Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Tomo-Dachi listed for deletion AGAIN

Last year the article for the Tomo-Dachi anime convention was proposed for deletion, an argument that we defeated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomo-Dachi. Now after huge improvements and advice from you guys here it has AGAIN been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it’s not big enough.

Conventions in the UK are not large, the biggest being 1,200 because its the one everyone goes to, so Tomo-Dachi's 200 might seem small however this is only the con's third year and we were the first Anime convention to run on the island of Ireland and also the largest to date. I ask that you guys add your 5 cents to the deletion request and weather you believe it should be deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomo-Dachi (2) Butch-cassidy 11:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The article still lacks reliable third-party sources. It is entirely based on press releases, reprints of press releases, or information on AnimeCons.com. If you wish for the article to be kept, work on finding more third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Butch, please read my comments in the AfD. They're MUCH more constructive than the previous AfD comment. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the end result was 'Keep'. I thank everyone who commented and voted, even those I disagreed with ^^ Thanks everyone Butch-cassidy 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use images

It appears that the WikiFoundation is coming down on fair use images except for a couple of exceptions (see WP:AN#Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see). Unfortunately for us, using Fair Use images for "identification" proposes isn't going to be one of the exceptions. While I'm not suggesting for anyone to immediately run and remove FU images from anime and manga articles, we should at least avoid uploading any new FU images until the full report comes out. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely none of this applies to fiction based articles, as it has already been very well established that obtaining free-use images for those is next to impossible. I think the whole point of this is not to allow "lazy" fair use, where obtaining free-use images is possible. This means that mangaka and seiyū articles are likely to be imageless for a while.--SeizureDog 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Negima

Hi there everyone i just joined the project. anyways i have noticed that Negima article is still just giving information on the old version of Negima. is there any way we can add some information of the new anime if it hasnt been done yet. as far as the characters are concerned they havent changed at all. however in the newer version some have changed drasticly!! even the ghost is present even more. i dont know exactly how to nominate articles to be reviewed and such (as i said im new) but i think we should focus a bit on the Negima article since it has changed since the release of the new anime. Maverick423 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, by the "new" anime do you mean Negima!?, its article is seperate from Negima!--SeizureDog 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the characters from negima (original) and Negima!? are the same. there are no diffrences not even a little note on the bottom (which is really all they need) that tells the diffrence of the character from the original and the new remake version. for example Nodoki (hope thats how they spell it) is super shy on the original yet on the remake she is more ummm i guess i can say openminded. she acctually displayes her a little emotions as to trying to completely hide them. The Ghost from the class room has more lines and a personality now rather then just sitting there silent and only speaking on like one episode from the original. Maverick423 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of the anime's have their own separate article. I don't think you need to mention all the differences between them. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

i see. so then would you think it would be too crufty to add like the pactio cards that they get on the negima character list?? really i was talking about the character list needing a bit of a update or something of the sort. you know explaining the personality diffrences on the characters themselvs. but well its up to you guys Im just here to contribute when needed :) Maverick423 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already the Pactio (Negima) article for the Pactio cards. --Squilibob 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Category question

Should Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength have Category:Manga and anime characters with superhuman strength to match Category:Manga and anime characters who can fly?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but that latter category should be "Manga and anime characters with the power to fly" so that it matches its supercategory. --Masamage 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to nominate Category:Manga and anime characters who can fly for deletion... --Kunzite 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why these categories are "Manga and anime" instead of "Anime and manga". I always thought that when you list things, you generally put them in alphabetical order. --Farix (Talk) 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because a lot of anime are based on manga, but manga based on anime is rarer...? --`/aksha 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense though. You also have anime exclusive characters and manga exclusive as well. And it doesn't roll off the tongue no where near as easy either. --Farix (Talk) 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

shrugs* it was just a bit of speculation on my part. I have a feeling there's no particular reason for it - someone made a first "manga and anime" category and people just followed suite. --`/aksha 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it seems like the cats used to be just for "anime characters". If you check the history for Category:Manga and anime characters who can fly, you'll notice that it was originally named "Anime Charachters who can fly" and then moved by Cydebot per a "category for discussion" (although i can't seem to find the discussion for it). So when the cat was renamed to include manga characters, no one probably really noticed or cared whether the manga bit got added before or after anime. Don't really see the point in changing it now either. --`/aksha 04:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's also look at the other times anime and manga is combined. First, the WP is called "Anime and manga" instead of "Manga and anime", mainly because it is the natural order when people speak of the two together. Then stub category uses "Anime and manga" as well, we then have Category:Anime and manga terminology, Category:Anime and manga inspired webcomics, List of games based on anime and manga, List of shōjo anime and manga. The only times we use "Manga and anime" are with the character and fictional element categories, all patterned after Category:Manga and anime characters. There is just no consistency with the cat names and there really should be. --Farix (Talk) 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How's about making a Category rename proposal? --Kunzite 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Vote here if you're interested. And if i've missed any cats, feel free to add them into the cfd. --`/aksha 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

LucifaelsBride re-incarnated again

I think that vandal LucifaelsBride (talk · contribs) has re-incarnated as WinterGoddess (talk · contribs), joining her other sock puppets XenocideLuvver (talk · contribs) and 74.103.19.52 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 13#Kagome under attack. JRSpriggs 09:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure it's her, try filing a report over at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The process seems to be too complex and unreliable. Too much bureaucracy. I would ask an administrator to list all registered users who have used IP 74,103.19.52 and whether any of them have used other IP addresses. But it appears that that would be an invasion of her privacy. JRSpriggs 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OR on Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode and Berry Shirayuki

I'm having problems with this editor who keeps putting her biased, weasel-worded original research on the Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode and Berry Shirayuki articles. She says that because I'm not an admin then I have no right to remove it and she just keeps putting it back. Obviously she didn't like the manga and she's allowed to have her opinion but her opinions are really harming the articles. Can someone please help me? --Candy-Panda 09:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to Angelofdeath275 (talk · contribs), she has similarities of style with LucifaelsBride (talk · contribs) (whom I mentioned in the previous section of talk). Although I do not see her characteristic claims about Kagome. JRSpriggs 12:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the reception section of Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode could use a great deal of cleanup and trim out the unsourced original research. But that's the first time I heard you had to be an administrator to remove large parts of an article. --Farix (Talk) 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, why does the title have an "á"? I went back to check with TokyoPop and they use an "a" instead of the "á" in the title. That needs to be fixed. --Farix (Talk) 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because "à la mode" is correct in French, while "a la mode" isn't. Guess Tokyopop's usage should prevail, though. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "wikt:a la mode" is correct as well. --Farix (Talk) 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK it's a US-only loanword, but I don't know for sure. Mirriam-Webster gives "a la mode" as a secondary spelling. Anyway, since there is no anime and the only English-language official translation of the manga is that of Tokyopop, we should stick with that, IMHO, so if you want to move it I'll agree. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If Angelofdeath275 is the same person or a similar-type person to LucifaelsBride, then I think that she is motivated by jealousy. She dislikes other females who are attractive. Although I do not know why she would focus on cartoon females rather than real ones. JRSpriggs 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tokyopop probably spelt it "a la mode" instead of "á la mode" because the font they used doesn't come with an á.

