providing any romanization at all would just leave you with a bunch of question marks.

To be more specific, I'll take this example from the plot section: "Rozen Maiden's plot is continued in the sequel serialization which uses the katakana title of the series, ローゼンメイデン." Do we really have to know that the sequel uses the katakana title here? Does it matter at all in terms of the series' plot? I don't think so. So you could just as well say "Rozen Maiden's plot is continued in the sequel serialization", thus negating the need to use ローゼンメイデン at all in this instance. Next we have this example from the manga section: "The second series was published under the title ローゼンメイデン, the katakana for Rozen Maiden, and is a sequel to the first serialization". Again, we don't necessarily need the katakana script, and you could just as easily write "The second series was published using the katakana for Rozen Maiden, and is a sequel to the first serialization". In this way, we don't have to bombard the reader with Japanese (most of whom will not even be able to read), not to mention that the series' katakana title is fully visible in the lead and at the top of the infobox already, so it's not like we'd be losing anything.--十八 08:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the in-line katakana to a footnote.--十八 09:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Format issue

This is another issue once again, but since this issue has been brought up a second time in another article, i dont think one discussion for one article is going to settle, so we have to discuss this in WP:ANIME. Lucia Black (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The new format improves accessibility as it emphasis what the main work is and its derivatives. There is no reason to revert to the trope anime manga style. As for WP:ANIME, a consensus there won't change anything since adding how articles should be formatted into the MoSAnime would be Creep. BRD is not a guideline, and I can push for 3RR to keep the current format. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

we're going to have to prove that aren't we? And accessibility is subjective. Lucia Black (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The only way i can agree with this format is if the anime was split off into its own article, which most likely wont happen unless we find specific anime-related production and development. Lucia Black (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not a decent reasoning on why the article should take the trope format. The new format emphasis what the main work is and its derivatives which is a positive addition. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

THe main article dominates anime just as much as manga, if we're talking about "original media' it doesn't apply here. Also, this is most deifnitely a subject we have to discuss with WP:ANIME, i'm sorry, but if you don't think its viable, then i will consider this WP:GAME< because WP:ANIME truly does need to know about this. its a fundemental change that affects all wikipedia articles under WP:ANIME. Lucia Black (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed the format, the article focuses on more than just the manga, if you would like to split off the manga portion then please start a discussion . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Or I could just rewrite the lead to match how Video Game articles are styled giving less focus on the anime and move the anime reception into two anime articles organized by franchise; justifying the video game like structure in the process. Aside from that, the anime MoS is not something to be argued on how an article should be structured. As long as it's neat and readable, it does not go against any rules. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that option before i opposed this format, but theres not much to warrant it. Lucia Black (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@DragonZero: Are you suggesting creating Rozen Maiden (anime)?--十八 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Juhachi: i think he's proposing 2 articles. because there are two animes. one with 3 seasons, and the second anime with 1 season. but at the moment, there's not much coverage on them to warrant individual articles. Lucia Black (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why split up a good article though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For format seems to be the case. Lucia Black (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It really isn't worth it and would oppose such a split. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article even passed GA since it doesn't even have a development/production section. Perhaps expanding that and see if that is enough to warrant another article. Lucia Black (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Akin to the Dolls manga GA, main aspects (which can vary by user) and public availability of sources can be argued here. Otherwise, feel free to delist. It seems my words were mistaken for making an anime article but I am too tired to clarify or deal with this. I am done with this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Data on characters already merged to subarticle - why are we still keeping it on the main article?

Per title. I don't understand at all.

The overall direction of the AFD gave room for a merger and redirect. I'm waiting to see what happens at the deletion review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion has concluded; I'm taking down the character list on the main article, since the subarticle already has that info in trimmed format. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Character section of the article is a mess

While I understand the reason of the merge, it's unacceptable the organization of the character section.