Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Requesting input

Please come participate here as it involves an anime/manga-related question. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anime list review needed

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Last Exile episodes/archive1. Also, see the source query there. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's testing my sanity

Well just check that article.

Please tell me that i'm not having hallucinations. --KrebMarkt 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it too. Is this some kind of joke? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator is probably new to the process and doesn't understand what FAs have to be like. --erachima talk 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Contact the editor (who has less than 100 edits) about the mistake; then go to the FAC page and close it per WP:SNOWBALL, or ask an admin to do it.--十八 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed and CSDed the FA nom....ugh-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I just could not handle it that last night in France. --KrebMarkt 05:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

What kind of deletion would I put on this? Defense Devil. DragonZero (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a refimprove tag before that? It does not look like it is very notable for now. Or just merge it to the mangaka page since it got 2 sources. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another jumping the gun on article creation. I'd tag it for notability for now and see if anyone comes up with anything, especially once the first volume comes out. Plus a refimprove for good measure. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, after following the history and contribs of the sole editor, I found out that the article is written on DragonZero's user subpage and is moved without first notifying him. This seems like a call on speedydelete and page protection if the same thing happens again. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Placed speedy delete template on page. =_=> —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time this has happen. DragonZero, you may want to delete the drafts in you userspace and work on a local copy instead. --Farix (Talk) 10:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if this was a copy out of userspace before it was ready, by another editor no less, then yes, CSD author requested. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD housekeeping with a note to explain why and and {{userwip}} to your userspace one (or switch to working to a local copy). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't even a proper move. =P I'll get this in a second, since I was the one to originally move it back to DragonZero's userspace and all. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A local copy, is that like the main space? DragonZero (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It means a copy on your own PC. Granted you won't be able to work with the Wikimarkup from there, but it will prevent a lot of headaches over unauthorized copies to main space. --Farix (Talk) 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III in French Round 2

Marktreut edited again Lupin III on the French release issue.

I started a new discussion on verifiability, interpretation, weight and relevance of the added statement to the English article.

More opinion are very welcome since the last discussion and it's discussed here.

Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: We are closing to something but compromise & consensus are pointless if they concern only two editors so more opinions voiced the better. Thanks --KrebMarkt 10:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Candy Candy article troubles

In what is not the brightest moment ever for the project, the articles Candy Candy, Kyoko Mizuki, and Yumiko Igarashi have all basically been attack pieces against Igurashi for the last 4 years. I fortuitously ran into them and cleaned it up as best I could, but the pages could still use watchlisting by some of you who are more active than me, because this is apparently a big enough deal among the fans of the series that it's likely to crop up again. Thanks. --erachima talk 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted (and good to see you around again, erachima!). No guarantees on how much good I might do, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

Anyone interested in setting up the Collaboration (aka. Fortnights of Fun and Frolic) (from here) for next month? Extremepro (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually waiting for someone to just do it; that would be a good indicator that they're willing to put in the work and energy to sustain it. Other than that, I think we generally don't have the critical mass necessary to support even one collaboration, let alone two (I shared my thoughts on it with Collectonian and a few others around the time that thread was archived). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think next month is too soon, and per that previous discussion a week is too short anyway. I think the pros and cons of the idea need to be readdressed in a few months. I think we agreed on the concept and a loose plan of action, but there wasn't any drive to actually doing it (at least, not to the point where we could have started it). I am wondering if maybe collaborating better on peer reviews and likely GA candidates might be a better use of what resources we currently have now. It would be a good indicator of if we can pull off a sub-project before going through the hassle of organising it. I believe there are initial plans for a FA run on one article, and on a personal note I'm re-evaluating my own useage of time on wiki so I'm not as enthusiastic about the collaboration project as I was when I suggested it. I still want to do it, just not now.

So in summary - we need to work on more articles as a group before we start such a project "full time". Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely - for now, I'd recommend just asking for help on individual articles here, without expecting organization or a timeline. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How to cite pre-order items

Copying this from WP:VG since I'm not getting any responses there and this may cause a holdup eventually in any later assessment.

I'm trying to figure out how to cite pre-order items so that I can state they came with the release of the game, however, I can't find any press release or similar info saying it. For this example is a CD from List of Popotan soundtracks which does have an ID, but the only sites that list anything about when it was released aren't reliable.陣内_Jinnai 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually cite CDs from CD Japan if the producer's website doesn't list it. However, it is only as reliable as Amazon is reliable. There is info on Popotan though - here. Extremepro (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem is the "Popotan Maxi Single" which had a limited print run of 2000 copies and was distributed with the first print run of the original game. That it exists and the print run total I can verify - that it was released with the initial release of the CD game I haven't been able to yet, even though I know that do be the case.

I'm not sure if citing the first edition of a video game using the {{Cite video game}} would be good enough.陣内_Jinnai 04:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gundam cleanup

We have two lists which something needs to be done.

• List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam
• List of Gundam Universal Century mobile weapons

The first list is someone understandable as they break things down by series . . . sort-of. The second list, however is an absolute disaster with walls of meaningless numbers and names.

While I'm slowly working on the Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam series, does anyone want to use these lists as a bases for series specific lists and then send these two off to AFD? --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would propose adding Mobile weapons to the above. O_o G.A.S^talk 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That one at least talks about the concept of mobile weapons and how it evolves over the different iterations of the franchise. However, it is still full of original research and unsourced claims. --Farix (Talk) 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And here is another list: Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe --Farix (Talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

After splitting the TV series lists, finding out that two of them already have pre-existing lists under different names, having my newly created lists deleted, moving the pre-existing lists where the newly created lists were, and reformating the lists, I'm going to call it a day. *sigh* What a mess. --Farix (Talk) 03:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news is that the character lists have now been split into individual series with the OVAs and films containing their character lists within the article. This gives use a good bases to merge the individual articles into. The mobile weapons lists for the four TV series have also been created, though the mobile weapons for the films and OVAs have not been included as of yet. Still not sure if they should be included in the article, as a separate list, or if they should be noted at all. Victory Gundam is still missing its episode list, though I'm going to take a break for the night. If someone else beats me to it, that's fine, though I like someone to look over the episode list for Gundam ZZ and double check the romaji and English translations. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Densha Otoko

Anyone want to help me clean up this article. It was pretty popular - the only (I think) series with four different manga series about it. Thanks Extremepro (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Rurouni Kenshin characters

This list seems to be in need of a big clean up. The minor characters section seems totally unnecesary and there are lots of nonfree images (over ten). Rather than using individual images, it could use group images of the series.Tintor2 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions requested

In the Gin Tama article I made a themes section. In Wikipedia:Peer review/Gin Tama/archive1, it has been discussed whether such section should be changed to style or moved to production, but it has not been decided. A bit of more feedback would be very appreciated. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam SEED clean up

Well its a HUGE mess I have begun minor cleaning in my sandbox here. In the process I happened to merge Gundam Seed Destiny since that article is a huge mess and also seems to be a stub. I'm here to ask whether the one in my sandbox should replace the current Gundam SEED and Gundam SEED Destiny Page and will be taking opinions.

P.S. to those who objected my merge last time, this article includes all the information in the Gundam Seed Destiny page. Yes, yes it does. DragonZero (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not merge Seed:Special Edition, Destiny: Special Edition, Stargazer, Astray and the novel too? Rezumop (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they should be merged too but that would take alot of work, and the main article still needs to be cleaned up. DragonZero (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging still sounds really strange. They don't have a common name for them as a series(other than the in-universe Cosmic Era term), and due to different reasons, they do not share a same common fan base and are often mentioned separately. How much preceedents are present to have sequels listed in the same article? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the difference could be compared to the Full Metal Alchemist series. Different characters, plots, terms, etc. DragonZero (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For FMA, you still have the same lead characters(the two brothers). However, for Gundam SEED, you have different lead characters. Although it is quite a speculation, SEED-D's method is a reuse of Zeta Gundam, where in the sequel, a different lead character is used and the prequel's lead does not appear until later in the series. This is why I am not very supportive of the merge, it is not really that much of the same plot, they are two different series which only shares a common timeline. I would not oppose to having a franchise article but individual main articles for the specific stories like Star Wars and Star Trek. However, there is already one similar at Gundam for this franchise. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Starwars and Star Trek are made by completely different franchises you can not compare it to merging Gundam SEED Destiny into Gundam SEED. The plot was merged fine into the story and you could call it a direct sequel even if it follows another character. Sides in the sandbox, all the information in the Gundam SEED Destiny has been merged in, so nothing would be lost in the merge. All the plot was kept, the characters are shared in a list and etc. Also both articles need to be completely revamped, and it has been about two years so I figured it should be beginning its clean up by now. DragonZero (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am saying like the two franchises, I am not saying they are one. Both of the articles are talking about the franchise, not specific series. Like Star Wars, each of the 6 episodes have their own articles. For Star Trek, each of the TV series and movie have its own article. You can also say that the plot of the 6 episodes of Star Wars merges fine, but you don't merge all 6 episodes or any of the 3 using the argument stating they merge fine. And yes, nothing would be lost during the merge for the 6 episodes of Star Wars or all the episodes of Star Trek, yet you do not ask to merge them, they are separate things and as I recall, wikipedia got a guideline stating you do not put different things in one article. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Star Wars episodes follow the movie manual of style and they have established enough notability to have an article of their own. How about this. Right now, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny is merely a stub with no notability on it. It would be better to merge then it could be split when someone bothers to clean up and improve the article. DragonZero (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to merge when you feel they should be split? That's just making more work. All it needs is a writer. --Rezumop (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel it should be split, I feel it should be merged. I'm just trying to compromise with the objectors. DragonZero (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I hate the series with a passion, I understands it is one of the most popular series in anime, hiting top 5 in the over all sales in copies per episode in 2007. In the same ranking, SEED and SEED-D are separate entries, and this alone is notable enough to have the two separate. See Gundam for the actual sourced ranking. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I could not find the source where they are mentioned as separate entities. In the "Animated series and films", they are separate entities but only mention when the anime aired. DragonZero (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In the TV anime sales history total sales figure ranking averaged by episode, Latest version (TVアニメ歷代売上累計平均ランキング最新版TOP25), Evangelion ranked 1st, Mobile Suit Gundam ranked 2nd, SEED-D is 3rd, SEED is 4th, Zeta is 5th. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