Anyway back on topic, Angelofdeath275's "reception" section doesn't belong in the articles. It's full of weasel words.

"Fans of Tokyo Mew Mew could find it odd how À la mode is only two volumes". Yes they could, they could also find it odd how having wild cat DNA injected into you supposedly gives you the power to change into a pink-haired cat girl with a pink fluffy bell as your weapon, but that's not in the article is it?

"Many fans don't like how it took off the focus of the other Mews, as opposed to focusing on all the Mews as a whole." What fans? Was there a reliable source reporting on this?

"A la mode mainly focuses on Berry, and many fans dislike Berry" How do you know this? Was there a survey? Does this count for Japanese fans as well? Or just what some random forum members say?

"Many fans say she replaced Ichigo ^[1]" That source she put was a random Tokyopop member review filled with chatspeak and ^_^ smiley faces, which counts neither as a reliable source, nor "many fans". The rest of that quote is just plain nitpicking.

"took over as leader just like that, knew everything about being a Mew, knew what a Chimera Anima was as soon as she saw one, blew her secret to Tasuku a few minutes after she first transformed, transferred to her new school just for the uniforms, and seems to have forgotten why Tasuku hugs her every morning." Now that's just plain nitpicking...

"Reviewers generally says it is "Textbook magical girl material" ^[2], that it doesn't stand out from the rest of the magical girl mangas." She's only got one review there, so she can't say "reviewers generally say" and that whole review was pretty good apart from that one statement.

"Many fans of Tokyo Mew Mew dislike Berry, mostly because she replaced Ichigo. She seems to be another Ichigo, having a similar personality, battle outfit and similar attack name, and strawberry-type things, as this is Ichigo's signature (hence her name means strawberry). The two characters' faces even look alike, with the only major difference being their hair styles. She also took over as leader just like that, and the Mews didn't seem to have an issue with her taking over as leader, which can be seen as odd, as they don't know her as well as they know Ichigo." This looks like her own observation, which counts as original research.

"She also blew her secret of being a Mew Mew to Tasuku a few minutes after she first found out she was a Mew Mew, while Ichigo kept it from Masaya until book five. Her attitude toward blowing her secret to Tasuku is rather unfavorable to fans (quote: "Isn't it cool? I became a Mew Mew!"), as the Saint Rose Crusaders were going after Tokyo Mew Mew. When Ichigo revealed herself as a Mew, she ended up crying, worrying that Masaya wouldn't accept her. This could be related to a la mode having only two volumes." Unfavorable to what fans? You?

"Another thing that bothers fans and reviewers of A la mode, is that she also took a school entrance exam just because of their school uniforms, and completely blew off their academic specifications, saying "I didn't check up on anything about this school except the uniform...", and even begins to not like going to the private school (quote: "Maybe this wasn't such a great idea...I should've just gone to public school with Tasuku. Now what?")." Geez this is typical pre-teen behavior, (it even says in the same review she quoted here)^[3] especially in Japan where everyone has to wear uniforms and girls always want to go to schools with the prettiest ones. (They even have fashion shows in Japan for new uniforms designs for crying out loud!)

"It is not mentioned what her father thought of her transferring schools simply for the uniforms, as parents will almost always comment on the subject of transferring school." I'm sure her father would have had an opinion, it just wasn't shown because people wouldn't find it relevant or interesting.

"It can be seen as very strange to go to a school simply for the uniforms, let alone some pre-teens, teens and sometimes parents don't positively comment on school uniforms, as "Clothes are a source of expression for children, and as kids get older, they become increasingly resentful of uniforms." ^[4]"
She's talking about an American point of view here, which is entirely irrelevant to an article about a manga set in JAPAN, where uniforms are compulsory (and a lot of uniforms are quite pretty too!).

I really think an admin needs to have a serious chat to her about WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. --Candy-Panda 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Candy-Panda if Angelofdeath275 continues adding the POV to the article, I'd suggest you raise a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Someone there will be able to reason with Angelofdeath275. Nothing has been reverted for a couple of days so if the article remains stable then there's no need to go any further. --Squilibob 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks Squilibob. Once she sees her section is gone, she will probably put it back again, as she has other times, but in the meantime I'll just watch the pages to how it goes. --Candy-Panda 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just spotted International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew which is a weaselly worded bit of original research and POV. It may be salvageable, but not without gutting must of the existing article. --Farix (Talk) 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese help needed

(Crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan) I currently have content dispute with User:1523 on a writer's plagiarism claim against Case Closed (Case_Closed#Plagiarism_Claim, Picasso-kun no tantei note#Note). His claims to WP:V are all in Japanese, and I don't know any of it. I wanted some help in clearing up this issue, thanks!--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your plea. im not promoting this site but whenever i need help translating text i use http://translation2.paralink.com/ go ahead and try it my friend and you will see all that 判読不可能 text become clear =) Maverick423 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeong

Hiya. While cleaning up this article I noticed it was also within the scope of WP:Anime and Manga and had previously been rated as a Start-class. Now that it's been nicely revamped, sourced and generally made to look nice, I'd be thrilled if someone would assess it again. Thanks in advance. MalikCarr 08:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done further cleaning per SeizureDog's statements on that article's talk page. How's it look now? MalikCarr 04:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Settle an argument

Does anybody here have Tokyo Mew Mew Manga in Japanese?

Could somebody please take a scan of the page in volume 2 where it introduces all of the characters and recap (it's page 10 in the English translation). It should say what her age is at the top and what her school grade is at the bottom (in the recap of the last episode).

I really need a scan to settle a long running WP:V/WP:OR dispute. I need to see for myself which Kanji/Kana are used and where.

perfectblue 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AMERICAN ANIME? HA!