After checking the rankings of "TVアニメ歷代売上累計平均ランキング最新版TOP25", Dragon ball GT and Dragon ball Z are on there too and are considered separate entries but were merged anyways. TVアニメ歷代売上累計平均ランキング最新版TOP25 is only ranking how well the animes sold anyhow. DragonZero (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Various poll rankings on the Newtype magazine and Animage also have them separate. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The anime reached top 3 in sales in less than 4 years, isn't it enough notability anyway? You talk about Dragonball and GT, those are much older series and still did not achieve such rankings. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Please everyone cool down a bit ;)

@DragonZero: I know it is not an Afd but have you checked WP:BEFORE and looked for evidence of notability for Gundam Seed Destiny?

@Mythsearcher: More than sells ranking reviews from RS are more convincing.

Here a quick look at Mania.com: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

The Gundan Seed Destiny coverage is just daunting. --KrebMarkt 05:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean something like this? (found on first page of google search) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More that. Review written by a staff member of a RS website. ANN encyclopedia part isn't RS because it's user editable but the review part is RS.

Bonus: the defunct Anime Fringe review.

Gundam Seed Destiny is notable that not a question the problem comes that no one want to write seriously about it. --KrebMarkt 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Write seriously about it? DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean editing heavily the article with references to assert both verifiability & notability. Currently with just one reference the article can't assert both.

You previously started a discussion for those issues and people started to say not merge but did nothing to resolve the issues afterward that warranted our current discussion. --KrebMarkt 07:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I hate the series with a passion, and thus it is very hard for me to stay npov. If someone wants to merge it, it would be better to put the work into improving it since it got some type of notability. And is this an RS? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

After discussion we have decided that nihonreview is not a RS.

DVD talk reviews: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] .

And BTW, I am concerned about this since if this is made a precedent, someone later might just go around and try to merge every series and their sequels. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dragonzero, the Gundam Seed Destiny article is not a stub, even after you removed nearly 1/3 of the content including most references. Your previous suggestion of a merge was rejected by consensus. None of those reasons have changed and your actions seem to indicate you now want to actively defy concensus. Sure, both series have Gundam Seed in the title, but every single Star Trek series has Star Trek in the title aswell. That does not mean they are suitable merger candiates. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I only removed the character list in the article since it has its own character list already. There were two references in there which could be found in the character articles themselves so it was legit. Also, you restored broken links. DragonZero (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragonzero has the right the raise the issue again since little have been done to improve the situation since the previous discussion. People argued for not merge and Dragonzero accepted the apparent consensus with the belief that more than just words some improvements will be done to the article. No one can pretend that the situation improved and we are back here again with people exchanging nearly the same arguments ad nauseam. People should have assumed their responsibility and do the minimum of edit to assert more the verifiability & the notability of the article which was not done.

About the Animage references, they are broken and I think the MoS is to have the reference link not the translation of that link through Google and others. More than that it should be clarified if the prize was for Gundam Seed or Gundam Seed Destiny. --KrebMarkt 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the main problem of all Gundam related articles right now. I have been working on a lot of other Gundam related articles that are of my interest and SEED-D is definitely not anything close to the line of what I have planned to do. Either we need more regular editors, more time or less people trying to engage in long and tedious discussions. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

At the worst people should have stockpiled reviews as external links and tried to verify the DVDs release. Agree that we badly need someone willing spend time on Gundam Seed Destiny. I don't like Gundam much so that won't be me. You are already involved in many Gundam article so asking you is out of question. --KrebMarkt 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would try my best with those articles but only if it continues from my sandbox. Otherwise, re-sorting both of the messes will be difficult. DragonZero (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly understand what you mean, I guess it would not be a smart idea to try to keep most of the wordings in the current versions. As long as sources are kept, I do not have a problem having them rewritten if you want to do so. However, I don't want to see them merge, that's all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Stepping into the discussion... I am interested in working on a reception section using the Anime News Network and AnimeOnDVD.com (Mania.com) reviews. I can also try to add information regarding the manga versions, but this will require additional research on my part. Just in response to KrebMarkt, there are people who want to write seriously about Gundam SEED Destiny, but as it is a large job that will take a great deal of time, it would help if others would be willing to help with other sections. I cannot believe that I would be the only person on the WikiProject that would want to reform the article. As per the merge with the Gundam SEED article, I personally think it would be unwise. The two series were created over a year apart, and as addressed already have different protagonists, different story constraints, and had different production histories. Simply because Destiny is a sequel to SEED is not enough to combine the articles. This would be similar to merging the Beverly Hills Cop article with that of its sequels. As each was produced separately, and were never in continuous run on Japanese television (i.e., one did not lead directly into the other, either in broadcast schedule or direct plot-line), it seems to me that merging the articles is simply a way of reducing the problem status of both articles, rather than directly improving the articles themselves. It may ultimately be impossible for me (and anyone who assists) to improve the Destiny article sufficiently, but at the very least, I think it is worth a try. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. There are reviews from ANN, Mania.com, Anime Fringe & DVD Talk. --KrebMarkt 06:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am at work on it now, and will have something up later tonight. As the Reception section is going to take a very long time, I am first revising the section that is currently labeled 'Soundtrack,' and am turning it into a 'CDs' section as per similar sections on Featured and Good articles (i.e., Tokyo Mew Mew). I will try to do the Reception soon, and will use the reviews you have linked. Does anyone have any information on the manga or video games that is citable? My specialty is in writing the article content itself, but I am willing to do more extensive research if I have a lead as to what direction to work in. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I will do some research but i can't put it as my top priority as i have a big backlog of stuff to translate or summarize from French to English for others articles. I will stock my finding here --KrebMarkt 07:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack section in place. More to come in this section soon (probably tomorrow, see edit history report for what is still to be added). Reception section will be next. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>I copied the reviews found into Gundam Seed Destiny talk page. --KrebMarkt 06:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: By digging the Gundam references accross the web, i'm rather convinced to keep Gundam Seed & Gundam Seed Destiny apart one from the others. That doesn't mean status-quo so here my suggestions to improve both articles:

• Manga & Novel adaptations should be handled inside their respective article and not be spin-out article. Existing Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (novel) should be merged back into Gundam Seed & Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: The Edge into Gundam Seed Destiny. Further coverage of Novel & Manga should be done inside their respective series article.
• Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: The Movie should not be mentioned in the Gundam Seed Destiny article. It's increasing the feeling that the two series can be handled as one.
• Reformat Music of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED with a real split between Gundam Seed CDs & Gundam Seed Destiny ones to reinforce the idea that they are two series apart albeit in the same fictional universe.

@DragonZero While the discussion did not end with merge, you shocked the coconut tree enough that people are working on Gundam Seed Destiny. Thanks --KrebMarkt 18:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have worked on GSD a long time ago if I'd known people wanted it. I had no idea the article was in such bad shape until I happened into the WikiProject discussion and noticed all this. Normally I don't do any Gundam stuff, so this is all new for me. It's dragging me off my priority of trying to work on Madhouse related articles, but so be it. I can probably be done with what I'm capable of in a week or so. After that, it'll be up to other people to try and improve it more and keep it decent. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to have Seed Astray under the Seed and Seed Destiny Astray under the Seed Destiny article. The mangas in the CE series reveal quite a lot of background story and relationships between different part of plots.(Say, in the plot of Seed, the anime have the lead strangely saved from Earth to a space colony with nil explanation, the manga tells the story about the lead in the manga saved him to a blind teacher and the politically influencial teacher moved him to space.) Without the manga, both of the anime series would be highly incomplete in any sense, so having them together seems very reasonable.
• It seems like the only thing for certain now of the movie is that a sound actress(for Stella) in Destiny will be voicing a part in the movie. No one even know if the movie is still being produced...
• I have no idea what that article is.