I am very sorry if i am "off topic" but i have heard that there are people who belive in american's CAN draw anime, which we cant. I was wondering does anyone have an opinion in this matter? --saikano 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)loliconist

No. Moogy^(talk) 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, anime is short for animeshon, which is the way the Japanese write the English word "animation"; if a non-Japanese draws something with a Japanese style, it isn't anime, just Japanese-like animation :) --Εξαίρετος (msg) 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

An art form is by itself nationality-neutral. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

im a american and im making a manga and animation with japenise style anime. (its harder then i thought but its comming out good)either way though i guess it wont be considered a Anime since its not from japan but hey its the next best thing! =P Maverick423 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect, HA! Anime will remain the next big thing untell the end of the world in 2012! american animation eat your heart out!--saikano 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooo yea i hear about that fate alot too the other date was on 2023 no? well in any case i have to work faster now so that everyone can see my anime / manga =( Maverick423 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again,with all due respect , NO american can draw anime & call it anime.....or was that the wrong way to put it....???X_X --saikano 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It was kinda the wrong way to put it. as for a american yes they can draw anime however technicly they cant call it such due to the fact that anime is classified as animation from japan. yes a american can draw it but it wont be called anime. they will be called cartoons as is classified here on the USMaverick423 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason so few Americans can draw "manga" that doesn't look like a cheap imitation has more to do with the state of American art universities than anything else. Manga style is not accepted as high art, so it is generally not professionally taught, so the American manga that does exist ends up being the product of an artist trying to adapt their American comic book style to fit with the Japanese style. That's why much of the best American produced manga, at least as far as the art style goes, is in the form of skilled amature webcomics and the like rather than the professionally done stuff companies like Tokyopop release. --tjstrf talk 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Man i have gone through so much paper guys is there an easier way to learn to draw it then just trial and error? i mean the ones i get look great but it takes me 10 trys to get one picture its just fustratingMaverick423 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

damn it, now that i have to rewrite this because it was refreshed & removed my typeing,anyway Manga=japanese comic/manga=american comics NO!!!--saikano 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

relax take it easy take a breather =) i call it manga or anime because in all honesty it sounds way cooler =D even if its not called that here in the US (comics or cartoons) dont sound nearly as cool as Anime and Manga =D but yea i know the diffrences =( im going to japan =P and making it there (if i had the cash) Maverick423 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of it has to do with the terms "anime" and "manga" being racialized. Gene Yang and Usagi Yojimbo creator Stan Sakai talks about this - both of them have had their work placed in manga sections despite both of them being American and their work not being influenced at all by manga - Sakai's from a anthromorphic character background and Yang's from an indie comic background (he didn't even read any manga until he got into college). Until we "deracialize" the term manga, anime, and even comics (we tend to think of American comics when we use the term, and sometimes European comics) there's no way this is going to get solved. Manga isn't a style - it's a collection of styles loosely grouped together because of race. There's a lot of bandwagoners that use the term only because they think it's chic. ColourBurst 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that there are several North Americans who actually work at anime studios in various artistic positions, including key animation, so it's not that North Americans can't draw anime or manga, but that the style is relatively new here and isn't as pervasive as it is in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and elsewhere in Asia. Given 10-20 years, I imagine there will be many, many people in North America who can draw competently in the style. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially once it becomes an accepted form of "real art" in the West rather than merely being thought of as little kids junk. I agree with ColourBurst as well, you really can't define a genre nationalistically. (Which is why I think this project needs to redefine its scope a bit.) --tjstrf talk 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Americans can "Draw" Anime, what they can't do is write it. Most American animation is aimed at a key demographic of "males aged 6-11". It is also is scripted using a formulaic approach so as to attract the largest possible audience without A) offending anybody, B) Upsetting parents C) making anybody feel stupid.

This tends to lead American animation to be episodic (as opposed to serial), and to be written for the lowest common audience denominator. Which, I think that you will all agree, often (but not always, such as is the case with shows like last air-bender) leaves American shows weak in the character and plot departments, light in the dialog department, and often entierly dependent on slapstick or gross humor.

This isn't the fault of the animators, it is the fault of the networks and the studio executives who want to take as few risks as possible and to reach the widest audience possible.

perfectblue 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

About the whole "anime is from Japan" and our project scope stuff.. I don't doubt that one day we'll just accept anime as a term for more than just stuff from Japan, and I also wouldn't mind having our scope being larger. I think the point is just so we don't get off track or have articles that don't need to be under our scope, etc. An idea occurred to me a little while ago, how about an "adoption" plan, where we could put an article or something under our scope under an "adoption" label because of anime similarities and if the article had no project to look after it? We could still separate this stuff by making it some form of sub project, but it would still have some kind of connection. I mean, it really seems like we're just looking for a scope where it's... stuff a somewhat like-minded (but even in there, very diverse and broad) group of people like to watch.. I dunno, just thinking out loud, and I should go to bed. I don't even know if I'm proposing an idea, let alone if it's good or not.. -- Ned Scott 09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And I say this only because there's some stuff that many of us also watch and read that has no WikiProject yet, and I'd hate for those articles to go unnoticed. Think of it as temporary housing. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a western anime that don't belong to any project's scope? Because i would have thought american anime or manga would fall under either a cartoon project, or the comic book project. Since...anime is just jap cartoons and manga is basically jap comics. --`/aksha 10:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that something should both have "Substantial Japanese involvement" and be "presented in a Japanese style". This would rule out shows like Code Lyoko which is Japanese in style but entirely Western in production, Transformers the movie, which is Japanese by production but western by style, but would let in shows like Ōban Star-Racers which are co-op with both Japanese production and Japanese style.

perfectblue 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, those are in-between cases. Transformers as a whole is defintely in this project. The movie is a bit of an exception, but i think it's better if two projects claimed it, rather than no project claiming it because it doesn't really 'fit' perfectly into any project's scope (i.e. us saying it's not jap, but other projects saying it is anime by origin). It doesn't hurt much to claim a few extra pages which aren't 100% in the scope. --`/aksha 10:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Matsuri-chan.png

Matsuri-chan! :D

Iesu Kirisuto this discussion got really big, really quickly. Comments to make:

Anime is not an art style. If it were, Bambi would be anime. "Otaku culture is the result of Japanization of American pop culture." It's easy to understand how Americans can enjoy anime and manga when you consider that's where much of its roots lie.
Likewise, manga is also not an art style (as I recently tried to get its article to properly reflect). Remember manhua and manwha exist too, to call them "manga" is just as ignorant is to call Megatokyo "manga".
"Can you give an example of a western anime that don't belong to any project's scope?" − Can you give an example of a Western animation that actually refers to itself as "anime"? Manga-inspired comics have this problem (damn Tokyopop) but as far as I know it's never been mixed in animation. Also, don't forget about WikiProject American Animation.
"Which, I think that you will all agree, often ... leaves American shows weak in the character and plot departments, light in the dialog department, and often entierly dependent on slapstick or gross humor." − Well that's not a very fair comparison. Pretty much all kid shows are like that, including anime. And I think that anime humor is far more lowbrow than American. I mean seriously, how many times can a guy fall onto someone's bewbs and it still be funny? There really aren't any anime shows like The Simpsons, for example.
Since there was a bit of discussion of "I've been drawing anime/manga" before, I felt the urge to show my recent work in progress. → I'm amazed at how well it's turning out. Hopefully, I might actually animate this for once, though I may have shot myself in the foot with the amount of detail. I can still tween it of course, but I'm more used to frame-by-frame animation.
--SeizureDog 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, both manhua and manhwa have Japanese manga-influenced and self-influenced art styles - they are not an art style, which is why I find people talking about manga and anime as a "style" ridiculous. After all, all three words have the same meaning, and they'd call American comics this same word. It's only in the English language that the terms are differentiated - thus the "racialized" comment I placed above.

Of course Japanese humour can be lowbrow - Crayon Shin Chan is very lowbrow. Something like the Simpsons don't exist in Japan because satire is a relatively foreign concept - most social commentary I remember is fairly serious. On the other hand, satire is very hard to get right, and often falls flat on its face, like many other cartoons I can name.

I don't know any non-Japanese cartoon that would call itself anime, but it will call itself anime-influenced - Teen Titans always touts the label, Avatar which touts the label and the influence, and the Marathon Productions work. ColourBurst 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Avatar has many stated Asian influences, not just Japanese. Also, SHI SHI REMON!--SeizureDog 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WELL GODDAMN! I did not think this subject would gather so many people! in one day! Anyway we need to put anime commercial on TV & the radio. Our otaku population would Skyrocked! now it is slowly riseing,to slow. people need to get there kids from disney,nick,&WHRO & put them in front of anime, not Piss poor american neko S***!--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

American animation is still better is every aspect, except it only covers two genres: comedy and kids.--SeizureDog 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OKaaaaay. Let's compare the animation, script, and voice talent quality for your average nick or CN show to your average Anime. Can you honestly say that shows like Captain Flamingo, Shuriken School and Tutenstein are actually "good" or even comparable to the likes of Full Metal Panic, NGE and Macross?

With a few notable exceptions like JLA and Batman beyond, US animation can only hold its own in the theatre, if it's made for TV, its usually low quality and mass produced to a simplistic formula. Much of it is also likely crammed full of imitateable violence and toilet humor.

perfectblue 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is really not what Wikipedia should be used for, but just as a few counter examples, off the top of my head: Star Trek, X-men (both 90s and Evolution), Spiderman (90s), Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, The Tick, Simpsons, Family Guy, King of the Hill, Futurama, Clerks, Duck Tales, Gargoyles. Yes, all but one are from 1987 or so or later, and similar sources...but even so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How American is "American animation" anyway? Isn't most of the animation work outsourced? Anyways, there are good Japanese anime and there are crap Japanese anime, and there are good American cartoons and there are crap American cartoons. Although even the Simpsons animation quality was really bad in the first two seasons. ColourBurst 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Animation-wise yeah, but so was Sailor Moon, to give a popular anime counter example. Really, there's a lot of crap anime, and much of that most people in the US never even hear of, much less see. But again, this is really drifting away from the issue of improving anime coverage on WP... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano"... So does this mean Saikano is "down with child porn"? Just wondering. — flamingspinach | (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussing the issue is really the only way we can get to a aggreement so its valid. since the discussion is about anime and what is and isnt it stays within the project scope.

well anyways as what was being stated american anime is extreamly low quality (ex. Ed Ed and Eddy) compared to japenise anime (ex. Death Note) and the storylines are always diffrent compared to just being one big story line. diffrent storylines can just be confusing and really defeat the pourpus of just a series. anime has a solid story most of the time that follows the story through out the season and beyond. this is what i think makes a anime more successful then just a regular cartoon. Maverick423 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Saikano, do yourself a favor and just end this discussion now. This crap is not worth it, and you're going to look back at this in five years and wince. JuJube 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

why dont you SHUT YOUR MOUTH and keep your statements to yourself! do you have a problem with this if so please tell me.*v*--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Saikano, please be civil to other editors. If you fail to do so, you will likely find yourself on the receiving end of a block. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you, I have a problem. But you've got the bigger problem, since your attitude overall is reprehensible. You'd better change it straight away. And why haven't you changed your signature? Or are you still down with child porn? JuJube 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

hay, colorburstman, are you being raceist in an anime subject?

look: Manga isn't a style - it's a collection of styles loosely grouped together because of race --Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about a anime

Hey guys does anyone know when the Inuyasha final movie or episodes are ganna come out? im not talking about the ones right now im talking about the final final movie were they kill naraku. i havent heard anymore news on it and i hate to be left on a cliff hanger status. =( Maverick423 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to discuss it, but AFAIK right now in Japan Inuyasha is at volume 50 and Naraku is still alive. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

494 chapters, and I don't think anything significant has happened to the cast for at least the last 150. --tjstrf talk 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mangaka stub

Hi all. When looking at the Category:Anime and manga stubs category, I'm missing a Category:Mangaka stubs subcategory here. I think most articles on mangakas are stubs anyway, so this could be useful. Maybe I need to talk this over on the stub sorting project first - I'm not sure how to go about this. Can anyone help? Ninja neko 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Find 60 or so articles in Category:Manga artists and propose a new stub type with them as examples. I think it's a good idea to subcategorize the anime-stub type. A manga artist or mangaka stub is a good idea as opposed to the failed anime-series-stub which is useless. --Squilibob 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend {{manga-artist-stub}} with Category:Manga artist stubs to be consistent with Category:Manga artists. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed that one. Why was it useless again?--SidiLemine 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with not being used, and it didn't solve the problem with Category:Anime and manga stubs being to large. Instead, it simply transfered the problem over to a different stub cat. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's what stub cats are supposed to do: organize the stubs to make them easier to find, especially when there are a lot of them. I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least 60 manga artist stubs. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to {{anime-series-stub}} which is useless and doesn't solve anything. {{manga-artist-stub}} is an entirely different matter. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance assessment

That ought to grab some attention out of the romanisation stuff. Is there any (good) reason why we're not making any importance ratings? More importantly, has there been a discussion about it? If not, I think we should take a decision asap, and let the good people at WP 1.0 wether we're in or out. If so, was there any good reasons not so? I personally can think about one or two ways to start it, and think it would give the Project more tenure and progression potential. For one thing, it would let us know if the huge amount of stubs is normal as it covers only unimportant stuff, or wether we have to work on some. I'll wait for answers before talking about a grading method. --SidiLemine 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've retitled the section to reflect the topic. But it was mainly rejected because, well frankly, because only the very main topics would be of any importance. The rest of the articles would be of "Low" importance. But then fans of the a series would also pounce in and demand that the importance of Anime X should be higher because of how Great/Influential/Novel/Old/Iconic/Popular or what have you. Most of us figured it was better to avoid the whole mess. --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the importance system is to determine which articles need to go in Wikipedia 1.0. And in reality, the number of our articles that need to be included there is exactly two...anime and manga.--SeizureDog 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And maybe History of anime. But WikiProject Japan has them all covered, so there is no need for the redundancy. --Farix (Talk) 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

When are we going to get around to bringing manga and anime up to at least good status anyways? I plan on ordering some books off of Amazon someday to help, but I need to get a job first...--SeizureDog 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps submitting it to a peer review may help. --Squilibob 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird question