And finally, thanks LainEverliving for all the great work, KrebMarkt for the sources and DragonZero for concerning the articles. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list Former Featured article candidates

What is the point of this section? In the time these articles were nominated, they had various issues. The current Naruto article does not have notable issues, but the InuYasha and Cowboy Bebop are still in need of several fixes. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, to point out things to keep working on. Keep them on our radar. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)My guess would be that its presumed that articles that were FACs once would be the fasted to take to FAC again other than current GAs, so it highlighting those in case someone wants to work on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's so then all GA and FL candidates should also be listed.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GANs are a different group as nominations are not really watched like the FLs and there can be a wide gulf between the two. I do agree that adding a section for former FLCs might be good, though). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've always wondered why there aren't corresponding lists for GANs and FLCs. Collectonian's reasoning on omitting GANs makes sense, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I also wondered why we watch FAC's, but not GAN's and FLC's.陣内_Jinnai 23:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Seiya

Does anyone want to check over these edits to the Saint Seiya. I've already had to revert a number of edits from this IP for chancing the importance level of various series without giving any explanation. --Farix (Talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring their weird use of the first/last boxes, it looks fine. --erachima talk 12:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Horrible infobox edits. Reverted. He's also made some other MoS bad edits in other articles. Reverted those as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The importance scale's instructions say that anyone can change the importance to mid importance if they reasonably feel so, and their edits seem to be in good faith. If you disagree with their reassessments, I would urge you to consider the idea on its own merit. Saint Seiya is extremely important to yaoi/Boy's Love, as it was part of the yaoi doujinshi explosion in the late eighties. Although there were Gundam parodies before, Captain Tsubasa (in 1985) and Saint Seiya (in 1987) put yaoi 'in the vernacular'. (Matt Thorn, being quoted by Mark McHarry) (please note that link is NSFW, suggest turning images off if yaoi squicks you.) --Malkinann (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much the bump to mid as the fact that the same person started out bumping it to top and high. Also, while it's true we allow anyone to bump to mid, just like all other edits, there should be some provided justification for the bump, and this person has never provided such justification. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to an importance bump after a bit of discussion here; you raise some good arguments in favor of bumping it, Malkinann. As for those infobox edits... well, they've been reverted, so I suppose I'll stop there. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See what happened at Masami Kurumada: [17]. I reverted that but I'm pointing so that more users could keep an eye on it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion

In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion#Merge Proposal, Dandysephy started a discussion about merging Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise, Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) to Neon Genesis Evangelion per WP:MOS-AM. Like the Dragon Ball discussion, there are various oppositions with no proper claims (and a bit uncivil). More comments would be appreciated.Tintor2 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only just seen this but I have to say that attempting to restart the discussion really wasn't a good idea. It needs time to settle and be expanded upon (which I have neither the time, patience or a stable enough internet connection to do). It really needs to be left a couple of months. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet I still replied there. *sigh*. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb Aoki preference

I'm wondering if this can be used in the reception section of articles. I'm have no doubt that the website is RS. However, I'm doubting whether a preference of an industry expert (Deb Aoki) is reliable enough to be put into the reception section of articles. Extremepro (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually its a bit reversed. About.com is not always RS, however Deb Aoki's section on manga is and yes, that can (and should) be used in the reception section of articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

KrebMarkt must whack Extremepro because since the time Extremepro worked for the requested article department, he must have seen more than once, reviews from Deb Aoki but he never asked why Deb Aoki was RS until now ;)

Reliable Source, she is. --KrebMarkt 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to whack me on my talk page. Extremepro (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Aoki is, indeed, a recognized industry expert, in no small part because of her reviews for About.com. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, is Katherine Luther an industry expert? She does reviews for anime.about.com, and she was added to the online reliable sources page awhile back without discussion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z episode titles

There is currently a disagreement/discussion regarding whether the English translated titles should continue to be included at List of Dragon Ball Z episodes, and regarding the accuracy of those translations and the dub/redub title issue. Additional views would be useful at Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes#Dub and redub title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 movie

I'm having a time with another edit that insists that the preview for the Mobile Suit Gundam 00 movie that was seen at the end of the final episode does not include a fifth light. Of course, I can clearly see the light inside Jupiter. But I have a high-quality 1280x720 version of the scene to reference from while the editor is using a YouTube version of the same episode. His/she claims that since he/she can't see it on the YouTube video then it doesn't exist and my eyes are playing tricks. So I'm requesting additional input from those who have seen the preview. --Farix (Talk) 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this article deserve a proper burial

That one: Cyber Girls Akihabara.

Home brew doujinshi? Existence of the said stuff isn't even verified. Just a big chunk of plot & in-universe items.

I won't feel sorry if anyone press the PROD or the AFD button. Thanks--KrebMarkt 18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A google search -wikipedia turns up nothing interesting--fanfic sites, deviantart, GaiaOnline, other search engines' attempts to find something, etc. I'll go ahead and PROD the thing. --Masamage ♫ 19:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded as the one who brought the issue. That one is a stealthy one as it managed to stand two years unnoticed. --KrebMarkt 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone also noticed that the external link given in the article leads to this: http://www.geocities.com/slgslucky/index2.htm, this looks like it is a fanmade hoax, and should be up for speedy delete. - Knowledgekid87 00:33, 20 August 2009 (AT)

I wonder if it's related to Cyber Team in Akihabara? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so, I tried going to Akihabara Madness which was mentioned in the article and got this: http://www.drunkduck.com/Real_Akihabara_Madness/ It looks like a fan made comic. "The series was published weekly via Web on the author's webblog appearing from the first time on January 2000 in a mini series called Akihabara Madness which halted all of a sudden on March 2001." - Knowledgekid87 1:12, 20 August 2009 (AT)

We might need to have the page salted if notability can't be found (and I'd say its unlikely at this point). Looks like there is still a lot of interest in the page.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Salting is only necessary in the case of repeated recreation (and TBH, for that reason I thought at first that you were talking about Defense Devil). It is not necessary for this article at this time. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Month of Gantz's start

Most articles say that Gantz started publication in October 2000, but there is no source. Does this Shueisha's site confirms such month?Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, no. It says Start of serialisation: Combined issue 4&5 of 2000 (連載開始：2000年4＆5合併号, Rensai Kaishi: 2000-nen 4&5-gappei-gō), that it was first published in the combined issue of weeks 4 and 5 of 2000, which would have been released over New Year's going from 1999 to 2000, in 1999 but dated 2000. Which... makes it more confusing. Akata (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The FL list of chapters says it was released in June 2000. The Japanese version of the article says the release date was July 13, 2000. Arsonal (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The July 13 issue may have been released at the end of June 2000, so the FL may be correct. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this magazine tend to be confusing.Tintor2 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised though. Magazine release dates threw me off a bit when fixing Twin Spica because apparently Comic Flapper monthly issues are released about 3 weeks prior to the actual month printed on the issue. Arsonal (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's common to postdate publications all over the world, including the Anglosphere. Alas. (And it's not a new trend, either -- Elizabethan printers did it too.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

From this time searching the internet rather than relying on a source I'm presented with... I've found that it started in issue 31 of 2000, which was dated 13th July 2000, but actually released on 29th June. However for that Shueisha site to say issue 4&5 (which I've found was dated 29th January), as well as some pages on Japanese Wikipedia... was there a pilot chapter? Akata (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There may have been. I've seen many other series which do a test run of one or two chapters, see what reader feedback is, then start the series if there is enough positive feedback about it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Voice actors refs

Direct lessons from Jun Fukuyama's Afd.

First with the ANN encyclopedia no more RS now, we are back at fixing each seiyu role one by one :(

Second we have to broaden, our list of RS covering seiyu.

Here some magazines on Seiyu:

• Voice NewType: Official site List of issues
• Pick-up Voice: Official site List of issues
• 声優アニメディア: Official website found no list of back issue
• 声優グランプリ: Official website archives of past issues

Headaches hit me. --KrebMarkt 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also Voice Animage, back as a quarterly roman album from Tokuma Shoten. There's also Hitoshi DOi's Seiyuu Database. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Has the Hitoshi Doi site ever been tested in a GA/FA? I'm currently using it in Love Hina, which I'm hoping to have sent to Wp:GAN within the week. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitoshi Doi's site has been previously discussed as a reliable source, and it is used as a source in Sailor Moon - hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Establishing reliability.

Could someone help establish the reliability of the site aga-search.com, especially the Detective Conan Section since its a valuable source of Detective themed animes. If its impossible, I understand. Thanks. DragonZero (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Without translation, I'd say its unlikely to be reliable. Seems like your standard search aggregator pulling in content from Amazon.co.jp, Wikipedia Japan, and some other similar sites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:CharR to list entry discussion

In a current TfD for Template:R from character, the CharR template has come under discussion as to the appropriateness of its name and whether the two should be merged, along with possibly renaming the similar Template:FictR to list entry and Template:ER to list entry templates. As these templates were created per consensus from a discussion among the Television, Anime/manga, and Video game projects while dealing with many character to list merges, I am notifying the three projects so they can add any input desired at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24#Template:R from character -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