Does anyone know a lot about the United States/Canada child pornography laws? Someone was talking to me about slash fiction the other day, and it occured to me that a lot of the popular sexy-fanfic pairings are actually under age 18. When someone writes a lemon about Sailor Moon or Harry Potter characters, does it count as child porn? --Masamage 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Because Sailor Moon or Harry Potter characters aren't children - they're not real period. Even if they where, i doubt they're covered by "child pornography" laws. pornography implies visual. I really doubt text stories count. --`/aksha 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it DOES count in some countries (Canada to name but one that I know of). Not in the US or Japan though. But if you look at it realistically, it's no different than a story where someone gets killed or raped or whatever else. There's even the Dakota_Fanning issue where she's in an actual film as a raped 12 year old, or for a more classic example, Taxi Driver) - though granted neither case glorifies younger people having sex (one's being raped, the other is a prostitude), it's still directly about it. (Once again, I can't see too much what this has to do with WP directly, though, but it's an issue that people really ought to know about.) As is often the case, WP has an article about it: here ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Check with a lawyer if you want to be sure, but I seem to remember hearing that the Supreme Court decided that made-up drawings of children (cartoons like in anime and manga) cannot violate the child pornography laws. Those laws were justified as protecting actual children from being exploited by punishing people who manufacture, sell, buy, or otherwise participate in child pornography. Since a drawing from one's imagination does not exploit a real child, it is not covered (if I remember correctly). Also it might be difficult to say whether a cartoon "person" is a minor or not. JRSpriggs 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It all depends what the age limit is in Cartoonland.--SidiLemine 12:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Style proposal

I propose that seiyuu pages should follow the same style. I was looking at the Saeko Chiba#Voice_roles and it was very difficult to find her role in specific series since the list is sorted by character name. In comparison, look at Tanaka Rie's page and see how much friendlier it looks. I think we should make all voice roles the same style, probably something in the lines of the list on Rie Tanaka's article.

Specifically, I would like to see the roles sorted by series, and bolded main roles. As far as Japanese text goes, I'm not sure what we should do with them. Leave them out and put it on the series/character page? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely makes far more sense to list alphabetically by romanized series title than by character title, especially on seiyū pages with a large number of roles listed (Tesshō Genda and Sumi Shimamoto for example). I recommend the format used on those two pages as it's very logical and easy to read. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a guideline that specified that filmologies and bibliographies should be arranged in order by date. But I can't remember if that was oldest to recent, or recent to oldest. --Farix (Talk) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, here it is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I prefer listing alphabetically (as it makes it easier to find specific titles, especially in long lists, and if you don't know when a particular title came out), I'm fine with listing by year. However, I also think this causes issue when you have series which span multiple years, or come out one year, skip a bit, come out another year, skip again, and come out another year. This is why I prefer alphabetical. And I believe that if someone wants to know when something came out, they can click the link for the series. Either way, the role should absolutely not be listed before the title of the show in which the role appears. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wholly agree. --Masamage 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Bleach

O-hayō gozaimasu! I recently proposed a Bleach WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and thought that some users might be interested in voicing their opinions. A couple of the project's goals are listed on the proposal page and if the project passes the proposal, I will get started on an official to-do list. I'm willing to hear any and all criticism, comments, and ideas to help improve the project. Thank you for your time! // PoeticDecay 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing articles

Hi. Just trying to get my head around stubs and wanted to ask a question. When exactly are stubs added? According to the stub page they are only be added to articles that are to be aspired to and those very good ones, however I have found them on many articles including start articles. So when does the stub added? Butch-cassidy 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Stubs is what very short articles are called. When someone creates a very short article, a stub is born. Then this person, or someone else, adds the "stub" template at the bottom, and voila! You have it. --SidiLemine 11:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Manga Notability

Hi guys. I came across a manga stub that was nominated for deletion. One of the reasons was non-notability (WP:N). After reading this guideline, I wondered how to apply this on manga articles. Are all mangas notable? When is a manga not notable? Are all licensed mangas notable?

Perhaps this issue has been discussed here already - but I think it may be good to come to a consensus on this notability thing, so we'd have some sort of general guideline for this to include on the project page?

I've been creating new stubs lately, some from the requested article pile, some from the red links on the list of shoujo manga. But if they're to be deleted due to non-notability, I'd better stop wasting my time... Ninja neko 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that anything that went past a couple volumes, anything licensed internationally, and anything by a notable author is notable enough as a book series to qualify for inclusion. (+Anima, for instance, is a pretty minor series as far as manga go, but for a book perspective it's a 4 book internationally published series.) Dojin and one-shots probably not, unless they won an award or something. The real notability issue we deal with is at what level of detail to stop covering things. Specifically, whether detailed coverage of the characters and story and attacks and so on of a 400 chapter series is evil fancruft or us doing our duty of making the plot summary comprehensible. --tjstrf talk 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would first see if it would passes WP:BK as it will trump WP:N as a subject specific notability guideline. But we probably do have a number of non-notable manga and anime on the wiki that really should go. That is why I would suggest not creating any more stubs and try to fill out the articles that are their with as much reliable sourced information that you can find. Or at the very least, provide a list of possible references on the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you find any anime or manga related AFDs, then transclude them over into Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:BK, I forgot one of the most obvious claims to notability: an anime adaptation. ("The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.") --tjstrf talk 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If WP:BK is our notability standard, then we have a lot of deleting (or merging) to do. The request list has (or had) a lot of minor and one-shot manga titles (i.e. the title had only one tankoubon) and there were a lot of empty stub article created for titles there. I'd suggest we move these minor articles on titles to the mangaka's wikipedia article. --Kunzite 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea given that the mangaka is also notable. And it's better we do the cleanup before the deletionist cabal comes charging in. --Farix (Talk) 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That project seems to have very weak goals. Perhaps we should start a manga review/merge taskforce. --Kunzite 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to WP:BK

The only thing WP:BK doesn't address is how long a series of books has to be in order to be notable. Lenghty series, I believe, are notable because they are lengthy, though I'm not sure at what point they become notable. I think something like, "A series of books is considered notable if it is published by a major publisher and is at least 3 volumes long." That avoids self-published works from qualifying unless they meet another criteria. Thoughts? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A volume isn't necessarily a standard length though, and someone could be verbose and still fail notability. Any notability based on length seems difficult to keep consistent. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, though I think we do need something for manga series. As I wrote above, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. The above was just an example, or sample, wording. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know this is not exactly the same, but what if we took this standard and applied it to legnthy fanfiction? I've known people to write multi-volume novel legnth fanfictions. Would those be considered any more notable? I dunno. I'd rather use the same standard we use at WP:FICT In the absence of any other evidence of notability, a topic on a minor manga or anime (film, OVA, light novel, etc) should be kept with the parent (mangaka, video game, article) unless an encyclopedic treatment of the subject causes the overstep readability limits. This allows us to keep relevent information, bolster mangaka articles which might not have much content anyway, discourage cruft, encourage citation, and allow for future expansion if necessary. --Kunzite 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me: create subsections on the mangaka page until such time as the subsection becomes unwieldy and large enough to stand solidly on it's own as a separate article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Move page Wikipedia:Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week

I suggest that we merge Wikipedia:Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week into Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Collaboration of the Week. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine just where it is. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category for anime adaptations of novels

Does one exist currently? If not, is it customary to discuss the creation of a new category before implementing it? I've never created a new one. I can think of 10 or so that I could put in the category, but I'm sure there are more. Any thoughts? Leebo⁸⁶ 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing to add but I'm still new at Wiki so I dont know all the ins and outs of Category creation either ^^ Butch-cassidy 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Television programs based on novels could be an option. --Squilibob 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, though it's not quite what I had in mind. I thought of this because it would keep the anime separate from the other types of shows or movie adaptations, and because I wanted to group anime film, TV, and OVA adaptations together. Some of them might fall under that other category, but this category would be a bit different. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you created this category then there would be a precedent to create similar categories. Anime based on live action television, Anime based on video games, Anime based on visual novels, Anime based on manga!? If they would be useful then I don't see a problem with creating them, but a lot of anime is adapted from something. --Squilibob 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thing to keep in mind. I think that it would be useful, but I'll probably do more research before starting. Thanks for the comments. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Light Novels, and Light Novel Writers

I'm going to be adding info on several light novels, and light novel authors, but it looks like, other than the infobox, policies on these haven't become standardized yet. Particularly with the author pages. There isn't a category for light novels author yet, but before I start making one, what should it be? Light novel authors? Light novel writers? Something else? Doceirias 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the poorly-filled Category:Graphic novelists and a lot of other Category:Novelists (mostly by nationality). Category:Authors redirects to Category:Writers, so that eliminates using the former. --Kunzite 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we should make a new one. Obviously, they would be in a subjection under novelists, and probably under the anime or manga general headers as well, to make it easy to find...but what should the Category name be? Category:Light Novelists? Category:Light novel writers? Ishin Nishio briefly had the non-existant Category:Light novel authors on it (and he's not even a light novelist, really...borderline.) Maybe I should be asking on the novels project forum...just don't want to make it and have to move it later! Doceirias 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean toward Light Novelists, but ask at other project -- and moving isn't hard, it's automated by bots. --Kunzite 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding the word "official"

The guideline "Characters should be called what the series officially states their romaji names as. If that does not exist, use what they are named in the most recent or popular English translation, if it exists, isn't egregiously bad, and is the generally-used name (a google test is appropriate here). Otherwise, use a literal transliteration." is rather difficult to understand.

First off, are licensed versions of manga considered "official" products? Are names that are most popular with fans (Even if they are incorrect) given priority over the translation given in English versions of a series? I ask this because in Hunter x Hunter, we have been having trouble with character names for several months now.

The creator rarely romanizes character names. For the ones he has romanized, a good majority don't make sense in English. For example, the creator wrote "Kuroro Rushirufuru" as "Quwrof Wrlccywrlir" in his romanization. However, the most recent English translation of the series (By ViZ media) translates this as "Chrollo Lucilfer," which is an accurate translation. Most fansubs and scanlations use "Kuroro Lucifer" instead because they had to guess on the name several years ago. It is like this for many other characters? Which would we go with?

The guideline states that if the official romaji isn't stated in the series, we could go with the most recent English translation or the most popular. The most recent is definitely ViZ's translations, and they could be possibly more popular than the online scanlations due to the product being sold in stores. However, since there is no list of how many books have been sold using the ViZ translation, there is no way to determine which names are used more frequently.

Should we go with the most recent translation, which is "official," or the most popular one done by scanlators? I would appreciate any responses. --Mr. Toto 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Go with VIZ, as it's both official and better than the author's and the scanlations - but make a note of the author's romaji when the character is introduced. --129.241.210.38 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not official, it's the names used in a licensed translation. There is a difference. --Kunzite 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I should know better than to get in the way of this argument, but how is something more official than a licensed translation? That would seem to be the definition of official. Unless the licensed translation has made up new names for the characters, we should match that translation. With, if there is controversy, a mention of other possible spellings. Doceirias 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In anime/manga, official generally refers to what the original mangaka (i.e. author) wrote. Foreign versions (by companies that license manga for other languages) do not always stick to the original ("offical") version by the manga's author/artist. As for the names, yeah...the companies do sometimes make up new names for characters when they license manga. In HxH, it's mostly a case of different romanizations, but we do also have a few new names. --`/aksha 10:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a "guideline" in the sense of WP:FICT or WP:WAF -- it's a suggestion on how to write an article from the project. Like claiming something as "canon" without any action source to back the statement up, to me using the word "official" is a violation of the NPOV and WP:V policies. Did the author/publisher/producer come out and say that these were the official names? Can you provide the source? If not, then it's not official. IMO, the best course of action when there are multiple names is to do a google test independently for all names in the series, combine results, and go with the most widely used group of names. Remember to exclude "Wikipedia" and to restrict the results to "English". I've looked some of these up in the original manga. He's used a few romanizations for these names. "Quoll" was one I remember seeing. And we really need to re-word that statement -- I'll do it soon. --Kunzite 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can provide a source for several names, such as "Freecss," which has been both written in English in the Japanese manga and the Hunter's Guide on several accounts. Oh, and "Quoll" was a name not written by Togashi anywhere--it was a romanization provided on one of the websites promoting an anime guide. The creator himself has never used the name "Quoll."

When looking up names such as "Kaito," what should we do then? His romanized name should be "Kite," but this obviously shows up much more on Google. Even when searching English results, placing the words as "Kite Hunter x Hunter" and "Kaito Hunter x Hunter," the former still shows up more. The same goes with the character Senritsu and her English name, "Melody." --Mr. Toto 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with HxH is that Togashi (the author) has given no "official romanizations", but has written character's names with english letters several times. Sometimes, it's "romanization", other times, he's called them "english names". Some of them are perfectly fine, some of them are absolutely terrible (and more or less ignored by everyone), and they almost always contradict with themselves. For Kuroro, we've had "Quwrof Wrlccywrlir" and "Quoll", and apparently "Kuroro Rushirufuru" (although i don't remember where this one was from).