fansubbing groups

Why are there no articles that document fansubbing groups? Such as Taka or Dattabayo? NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of a lack of reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 14:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's easier to find reliable sources (such as profiles in The Comics Journal) about scanlation groups. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But they have press releases on their website. And they have been in the news. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The large majority of fansub groups are not notable. Their having press releases on their own site is irrelevant - you can't make yourself notable by talking about yourself. They require significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources to show notability, and even then extra care must be taken with such articles as, by their nature, their sites violate WP:COPYRIGHT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain that to me. How does such an external site violate Wikipedia's copyright policy and why do we have to take extra care when writing about such sites? Goodraise 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, fansub sites should never be linked to as they are copyright violations per Wikipedia's policy (we'll avoid legal discussions for now). Hence most are currently blacklisted, with more added regularly if they start spamming articles. They should, in general, never be linked too. However, with actually notable groups, an article may be appropriate, but it must be carefully written and monitored to avoid promoting the group and to deal with the extra issues of handling sourcing and linking if its blacklisted. Neutrality is also always more difficult. Its similar to some of the issues that have to be dealt with for articles on notable hacking software and the like - some have no links to their actual site at all because they violate policy, but the topic is still notable so they have an article just with no links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So they have press releases. I'm not really impressed because anyone can write a press release. It's all a matter of formatting and distributing them to the press. I've done it before for a local con and had the releases republished by ANN and AnimeCon.cons before. In fact, I recently had to remind another staff member that just because something was published on the convention's website doesn't mean that it was an actual "press release". --Farix (Talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems awfully strange that fansubbing groups have a lot of controversy surrounding them and yet there are no articles about them. If, by third party sources you mean news agencies, then yes there are articles about them written by journalists. I'm confused about the "copyright" policy becuase there are articles about limewire, bittorrent etc...Websites like Dattabayo and Taka write about their releases and link them to downloads, so you know their press releases are legitamate. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have a few out there like AnimeSuki which has been mentioned in the news specifically on a few occasions. However, like what we are doing with emulators in WP:VG, most aren't notable. At best they could go on a list like List of anime fansubbing groups or List of English anime fansubbing groups and the like for other languages.陣内_Jinnai 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would insist that we NOT have a list of fansubbing groups. It would be a nightmare of self promotion and would even violate WP:NOT, particularly WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Farix (Talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a List of video game console emulators which is on a similar legal grey area of copyright law, especially ones that use HLE. If we can have that, I don't see what we can't have such a list above.陣内_Jinnai 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but worth noting anyways: Distribution of fansubs is not in a legal grey area. Copyright applies regardless of whether a local company has licensed a title. That it is rarely prosecuted doesn't make it any less illegal. Goodraise 21:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a grey area because the law has never been tested. Emulators for games have had court cases. However, I'm not going to push the issue as I agree with you on the principle that it would be a linkfarm promoting these small unnotable groups. So I guess we can agree to disagree on our reasoning?陣内_Jinnai 22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Emulators are a different breed -- an emulator, at least the majority of them, have no copyrighted material, outside that which is true for any software. You can use emulators without copyright violation, even if the use is usually pretty limited. A fansub is a completely different story. It may be tollerated, but as it says right below this, "Distribution of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal." They aren't as comparible as you think they are. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That it has never been tested is part of the misinformation. There is nothing that needs to be tested. Distribution of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. It's as simple as that. The only reason people think that it might not be illegal is that the copyright holders tend to not enforce their rights until a title is licensed. Goodraise 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree it probably wouldn't hold up for licensed works, it's unclear whether it could apply to works not shown outside the country of origin as it does not constitute a loss of profit. For items licensed in a given language that can be shown. For items that aren't, that isn't so clear.陣内_Jinnai 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have the right to distribute copyrighted material without permission. It's illegal. Whether the copyright holder plans to make profit from it or not is irrelevant. We don't make a profit from the encyclopedia we're writing here, that doesn't mean copyright doesn't apply. If you distribute any part of any Wikipedia article anywhere without providing attribution inline with either the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 or the GFDL, you're doing so without permission and therefore in violation of copyright. It's the same thing in every aspect. Goodraise 23:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that alalogy as the license isn't based on profit motive. Fansubs are based of subtitling items that are used for making profit. Also just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's legal. Countries routinely pass laws that get struck down when they are brought to court because the law is illegal. That this hasn't been brought to court is not evidence that it's illegal.陣内_Jinnai 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we please stop arguing over the legal status of fansubs? None of us are lawyers (unless you are, in which case, cool for you), and it's not like anything we agree on here would ever be used in a court of law if the issue found itself there. In addition, this has absolutely no bearing on any of our articles: are fansubs illegal? are they not illegal because of some loophole in the law or something? It really doesn't matter; WP:EL says we can't link to them anyways.「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be thorough, in answer to Jinnai: just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's illegal. Governments can pass whatever laws they want, but generally each country has a council able to check if the law respects the Constitution. If a law has not been deemed unconstitutional, then it is not illegal. And the copyright laws have never been deemed unconstitutional. So Jinnai, it is not up to Wikipedians to decide, according to their personal opinions about controversial topics, which laws are to be respected. Fansubs are copyright violations, this is set in stone, and this discussion was not made to change it. And yes, it is very clear that unlicenced works are also protected by copyright laws, as per the Berne Convention.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a list will be put up for AfD as soon after it's creation. And I can almost guarantee that the AfD will result in a deletion as the list will violate two of Wikipedia's policies. --Farix (Talk) 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What about scanlation groups?
--NBahn (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same thing, a list of scanlation groups would violate WP:LINKFARM and WP:COPYLINK. After all, what really is the propose of having such lists? --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that then. But it would be nice if we could have seperate articles.NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Short of a fansubbing group being covered in The New York Times for some court case, I doubt any separate article will ever be created.--十八 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've seen increasing interest in fansubbing from magazines and the like. Earlier this month, a noted UK magazine (the exact name eludes me at this point) published an article on fansubbing in which it mentioned several groups, and the changing nature of the anime industry, such as its increasing reliance on online streaming. I gauge that several more might follow in the coming years, especially with the influence it has had on online streaming, and the added exposure that the latter has brought of late. Perhaps not now, but in a few years, who knows? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would really give any one group notability, just the topic as a whole which already has an article (though it needs work). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed not at this moment of time, but in a few years, things might very well change. The company at the forefront of anime's online streaming production, MX Media, was founded by a former fansubber with most of its employees, translators and timers alike, being former fansubbers themselves. I think it might not be long before a major newspaper picks up on things similar to this, and gives groups and the like mainstream coverage. Definitely not at this moment in time, but you never know what might happen in a few years. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 23:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Except for cases where a group goes "legit", I seriously doubt it. --Farix (Talk) 23:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it is crystal ball-ing to read the future, but its also a sign of systemic bias to say because something isn't legit it never will be notable.陣内_Jinnai 00:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Ganryuu) The magazine is probably NEO. They're about the only UK anime magazine anyway... They did run an article about fansubbing in last month's issue, I have the issue with it in. Akata (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about this. I've recently discovered an article called PARADOX, they are a group which illegally release software. If they have an article why can't Taka or Dattabayo? Taka and Dattabayo seem to be the most famous fansubbing groups at the moment becuase of their releases. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See the "Raids and Arrests" portion of that article. That's at least some coverage in third-party, reliable sources, thus making the group notable enough to discuss on this point, and then the rest is background info. Dattebayo nor Taka have had run-ins with the law.--十八 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact I just found an article called List of warez groups. So I think there should at least be an article called list of fansubbing groups. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

... which has been tagged for needing third-parties sources and additional verification for over a year and a half. Which is pretty much the standard needed here for such a list -- find the third-party coverage. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee get ready for CSD, Prod & few Afds for the years to come with a such article as it will be literally under siege :( --KrebMarkt 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What's a CSD and Prod? I know what an afd is but I've never heard of those terms. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion & Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --KrebMarkt 21:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has way too many acronyms. I can never keep track of them the way that wikilawyers do.
--NBahn (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But they are usually easy to figure out—just put "WP:" in front: WP:Prod and WP:CSD:) G.A.S^talk 09:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Glossary may also be of use. Goodraise 09:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind next time. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

fansubbing groups (again)

I don't feel that in particular this topic was completely addressed. The general feeling was that:

• Fansubbing articles "lack third-party coverage" (Farix & Quasirandom)
• Fansubbing is illegal and because of that an article shouldn't be written (Farix & Collectonian)
• Fansubbing websites, such as Taka & Dattebayo's, AND their press releases are "not reliable"(Farix & Quasirandom) when in fact sources from direct websites (such as Demonoid) are allowed to be used as sources.
• Writing a Fansubbing article would "violate copyright policy"(Collection)
• Making a fansubbing article would "promote copyright" (Collectonian)

For point one aren't primary sources good enough? Points 2, 4 and 5 can be scored out - this does not concentrate on the subject as there are many copyright busting sites such as the Pirate Bay and others. This leaves point 3. Some magazines have released articles mentioning them. Crunchyroll was made because fansubbers were worrying US companies. If there are articles like that out there on the web then WHY can we NOT have at least a "list of fansubbing groups" article or just list seperate well known groups???? I can list several. AnimeSuki is another. They have websites and are releasing it through them. It just seems stupid not to have them on wikipedia of all places. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, primary sources are NOT enough. Primary sources do not establish notability (i.e. you can not make yourself notable) and no, none of those points can just be ignored, even if you personally don't agree with them. They are all backed by actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal opinion. Crunchyroll is notable because its going from being a pirate, video hosting site to a legitimate, public company received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources making it notable. 99.9% of fansubbing groups are NOT notable. I can't even think of a single one that is. The ones you mentioned aren't even major groups or even well known to actual fans, must less being notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian has been mentioned several times by independent reliable sources by name for its practices and for citing an example of a group. It is not a moving in the same direction as Crunchyroll as far as I know either. Don't assume that nothing that isn't in your terms "legit" is automatically unnotable without actually doing research on it.