Given this, i really don't see how it's sensible to argue about what Togashi's "official" romanizations were. He clearly doesn't have a clue, or at least has a bad habit of changing his mind. We're not going to have "official romanizations" for hxh characters short of someone writing him a letter or something. --`/aksha 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Kuroro Rushirufuru" is the actual romaji for his name. Even though "Kuroro Lucifer" is his most common romanization, the actual word "Rushirufuru" is translated into English incorrectly. In Japanese Katakana, "Lucifer" is written as "Rushifuru" or "Rushifaa," and there's an extra "ru" in Kuroro's name. This means that if we were to translate it, the name could be "Lucirfer," "Lucilfer," "Rucirful," "Rucilfer," and so on. There's an actual consonant missing from the most popular English translation, and it's obviously incorrect. --Mr. Toto 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusion that the most popular English translation is incorrect is your orignal research. --`/aksha 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, extra ru's are sometimes added to katakana words to emphasize a prominent R sound that would otherwise be glossed over. --tjstrf talk 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though you keep changing "Freecss," I keep saying that this name has never been contradicted in Japan. In many instances, both in the Japanese manga and the Hunter's Guide, Gon's last name is only written as "Freecss." I can cite all of my resources, if necessary. The fact with this one is that even though "Freaks" is known more, the guideline itself states that "Characters should be called what the series officially states their romaji names as," and only to use what's in the most recent or popular translation "If that does not exist." Unless you can prove to me that anything other than "Freecss" has been used to write Gon's last name in a product made by Togashi, then "Freaks" is wrong. --Mr. Toto 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I already told you, Togashi NEVER gave official romanizations for names, except for "Ging", which was actually a plot element. He gave romanizations/english names all over the place. SOme of them contradicted and where bad, some of them happened to be alright and where not bad. There's no evidence what so ever that Togashi ever even bothered to release a set of his 'official' romanizations. "Freaks" is used because it's known more - that's the entire point. The over-riding philosophy on wikipedia is to use most commonly known names, there's no point using names which readers will not recognise if there's an alternative that most readers will.

THe fact that they came from scanlations is irrelevant. If people use them - then they exist as an alternate naming. This isn't about whether the translations are correct or not from a linguistic point of view. If it is, then "Freecss" would defintely be out because there's no such thing as "css" in the english language. It just doesn't exist. English doesn't have words with a double "s" followed by a "c". "Freecs" is really the "correct" way to spell "Freecss" (based on how its pronounced) in english. --`/aksha 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The rule itself states that we use the official names unless they aren't available. In the first two sentences of the quote, it specifically states this. It does not say "Use the official names, unless there are ones that are more popular proven by Google tests." How many times do I have to say that "Freecss" has been used on multiple accounts and has never been contradicted? Even if English words don't have a "c" followed by a double "s," take into account that most last names are from other countries to begin with. It doesn't matter if it doesn't follow the correct structure for English words because it may be okay with the country of the last name's origin. The "evidence" that Togashi bothered to even release a set of his "official romanizations" lies within the Hunter's Guidebook, which he wrote himself.

The series "D.Gray-man" has one of the characters named "Jeryy." Does this make sense in English? No. But it was officially romanized by the creator, and that's what Wikipedia goes with. Let's look in the case of "Dragon Ball." You say that the overriding philosophy on Wikipedia is to use the "most commonly known names." Okay, then explain to me why "Tenshinhan" is used instead of the more popular "Tien" for that character's name. "Tenshinhan" is known less than "Tien," so why is it used for the Wikipedia article? Because the creator officially romanized the name this way. It's the same thing with "Freecss."

You can't go around saying "Freecs" is the correct way to spell his name, because that's simply conjecture on your own part. That's your own "original research." Unless you can provide a concrete reason as to why "Freecss" was not what was intended by the creator, then I'm reverting it yet again. Your only argument seems to be that "we go with the most popular names." But as I have shown, sometimes what's actually correct outweighs what's "more popular." --Mr. Toto 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't. I was just using "Freecs" as an example of why names don't have to be linguistically correct. I'm not vouching for us to use it just because i think it's "correct". And same goes for all your arguments about which names are "correct". It really doesn't matter.

As for Freecss not being intended by the creator - i've already explained myself. Togashi gave many romanized/english versions of the character names. If we say "Freecss" is what he wanted simply because he didn't happen to contradict himself in this case. Then we may as well use Hyskoa because that's he used. Hisoka is just the direct romanization, used by scanlators and viz. --`/aksha 10:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between "Freecss" and the others is that it's the same in all of the merchandise. The Hunter's Guide, official products, and in most other countries, Gon's last name is "Freecss." It's a pretty strong case, especially since we know for a fact that "Freaks" is unofficial and is listed nowhere. If you can prove to me where Togashi ever contradicts himself with the last name "Freaks," then I'll be willing to look into your argument more. But right now, all you're providing is that the latter is more popular. It's official, and official names outrank more popular ones. That's simply how it is. --Mr. Toto 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not official. Not anymore than "Wbererguin" is official for Hisoka or "Chzzok" is for Shizuku. The ones that actually contradicted are just a few - like Kurapika and Kuroro's names. If you had been argueing for us to simply use Togashi's full set of names, then i'd be taking you more seriously. At the end of the story, Wikipedia's overriding philosophy when it comes to naming is to use the name that the most number of readers will understand. --`/aksha 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'd go with the Viz names. Its as close as we get to an official romanization. Kyaa the Catlord 08:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Viz is actually owned by the company that produces Hunter x Hunter in Japan, I would say that they probably have some input from the series itself as to what to call the characters. --Mr. Toto 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe that in practice names are written the way that the liscensing company spells them post-liscense, not by how the scanlators did (one assumes tha scanlators have stopped distributing once the manga was liscensed of course...). And likewise for anime, it is written how it is in the subtitles, not in the fansubs post-release. Kyaa the Catlord 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

SAY WHAT??????

Sorry for shouting, but this whole thing is ridiculous.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English). "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

Notice the words "most common name". NOT the official name. You're contradicting Wikipedia policy here. And there have been numerous cases where people have tried to ram articles through that contain official names and been rebuffed.

Talk:Roronoa_Zoro#Requested move

Talk:Going Merry#Name Change?

Talk:Kimi ga Nozomu Eien#Article name

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Fictional characters

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/tessaiga

This is an attempt to settle a very contentious issue by sticking it in the project while nobody's worried about any particular example, so they don't pay attention to it. It should be stopped and the paragraph in question should be removed. It's a very, *very*, controversial issue (and also seems to contradict Wikipedia policy) and is a *major* change to how anime and manga names are being handled. It needs to have real discussion--not someone putting it in the project and then a month later going up to the Roronoa Zoro article and saying "oh, by the way, we decided a month ago on a policy that lets us rename this article. Too bad nobody here was paying attention." Ken Arromdee 16:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) is a guideline, not a policy. There is a difference. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME basically says the same thing and it's policy. "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." --Kunzite 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So can we remove the "official romanji" bit now? Or at least change it to specify that official is mangaka-official and not licensing-official? --`/aksha 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of voice actors in anime