I agree though that point #1 is not enough to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 21:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think you lost a crucial noun in that first sentence there. As in, the name of the group you were trying to talk about. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think anyone said "Fansubbing is illegal and because of that an article shouldn't be written", and if they did, they are completely wrong; however, because of the legality of the matter, combined with the quiet tolerance companies have for it, they for the most part keep out of mention of sources that would make them notable. And I imagine Collectonian said that LINKING to them would violate copyright, not writing about them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was the general gist of it. So what you are saying is that if people can find "third party sources" then an article could be made? Can you explain to me what a "third party source" might be? NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, if people can find RELIABLE third-party sources, and show SIGNIFICANT coverage (i.e. not just one-two sentences in a single source). Some random mention of a fansub group in an article on fansubbing in general is not an establishment of notability. Read WP:RS to learn the basics of what reliable sources are. "Third party" - means not associated with the group and not a repeat of the groups "press releases" - i.e. neutral coverage. Read WP:N for the basics of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's forget about articles on individual groups for a moment. I'm interested in better discussing a list of groups - NarSakSasLee, if you're serious about such a list, the first thing you're going to have to do is lay out some clear criteria for inclusion (for example, in its current iteration, List of manga series by volume count only lists manga series with at least 35 volumes, which is clearly noted in its lead). You'll also have to figure out what information on groups should be presented and how to present it, but at the same time you must keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory - that is, in this case, the list can't just serve as an index of what groups have subbed what anime. If you can decide on these two things to the satisfaction of others participating in this discussion, I'd be more amenable to the creation of such a list. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course any such list will also have to exclude all links to the fansub/scanlation groups' websites to avoid WP:COPYLINK. One will have to clearly state what encyclopedic propose the list services. Otherwise, its a sitting AfD target. --Farix (Talk) 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well some criteria would have to be

1. They have to had been fansubbing for years, I think 2 years would be enough. AnimeSuki would be an exception since they sub unliscened anime only.
2. They should be well known enough as to be mentioned in articles and websites. I know Dattebayo is since they go to Otakon and have appeared in youtube videos and been listed going there.
3. They must have appeared in magazines, like NEO, or other or have been mentioned there and what anime they sub.

I can only think of this right now but will probably think up more criteria soon. I'm going to have a look over the warez groups and how they've been structured. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. This is very arbitrary and lists have been sent to AfD and deleted for such. Also, how are you going to verify that they've been around for that long? List of anime conventions had a similar problem because the "minimum three years and 2,000 in attendance" criteria, while completely verifiable, was deemed too arbitrary. The criteria has since changed to demonstrating a defined level of notability.
2. What articles and websites will count towards being "well known" and how does one prevent a group from fudging things?
3. Is it simply mention or are we going to require more then just a trivial mention? Trivial mentions should be ruled out if this criteria is to work.

And again, exactly what is the purpose of this list? You currently haven't defined one. List of anime conventions can be used as a navigational list, but it also groups conventions together based on geographical location, making it easier for someone to find articles on conventions in a specific region. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Saint Seiya IP editor strikes again

Our Brazilian Saint Seiya IP editor has tried three times to up the importance rating of Ring ni Kakero‎ from low to high. The "claimed" reason is that this series is "generally considered the manga that originally 'made' style Shōnen Jump", a claim that is entirely unsourced and I find rather dubious given that Weekly Shōnen Jump started nearly a decade before. --Farix (Talk) 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He has also recently taken up hacking additional rows into the infoboxes on Saint Seiya. *wishes StringFunctions were enabled so we could prevent this type of HTML injection* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Split of List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

I started a discussion to split Brotherhood section from List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes to List of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood episodes at Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes#Splitting for Brotherhood. Feel free to join to the discussion. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Popotan soundtrack PR

I put up the soundtrack article for a peer review and could use some more input as the issues with the article are rather complex and multi-layered.陣内_Jinnai 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

importance rating of non-licensor/distrubtor companies

Right now it's not clear beyond the top-ranked studios how these should be ranked. Mid and high deal exclusively with licensors and distributors. I recently came across this with Gonzo (company), which is clearly not a top company, but I believe i'm not sure where to put it other than low as (other). I personally believe a rating of high is appropriate as it has a history of notable worksm, but I can't really say because there doesn't seem any indicator for studios in high/mid.

This may become important if we ever get the collaboration effort up, which maybe I might do once this gets resolved and a couple other issues I've sorted out are finished if RL doesn't bog me down.陣内_Jinnai 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gonzo has done enough shows and films that have caught critical attention that it should be at least a mid. Though in general, I'd talk to the Assessment Department about the guidelines for importance for studios, as they developed the rest of the guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought the assessment guidelines as developed were somewhat incomplete - another prime example is that we have no examples provided of top-importance anime or manga series articles - we are the anime and manga project, aren't we? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions to improve the criteria? (and do not forget adequate examples). ^_^ G.A.S^talk 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dinoguy1000, problem with that is what we came to with when we forged the video game importance guideline. People tend to rate confuse popularity as meaning encyclopedic importance (which the latter is what this is). At the time we passed the buck, and still have no officially revognized top-importance videog game series/games because there is a fundamental devide between those who believe importance should reflect the impact to the genre and others who believe it's popularity (in the interest of full disclosure i'm on the former) and that any series that is notable enough would be mentioned in something like History of anime. I believe such a thing would occur here.

Beyond the lack of studios that aren't top importance i think we may need to denote importance for related media like albums and songs that have their own articles as I could see some of them being mid-importance especially when they helped propell a band to popularity, but not beyond mid.陣内_Jinnai 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time the guidelines were written, we were not able to cover all possibilities due to the scope of the project; and had to suffice with Other: All other (unless discussed here). (Thus, not only would WP:ANIME/ASSESS do quality assessments upon request, but also importance assessments).

In the case of Gonzo, I rather it is (at least) mid importance since the company is "well known", and assessed it accordingly during the Tag & Assess (I was not sure about how much influence the company had—a rating up to high was provided for" High: Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese companies involved in manga and/or anime production).

Other, including websites" was meant to include companies not directly involved in the production and distribution of anime (e.g. ANN).

G.A.S^talk 06:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I do think we should clarrify and expand it though. The scope of the project has been clarified and so to should the importance guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not both? (boy, I'm going to regret saying that, I just know it...) For the period of time a series is incredibly popular, it tends to be quite important to anime and manga (based on my own observations and reflection), and when it ceases being so popular, its importance can be reassessed from the standpoint of a more "objective" long-term influence on the genre. The only downside I can see is how we decide what qualifies as "popular" - no matter what definition or process we may come up with, some random fan somewhere is going to take issue because their pet series isn't "important" according to us. But then, we can somewhat mitigate that if we make a point of discussing all proposed bumps to high- or top-importance as a project (which we should be doing currently anyways). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP1.0 bot calculates the popularity of articles (based on hits) seperately. I further believe that they specify that importance is not the same as popularity. (you will have to look for this yourself, I cannot provide a link right now...) Maybe not what you wanted to hear:P G.A.S^talk 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, really doesn't matter much to me either way, as long as we can decide on *something* (even if it's just that we can't decide on it and should thus ignore it for now)... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To get historical perspective you need some distance (generally) from when the item was created. 5 years is a typical minimum. There are a few exceptions of ongoing titles that have, or will, clearly have influence. These tiles are usually world-wide or at least country-wide best-sellers. One Piece and Naruto clearly fit this mold as One Piece has routinely been in the top 10 (mutliple releases at a time) in Japan (and possibly here soon in the North America) and Naruto for its consistant popularity in North America to the point it has dominated almost the entire manga market.陣内_Jinnai 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Ai Yori Aoshi episodes

This looks like a pretty good article List of Ai Yori Aoshi episodes is there a way to get it above Start class? Sorry im just not Fimilar on how this works.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2009 (AT)

Consistant summary length of 200-300 words for each episode, proper formatting (see some code errors), an image of the box cover with proper fair use rationale and more citations (you can use general citations for stuff like episode summaries, see List of Bleach episodes (season 1) (and the other Bleach episode lists) and List of Popotan episodes for how and when it's good to use general citations.陣内_Jinnai 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I though episode summaries were suppose to be between 100 to 200 words. But I may be able to work on some of the episode summaries. Depends on if I can motivate myself. Though someone will need to copyedit/grammar check me afterwards. --Farix (Talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, guideline is "100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines", though we've tended to do the 150-250 rather than 100-200 except for simple plots. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the complexity of Ai Yori Aoshi, or lack of, I seriously don't think the summaries will be on the higher end of the spectrum. It is a romantic comedy with a bit of a harem theme. 150 words per episode would be a good average for the series except for a couple of episodes at the end of each season. --Farix (Talk) 00:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode summaries don't need a reference, general or otherwise, the episode itself is the reference. :P Also, general references are tending to be more frowned upon in some more recent FA/FL discussions. It would be better to use inline citations to more clearly note that you are citing the episode air date. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I which the people at FL would make up their damn minds. First they wanted specific references for dates, then they didn't want the date specifically referenced but wanted general references, now they are back to specific references. --Farix (Talk) 00:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

General refs are still fine for B-class either way. He was asking to get it above Start-class at a minimum. Let general refs be dealt with in FAC/FLC, but yea I wish they'd make up their mind.陣内_Jinnai 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is best to keep FLC in mind when building an episode list from the beginning. It prevents a lot of reworking later on.List of Shugo Chara! episodes is simply in needs of some copyediting for grammar before it can be resubmitted to FLC. In fact, that was the reason it failed it's first FLC nomination. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to do it. --Farix (Talk) 02:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in that regards as there's been swaying consensus, i'd rather not tell him to use/not use general refs when things have clearly gone back and forth.陣内_Jinnai 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Go with specific as that is the flava-of-the-month. And it will be easier to convert to general references if it becomes a sticking point. But in future FLC, I would encourage everyone to point out the inconsistency regarding date references and we need to pick a standard and stick with it. --Farix (Talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Astroboy maybe split to Astro boy (1963 TV Series)

I think that Astro Boy should be split into a separate article with the title called Astro boy 1963 TV series to differentiate it from the main article which doesn't seem to set clear its talking about the 60's version. I think these links would be invaluable

[18][19][20]

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? The series is adapted from the manga, and there appear to be no significant differences. Unless there are significant differences, adaptations are included in the main series article. It is clear to me from the first few lines that is about the manga series Astro Boy and its adaptations, including the anime series. The only reason the other two anime adaptations have separate articles is no one has worked on getting them remerged back to the main. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball Z episodes

Due to some disruption, the list is currently locked. Meanwhile, wanting to confirm that there is consensus to split this list into season lists per the Funimation divisions and the updates to the episode template that will allow the split to work. Another editor and the disruptive editor feel the list should be split by story arc or saga instead (presumably reverting the main list back to its old form). Additional views at Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes#Split -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reffing Shonen Sunday

How would I use 2009's Issue 19 of Weekly Shōnen Sunday as a reference? I don't have the magazine by the way. DragonZero (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to use {{cite journal}} to format the reference for you. {{cite journal|year=2009|journal=[[Weekly Shōnen Sunday]]|issue=19}} produces Weekly Shōnen Sunday (19). 2009. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) However, giving more information would be advisable. See the template's documentation for a full list of parameters. Goodraise 21:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurapika's gender

We are still having ip edits and people contending Kurapika's gender.陣内_Jinnai 07:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nihongo skillz needed STAT

An editor has placed a Template:notenglish tag on List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters because most of the almost 1600 chapter titles have not been translated. As is their right, as they correctly point out, this is the English Wikipedia. However, sometime recently, the template has been modified to give a time limit: "If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks it will be listed for deletion and/or moved to the Wikipedia in its current language." If anyone with the necessary skills is up for rescue work, that would be a Very Good Thing. I say STAT because, there's a LOT of translation work here: this is the longest continuously serialized manga in history, which recently published chapter 1600 -- people will have to get started now if they're to finish in the deadline, unless you divide things up somehow. (I'm willing to help coordinate, but I have not the skillz myself.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Having done that work on a few pages, there's no way it could be done in two weeks, and no reason for it to be given such a short time limit. I suspect the inexperienced editor who added it simply didn't know there was a time limit on the tag. Still worth doing eventually, though, if anyone out there actually likes the series enough to go through and translate. Maybe make a request on the Japanese version of the page? Doceirias (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking WikiProject Japan for help, actually -- but is there a ja.wiki equivalent? It's not linked in our version, and I'm not seeing anything that looks like a subpage link on the main article. (I'm not so sure about the inexperienced, though, given they knew the right template to apply and had previously prodded the list.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor had only a few dozen edits, and failed to actually add the code to the bottom of the page that the template directs you to add. And I meant the Japanese version of the main article, not this sub article. The series may not have much following here, but it is pretty big in Japan; there may well be someone willing to do a bit to help us out. Doceirias (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's go for Afd if necessary as i will very likely end with a snow keep.

We will update the list nihongo at our editors paces and not else. The editor who tagged the list with Template:notenglish is also the one who prodded it few days ago and is clearly using the system to have the list removed disregarding the fact that notability & verifiability are asserted. A negative biased behavior toward anything not in English. --KrebMarkt 06:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jyu-Oh-Sei

Yesterday, an editor removed plot details from Jyu-Oh-Sei on the bases that they were "spoilers". I reverted the edits and notified the editor about WP:SPOILER. Then earlier today, the edit restored some of the edits, sectioning the plot section into what appears to be "protected" areas by using sub-sectioning. Again I undid these edits because we don't divide plot summaries into sections. However, I would like a second opinion and perhaps someone knowledgeable about the plot to just its completeness. --Farix (Talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be sectioned off like that. In-universe sectioning is bad. I do not know about the series, but depending on its nature a setting or theme subsection might be appropriate, but generally not so much (such sections would need to be sourced by third party sources as well). The only time we would divide something in-universe is if there was a lot of independent commentary and analysis on it, but not enough to make a good spinoff article.陣内_Jinnai 03:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both reverts. Additionally, the plot really needs to updated to actual tell the rest of the story rather than the whole "In the next nine episodes of the show Thor figures out that he is a special life form that constantly evolves to survive" thing, which is really not the story at all. The bit from Thor's section happens in like the last three episodes, and should be incorporated into the plot -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A.D. Vision

With the news announcement today about its selling its assests to its subdivisions, more eyes on the ADV article for the next few days would be good. Ditto on Tokyopop's article after its losing all of its Kodansha licenses. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh? What's that about T-pop? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tokyopop announced the other day that they have lost all their Kodansha licenses and will not be allowed to continue any of those series, including Rave Master *cry* Keep meaning to update the article but keep hoping its a bad dream. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That sucks. I hope that doesn't happen with Del Rey. I have heard though Kodansha wants to direct market so maybe that's the reason.陣内_Jinnai 01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally updated the TP article. I think Del Rey is probably the safest, since it looks like Kodansha is planning to direct market through Random House, which owns Del Rey. They have already transferred Samurai Deeper Kyo to Del Rey for completion, which at least is a little hopeful sign for maybe the last few volumes of Rave Master too :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, Shogakukan & Shueisha Group acquisition of the French Kaze and German Anime-Virtual. [21] [22] [23].
The whole animanga business is under recomposition. --KrebMarkt 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So Kaze and Anime-Virtual and Viz are essentially sibling companies now. That's also interesting. In the innnnnnteresting sense of the word. —Quasirandom (talk)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ episodes

I'm having problems with . When I originally created List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ episodes, I wasn't aware of any other episode list for the series. Afterward, I found List of Mobile Suit Gundam Double Zeta episodes, incorporated the Romanizations and left out the plot summaries that need to be completely rewrite form scratch. Then redirected it to List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ episodes. Now JoeD80 (talk · contribs) is taking great except to this, first by copying List of Mobile Suit Gundam Double Zeta episodes over top of List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ episodes and now restoring List of Mobile Suit Gundam Double Zeta episodes with the edit summary of "MINE WAS THE OLD LIST AND YOU REPLACED IT FIRST!!!!!!!!". He seems to have gotten pretty hostile over the situation and appears to be showing WP:OWNership tendencies. --Farix (Talk) 00:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe and Doceirias, could either of you double check the episode title translations. It wouldn't hurt to have a second or even third opinion. --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Saiyan and Super Saiyan merge discussion

A discussion has begun at Talk:Super Saiyan#Merge with Saiyan Article as to whether the two articles should be merged. Additional views, as always, are welcome/appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

School Rumble on Cartoon Network in Italy

The link to the official website went dead and rather recently (less than a month ago). Unfortunately since its in flash, archive.org never archived it so I'm wondering if anyone out there knows any RS that can be used to confirm this as it could pose a serious problem when I bring the article to FAC.陣内_Jinnai 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that one will do. We will get nothing byt Error 404 from Cartoon Network IT and there is Zero return for that one from way back machine.

It is also being re-run on the Italian Boing TV ref ref archive Translucent ref archive --KrebMarkt 17:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.陣内_Jinnai 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

G-Saviour‎

I've just reverted an IP editor (71.195.10.41) who has repeatedly added the same unsourced material to G-Saviour‎ that it is not canon to the Gundam franchise. --Farix (Talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Article deletions.

Should these articles Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 1: Unlisted Demon 101 and Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 2: Attack of the Mecha-Vulcan be deleted? Their titles are incorrect, its all plot, no sources. It seems some fan added the words Movie 1 and Movie 2 into the titles. The titles translate to Movie Golden Gash Bell!! Unlisted Demon 101 and Movie Golden Gash Bell!! Attack of the Mecha-Vulcan. I would work on them if I had the time. DragonZero (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you feel the articles show no potental to improve, and/or that no more work can be done on the articles in it's problems as there is little to work with then yes I would prod them. However and this is comming after I read the talk pages, there seems to be a movement to just merge the information and that should be resolved before prodding in my opinion (or you can bring up the prod in the talkpage). The talk looks new but what bothers me as well as the lack of references, if none can be found there is no sense merging as the same problem goes with it. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2009 (AT)

I'm sure there's enough references for it, what bothers me is the incorrect title, so I figured it should be deleted if not moved. Sounds diabolical since I suggested the move. DragonZero (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You can move and then request deletion of the old page.陣内_Jinnai 04:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I must be getting tired sorry for that. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2009 (AT)

What should the title be? if the true title is "Gekijou BanKonjiki no Gash Bell!! 101 Banme no Mamono" (劇場版 金色のガッシュベル！！ 「１０１番目の魔物」, lit. " Movie Golden Gash Bell!! Unlisted demon #101")? DragonZero (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

From the talk here Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 1: Unlisted Demon 101, do I really have to work on the article before getting it moved? DragonZero (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't make the move since the title is blacklisted. Could someone help with this? DragonZero (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The move has been canceled, would I have a good success for deletion if I prod it? DragonZero (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

General characters discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Problem with character articles for the current discussion regarding style of anime/manga characters. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Category Renames

Proposed renaming Category:Dragon Ball episodes -> Category:Dragon Ball episode lists. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 5#Category:Dragon Ball episodes -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, List of Dragon Ball Z episodes has (finally) been split into nine season episode lists. Some more eyes checking all 9 lists to make sure the leads are correct and to start working on referencing and adding the season box set images would be great! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted a speedy, but instead I had to put another proposed rename of Category:Anime and manga about music --> Category:Music anime and manga up on CFD. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 5#Category:Anime and manga about music. --十八 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Shippo and Kirara's roles in InuYasha

User:Marktreut is once again back at List of InuYasha characters, and once again starting a discussion on whether the characters of Shippo and Kirara should be moved to the list's protagonist section. Discussion at Talk:List of InuYasha characters#Shippo and Kirara should be Protagonists and additional views heavily needed due to previous disruptions over this issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Gunslinger Girl characters

This list could use some project attention for clean up. I tagged it for clean up, lack of a real lead, and being to in-universe, and removed a silly double menu at the top. However, as I don't want to get spoiled, I've already removed it from my watch list. Anyone else want to tackle it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fansubbing

I have asked in the previous discussion that a list of notable fansubbing groups to be made into a list. I have actually found "reliable third party sources" to create an article for the Dattebayo fansub group. I found it from Dattebayo's website which linked it to the Anime News Network and there are 2 articles that support this. They are this and this where they mention Dattabayo as a fansub group. They also seem to discuss file transfers. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The first link would be good to develop a reception section on an article about Dattebayo, but neither link really conveys notability - the first merely discusses Dattebayo's decision to stop fansubbing Naruto, and the second doesn't focus on fansubbing groups at all - the mention of Dattebayo is incidental to the fact that one of its members participated in the panel. Both are great sources of information, though, and suggest that there may be more out there - keep looking! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly enough notability at all. Minor mentions on an anime site, even an RS one, does not even come close to meeting WP:ORG nor WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not enough for notability on their own, but can still be used to give some added mention in a listing and would help with referencing.陣内_Jinnai 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable yet?