I thought this may be of interest to people who have added information on voice actors or seiyū, so I'm making note here. Justin Cook has been put up for deletion on notability guidelines. I'm not really sure what to think here. I've always thought that as long as the particular voice actor has an important role to note, then it is OK to create an article. I understand the need for notability, but I hope there is some clarification on what exactly is needed here. Justin Cook in particular has voiced numerous voice roles (some I would take as pretty notable, like Yusuke Urameshi ) and he has been the subject of DVD extras, online interviews, and the Bang Zoom! documentary Adventures in Voice Acting. Do these kind of things count as reliable sources for notability or am I wrong? (maybe some published anime sources have him featured somewhere, but I don't have access to them, so I wouldn't know) If this one is deleted, I could see it as precedent for many other articles on voice actors to be deleted, and I don't want to contributing to them if it is determined to be something that is not supposed to be on Wikipedia. --EmperorBrandon 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that this article is up for deletion? As far as I can tell the tagger is just asking for references. If you add a couple of references to the page I think that you'll satisfy the tagger and notablity policy. As for precedent, I think a lot of people don't believe in precedent when it comes to Afds, see Wikipedia:Pokémon test for example. --Squilibob 05:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm no fan of the Pokemon test.. I'd say just look at the guy's voice credits. It seems fine to me. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been a bit confused on the whole deletion thing. "More likely to be considered for deletion"... which I guess is not as harsh as it first appeared to me. I do agree with Ned Scott though in my thought that the significant voice credits (for prominent, commercially released series) would be enough. The links to online databases provide in the external links provide enough reference to that in my opinion. --EmperorBrandon 08:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you can cite the documentary, online interviews (be careful, no fansites) and the DVD interviews and if he has a fairly large number of google hits, that's additional evidence of notability. I think the article can be made to demonstrate notability. Seiyu usuallly meet WP:BIO because of "Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers" -- voice actors have a higher status in Japan than they do in the US. (But, unfortunately, we don't use it to source articles because they require too much translation.) We push it with some of the minor ones. Too bad that there is not a good anime wiki set up elsewhere. --Kunzite 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like the immediate issue with Justin Cook is settled now. Just because I'm curious, what exactly should I have in mind as far as notability criteria when I go to create voice actor pages? I have been motivated a few times just because there are red links to fill in on anime series articles. With Japanese voice actors, I tend to make sure it is someone that is in the Japanese language Wikipedia (and there are lots of them there, so generally there more often than not). --EmperorBrandon 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO is the notability guideline used for people. --Farix (Talk) 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject reform

Since this is one of the more active WikiProjects I thought it might be a good idea to mention the WikiProject reform proposal here. WP:ANIME is actually an example of a good WikiProject, so don't get the wrong idea by me bringing it up here :) A bunch of smaller projects might become task forces of our project as a result of the proposal, as well as helping to clean up some of the misconception people have developed about when to start a new project. So feel free to check it out, spread the word, leave feedback, etc. -- Ned Scott 09:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

About the overtagging thing. I know there is a debate stemming from {{WikiProjectBanners}} and I think that our descendant projects should just take over articles in their scope. For example WP:DIGIMON should just tag all articles with their own tag. They don't need to add the {{Anime}} tag to all those articles, do they? We don't tag our articles with {{TelevisionWikiProject}} and I don't see how that is any different. ({{WikiProject Japan}} is added to a few of the articles in our scope but not a large number.) --Squilibob 10:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:DIGI does just use their own tag (except on the main anime articles), so there's not much of an issue there. Right now there's a big work load for Digimon articles, so I see no major reason to task force it, but I could see it later on once we get all those article merges done. At that point making it a task force really wouldn't change anything, but would help editors to think about the flow of projects a little more.

The main idea is to discourage the idea that you have to start a whole new WikiProject if you just want to take a little extra focus on a group of articles. It also helps to keep over-lapping issues from being isolated. For anime and manga I don't think we have very many sub-projects, so it's not really an issue for us, but it's something to be mindful of.

Another reason I mention it here is that I feel this WikiProject is one of the more successful ones, and that we might have some useful input for other projects, task forces or not. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ned and Squilibob. This is one of the good projects, and a lot of improvement has happened due to its organization. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of <name> soundtracks or <name> soundtracks?

I'd like to start expanding the cover of Kaleido Star by adding in lists but am unsure as to what is the preferred naming scheme for these articles. For episodes it seems everyone is doing List of ABC episodes, but it doesn't seem as clearcut for soundtracks. There are single-named ones like Air soundtracks and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni soundtracks articles but also "list-formatted" articles like List of Shakugan no Shana albums and List of Shuffle! albums. Alternatively, there are also individual album articles like what RahXephon and GITS has done. What gives? --Remy Suen 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You should follow the policy for stand alone lists and use List of. The character lists are almost all named with a prefixing List of and, as you stated, there are List of episode articles. As far as I know, the WP:ALBUM naming convention applies to single albums and not to lists. --Squilibob 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Squilibob. For clarity, the reason I brought up RahXephon and GITS was to inquire as to whether it's better to create individual album articles or to create a list. --Remy Suen 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this was ever decided on. We discussed it, there was no concensus, and then someone just renamed all of the character pages one day. (And broke lots of redirects.) I suggest we keep it with "List of XYZ", add it to the style guides, and make other pages conform. (And fix the double redirects.)

The second thing I suggest as a style guideline is keeping like things together. If the main article does not break WP:SIZE guidelines, then add stuff in there until it does. If the article gets too long and has a lot of lists of media related items (i.e. Episodes, image songs, manga volumes, CDs) etc.. It would be better to split those off into "XYZ media and release information" (is that terminology still used?) or "List of XYZ media". Finally "List of XYZ characters" should be split off per guidelines in WP:FICT. Perhaps this would be a good style suggestions to add to the project page. Keeping things together in such a manner makes them easier to defend from AfD and it makes our pages more consise. --Kunzite 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

question

ok guys i got a quick question. as you all know im making a manga (or whatever its called in the US) and well basicly i want to know what is the process of it comming out here on wikipedia? do i have to ship it all over the US and stuff and have lots of people reading it and stuff or something like that? if it ever does make it though can i personally edit it or do i have to sit back and watch only? Maverick423 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So... you're making an OEL manga? Well, if it does get released and distributed by a major publisher, someone will probably create the article. You shouldn't, because that would a be conflict of interest. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes i am and thanks for the info. lets say someone does make the article though can i add some stuff like info on future events or something or am i ganna be like completely restricted from editing the article?Maverick423 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone makes the article, I would strongly discourage you from editing it. If you feel that you must participate, you could always leave a note on the talk page and another editor could look over the info and add it. It's best for a third party individual to add the information. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

alright thanks much for the info =)Maverick423 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to publish the actual manga/doujin/OELmanga/etc.. on wikipedia: you can't. Try Wikibooks. You'd have to release the content under the GFDL or similar and play with all of that fun licensing stuff. If you're inquiring about a Wikipedia article about yet-to-be published manga/doujin/whatever then there are several general criteria that the work has to meet the book notability guidelines. (Which is more than just being picked up by a major distributor.) --Kunzite 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.mixxonline.com/Kiyomidesu/review/1696.html

[2] ttp://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/tokyo-mew-mew-a-la-mode-gn-1

[3] ttp://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/tokyo-mew-mew-a-la-mode-gn-1

[4] ttp://school.familyeducation.com/educational-philosophy/individuality/38676.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]