I'm just wondering if this page is ready for the main page yet. User:DragonZero/Defense Devil. I was not able to find any sales information for the first volume and would like some help with that if possible. Thanks. DragonZero (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the article still lacks third-party coverage via reliable sources, which is absolutely required for notability. A couple of reviews will take care of that problem. Though at this point, they will only be in Japanese. --Farix (Talk) 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost article

Hi everyone! I'd like to do a report on this WikiProject for an upcoming edition of the Wikipedia Signpost. Are there any members who are familiar with how the WikiProject works and its history and who would be willing to answer a few questions? Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I could try answering the questions, but I can't guarantee you'll end up with enough from me for a full interview (or, for that matter, that I'll actually have the *time* for the whole thing). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can help out, but I'm not familiar with all its history.陣内_Jinnai 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe and I are probably the oldest editors still here. I'm not sure if Squilibob is still around and I haven't seen Ned Scott for some time either. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've prepared some questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject report/Anime and manga; responses (on that page) from anyone here would be very appreciated. Thanks again! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've answered 5 of the 6 questions while Jinnai has answered 3. It would be best to have a couple of answers for all of these questions by different editors. --Farix (Talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth (regarding the article count): WP:ANIME has 9865 articles. Of those (In order of filtering):

• 2126 (1795 stubs, 261 start) belongs to the Biography work group,
• 1183 (466 stubs, 691 start) have been proposed for merger,
• 6556 (2535 stub, 3081 start) are everything else.

^_^ — G.A.S^talk 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, will any of you mind if I fix typos or make other minor corrections to your answers there? It's not a big deal, I think, but it's probably better for me to get your OK first. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowing my poor skills, it probably needs it. --Farix (Talk) 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I've added some answers of my own, and made some corrections/tweaks to your comments, Farix - care to check and see what you think? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

@Dinoguy1000 WP:Comics also covers Franco-Belgian comics :p

Guess i will have to add my answers to the mix. --KrebMarkt 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The more answers, the better. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that any one of us can represent the entire project. The simple fact is that we each have our own POV and our answers should reflect our own individuality. --Farix (Talk) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, KrebMarkt, I've corrected myself. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

@Jinnai: Actually, we have two FL character lists: List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. :) ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yea, now that you remind me, i remember. It's just been so long we've had only the one I've gotten sued to it. Still 2 for a project our size is rather paltry.陣内_Jinnai 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So Jinnai, do you mind if I tweak your answers as I did with Farix's? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

go ahead.陣内_Jinnai 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through and made some corrections. Do they look all right, or should I have perhaps been a bit more aggressive in the changes I made or something? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The edits you did seem fine. If you want to be more agressive, as the copyediting doesn't change the substance go ahead. I freely admit to not being the best at grammar.陣内_Jinnai 21:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't anyone review my angrish written answers to some question. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I mangled your intent -- I swapped out a couple idioms to ones that seemed to be closer to what I thought you were getting at. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You transformed my usual blabbering into something understandable for the common mortal. --KrebMarkt 21:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The report has now been published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-07/WikiProject report. Thanks for all your help! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Glass Mask

About Glass Mask's article name, since it is yet to be licensed in English, should it be Garasu no Kamen or Glass no Kamen instead? I am currently making a page for the chapters of the series and is wondering which name should I follow.

The series was given an English name as The Mask of Glass according to the picture of the toshou card in issue 11 of Hana to Yume this year.

I am working on updating the information in the page (anime, OVAs, manga,etc) and is wondering whether anyone could give me links of the manga reviews in different languages. It was very popular in France and Italy.

Should I have a separate section for the media information? The serialization as well as revised version of the story from the serialized chapters and volume are quite lengthy to explain and it's complex. Amaya Sakura (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Glass Mask is the official English title per its English release on Crunchyroll. So the article name is correct and should be used for it and the subarticles. The article already has a properly arranged media section, it just needs the appropriate details. The manga section should have details on the serialization, published volumes, and other releases. See WP:MOS-AM for the Manual of Style, and Tokyo Mew Mew for an FA-level series article to use as an example. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure that should be the article name, which is primarly about the manga. I think its similar to Higurashi no Naku Koro ni.陣内_Jinnai 05:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Glass Mask is the official English name of the only version to be released in English. Even if the article focuses on the manga as the primary work, I see no reason not to use the known English title by which it is more well known to English speaking audiences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And so is Higurashi. The visual novel hasn't been released and considering MangaGamer's track record of a couple of vaporware titles it is not certain. Even when it was just the manga released it was still not changes to Higurashi When They Cry. It is imo exactly like that.陣内_Jinnai 06:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first season anime was licensed long before the manga was for Higurashi, and even then, the games are due out next month. Add on that the series has several official English titles, it's much more complicated then Glass Mask IMO.--十八 21:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Point is, if it has any official English title we should have been using it, but we aren't according to WP:NAME as the most widely recognized English title. We didn't because the original wasn't released. That sets president for titles like Glass Mask the primary work, the manga isn't translated nor it is clear that the translation would be Glass Mask. The basics are the same: we ignored for Higarushi the idea that WP:NAME did not apply using the Englsh names because the primary work wasn't translated. That's the same here. The episode list should use Glass Mask. That's it.陣内_Jinnai 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So can I have separate pages for the episodes and chapters or should I just put them in the main article? Amaya Sakura (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which those numbers 43 volumes and 23 episodes, they should likely be split. The epiosde article should obviously be List of Glass Mask episodes. I still strongly disagree with the main article being named glass mask as it is inconsistent with how we have dealt with other articles where the original work wasn't translated.陣内_Jinnai 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this applies to Kin'iro no Corda since the games are not available in English while the manga is licensed as La Corda d'Oro and yet the article still stays at Kin'iro no Corda. So how is the chapter page going to be? I hope to have this settled first since I'm working on the chapter list. Amaya Sakura (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages should use the title of whatever media they are focusing on - therefore, a chapter list would use the name the manga was licensed under, even though the main page would remain at the unlicensed title (because the games are the primary media). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So the chapter list would be List of Garasu no Kamen chapters or List of Glass Mask chapters? Amaya Sakura (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on Joe's comment below, it would be "List of Glass Mask chapters". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Glass Mask" is the title by which it is known in most English-language scholarly works in which it is discussed. I have never seen or heard any other English-language title for it in the 30+ years I've been a fan. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:ENGLISH applies here, which is to say that we use the title "best known in English". Interestingly, WP:NC-BK does state that titles should be translated. --Farix (Talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that VNs would be under WP:NC-BK as well then. Even though they aren't listed under their scope, it seems to me more of the probability of the media being so niche it was missed (since they also include other electronic media) as the general format is comparable for most VNs to a Choose Your Own Adventure book which would end the problem I have as it would place Higurashi under that.陣内_Jinnai 09:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Manga, the article

Looking over the last GA Review of Manga. It appears that it's not far from reaching GA status. I've started a prep list of what needs to be done before the article is resubmitted. With a long overdo push, one of our core topics will finally reach GA status and we can start a PR for what is needed to become a Featured Article. --Farix (Talk) 23:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to ping a question off of everyone. While working on the references for Manga, I came across some situations like "full-color manga exist (e.g. Colorful)<manga or publishing company>" which I found to be increasingly silly. If someone is going to challenge a manga as an example, then referencing the manga itself or its publishing company isn't going to do much in the way of verifiability. Therefore I removed these references as unhelpful. However, further down, a similar situation occurs with publishing companies.

"European publishers marketing manga translated into French include Glénat, Asuka,<Asuka's website> Casterman,<Casterman's website> Kana,<Kana's website> and Pika,<Pika's website> among others.<self published>"

Again, this seems to be rather silly and I wonder about the likelihood that someone will challenge any of these companies as a manga publisher. But even further down.

"European publishers also translate manga into German,<GR company1><GR company2> Italian,<IT company1><IT company2> Spanish,<SP company> Dutch,<blog> and other languages. Manga publishers based in the United Kingdom include Orionbooks/Gollancz<Orionbooks website> and Titan Books.<Titan Books website>"

How would challenge that manga is published in these other languages? Ok, maybe Dutch since that's not particularly common, but the rest? I'm tempted to just strip out these references since it is very unlikely the information will be challenged. --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say just strip the refs and wait to see if anyone really complains or adds them back. For the publishers, links to their articles (where they exist) should be sufficient to verify the claims. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a look at the publication section and see if they can fix its problems. This appears to be the only thing preventing a successful GAC nomination. Heck, it might even be a FAC after the section if fixed. --Farix (Talk) 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ping this again as I just brought up a couple of other problems with the article, most importantly about two references that I need second opinions on for reliability and "replaceablity". —Farix (t | c) 02:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone skilled in Spanish?

Hi,

I started to check the latest batch of proded articles and i need someone skilled in Spanish for further investigation.

Heaven's Prison 5 vols ongoing series by Hiroyuki Utatane not licensed outside Japan save in Spain where it's licensed by Ivrea with 3 vols out in Spanish. Can anyone skilled in Spanish check for RS coverages from there. It's pointless & waste of time to deprod the article in absence of RS coverage. Thanks --KrebMarkt 06:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My Spanish is even more rusty than my German (and largely learned on the football field), but I'm not finding much in the first page of g-hits -- there's several blog posts, but I don't know the Spanish comics field enough (or, really, at all) to know if any are by experts in the field. Of the few sites I'm pretty sure are reliable, Manga Es has noticed the series but not yet reviewed it. I've never been clear on the reliability of Manga Koe, but they've reviewed it. Don't take this as exhaustive, and see if you can find someone with better Spanish skills. (As an aside, the series wasn't very good, IMO.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can try to help. Are there any particular aspects of coverage you are looking for? Arsonal (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether there are enough reviews in reliable sources to demonstrate that the work passes the inclusion criteria for books. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

On my initial search, I can find no definite reliable sources. I believe Manga Es functions much like ANN. I will look further to see if the encyclopedia section is user-submitted. I'll give it a few days and start the search fresh. Arsonal (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find an actual review on Manga Es, though. My understanding it that it's editor rather than user-created content, but I may have been misreading it. (As I said, rusty.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's creator deprodded it. I left a notability tag to signify that nothing is resolved. --KrebMarkt 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball soundtracks

There seems to be enough consensus for merging most of the DB individual song and CD articles to the list with a few minor exceptions. Soundtrack lists are not really my forte, though, so anyone with more experience with those want to work on the merging? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*watches KrebMarkt take one look and run away screaming* =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 04:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Fix verifiability
2. Add any chart ranking
3. Reformat the list

You spend more time using search engines than editing Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt 07:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Started to collect references but i need someone for the proper title. Some are wrong or non-existent. --KrebMarkt 21:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lightnovel.org a RS?

Is this website, http://lightnovel.org/ a reliable source for light novel reviews? Thanks, Amaya Sakura (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the About page says nothing about who does the reviews. The reviewer uses a pseudonym, so we can't check to see if they would pass as a WP:SPS. So at the moment, lightnovel.org cannot be taken as reliable. In fact, the request for people to review light novels doesn't boost my confidence that this site will ever by considered a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 12:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, Matthew Reeves is apparently considered knowledgeable enough to be interviewed alongside Vertical's marketing director, Ed Chavez, and myself for Haikasoru's website. [24]. On the other hand, my own websites aren't considered reliable sources, so why should his? Doceirias (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another round in the romanization question

So the situation in a potshard: A series was licensed but dropped, going so far out of print that used volumes go for more than cover price. Another publisher takes over, and reprints the series in a new translation -- with some altered romanizations of character names.

How do you decide when the new spellings are the better known and so should be switched to? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go with the newer one, as it would likely be the one most English readers today would be familiar with, especially if the new printing was actually finished. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an ongoing series, so not "finished". But the new edition is, yes, out (and in my greedy little paws nom nom nom). —Quasirandom (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what we did with Parasyte - acknowledge the old translation's names, while aligning the text with the new, more widely available version. Doceirias (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this case, continue to use the original translation of the name, though note the new translation when introducing the character. —Farix (t | c) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, especially if the original character names are used in reliable reviews and whatnot.--十八 02:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how long has it been between the last publication of the first translation to the first publication of the second translation? Arsonal (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And how many issues were published out of the total?陣内_Jinnai 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The case in question is Yotsuba&!: ADV brought out 5 volumes between 2005 and 2007, so it's been 2 years since their last one. Yen Press picked up the license, and has just printed new translations of the first 5 volumes + volume 6. There's 8 volumes out in Japan, with v.9 expected this fall. The ADV editions were multiply reviewed using the old name spellings; there hasn't yet been time for reviews of the Yen editions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the character section, it may be worth just noting the alternate romanizations when they occur, perhaps using a footnote or brief note at the beginning of the section. The ADV volumes were quite popular ad well known. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm leaning toward for now, but doesn't quite answer my actual question: how do I know when, if ever, to swap them? I mean, suppose in the first six months the Yen editions have already outsold the ADV editions -- would that be the tipping point? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be a bit premature to ask now because I see that the Yen Press editions won't be released until next week. Until then, we won't be able to tell how different the contents are. Once we see the actual differences, perhaps it's a good idea to evaluate them then. Arsonal (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Yen Press editions are out -- I have mine from Amazon, which makes the 15th we're currently listed slightly dubious (Yen Press itself only ever lists a month, so I'm wondering if we should return to that). The main difference is, for Fūka, going with Fuuka instead of Fuka (but I haven't yet confirmed that's the only change). —Quasirandom (talk)

Ah, perhaps that release date needs to be looked at then. For Fūka's case, I think it's fine to leave the writing as it is in the article now. "Fuka" is closer to the standard Hepburn romanization writing and just note that "Fuuka" is used in the Yen Press editions. If Yen were to change anything drastically, I think it will be best to stay as close as possible to the official Japanese version and just make a note that Yen has made that change. Arsonal (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Staying as close to the original Japanese goes against the English name guidelines, though. It needs to be the official English, the issue is, which is now the official English since there are two legitimately licensed and at least partially released English versions of the main media. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dauros deletion talk

There is currently talk as to whether to delete the page for the anime character Dauros from the series Masterforce. Feel free to chime in to save page, or add material to it so it's more complete. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tokyopop Kodansha volumes now out of print

The Tokyopop website revealed that all of its Kodansha volumes are now out of print: http://www.tokyopop.com/corporate/biz_dev/447 - Who wants to help me state that the Tokyopop versions of X titles are now out of print as of August 31, 2009? I'm trying to add this info to all of the articles about the affected titles. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This was noted in the Tokyopop article (and above) awhile back. It would be good to not just say all the titles are out of print as of X without individual checking. Many were out of print long before that, and several have already been relicensed, primarily to Del Rey. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one should check this source to see which titles went out of date on August 31, 2009. This particular page has stated specifically which titles are out of print on which date. As of writing the titles listed on the page are out of print as of August 31, 2009. Archives (on web.archive.org) of the out of print list state titles which went out of print on earlier dates. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tramps Like Us, one of the titles listed as of August 2009, was rumoured to be out of print for months before that, but now it's become officially official. But saying so in the article would be original research, yes? --Malkinann (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable sources states that there are rumors of the title being out of print, then include the information. If no reliable sources discuss the rumors, then they should not be included. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My source is that I fronted up to a specialist bookshop last November in my annual pilgrimage to the Big Smoke, and was told by a member of staff that it was out of print. That was good enough for my own information, but I can see how it is not likely to be good enough for Wikipedia. I was lucky to get the final volume, but I am missing most of the middle :( --Malkinann (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode list question

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, but what is the general guideline for an episode list? I mean, how many episodes usually warrants a split from the main? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The general guideline on lists on all stand alone lists is 10. That's a guideline though, but going below that should generally have a good reason. I've seen a couple as low as 7. However 5 is probably too few. Hope that gives you some idea.陣内_Jinnai 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the max before it's considered to be cluttering up the main page? --Masamage ♫ 22:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

100k bytes is a must for splits. Usually when there's more than 50 episodes with summaries I would consider splitting. DragonZero (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. DragonZero (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about one episode list that needs to be split into multiple articles, and he's talking about an episode list that needs to be split off the main page for the series. Just in case anyone was confused. Doceirias (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirteen episodes is the most common number of short episodes lists that I have seen (example are Hellsing, Haruhi Susumiya). However, with List of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood episodes I waited until the series was 20+ episodes long.Tintor2 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a she~. Meanwhile, hmmity hmm. I was thinking of Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon when I asked. The article isn't very fully developed at this point, so I'm hesitant to split anything off of it, but it does have 49 episodes and four specials. Hard to say what's best. --Masamage ♫ 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel like that already warrants a separate episode list article. It would improve the readability of the article in my opinion. The episode summaries themselves will only get longer if they are to be developed for any featured content. Arsonal (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it becomes a matter of size - I think that if the article is getting into the 40 KB + range with a list with no summaries, it makes sense to split it off, as the episode summaries will only get longer. Splitting the episodes off also gives you more 'breathing room' in the main article for longer production and reception ;) --Malkinann (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter so much unless it's massive, like the List of One Piece episodes.陣内_Jinnai 06:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant the size of the parent article. WP:SIZE covers not only the KB size of the parent article, but also considerations like reader fatigue. If an article is very long, people can get tired while reading it. The article on bacteria springs to mind - wonderful article, but kind of intimidating too. WP:SIZE suggests that reader fatigue sets in around the 30 to 50 KB mark. Plus articles which are already looking 'big enough' don't attract new material as well as articles which look shorter - this can lead to long articles which could be better in their coverage of the relevant literature or even subject. For example, when the article Great Barrier Reef included the contents of Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef, it looked long enough, but at its FAC it was pointed out that it wasn't comprehensive enough. The environmental threats got split off, and suddenly the article looked too short, and I had all this room for geology, ecology and all kinds of other fun stuff. Sorry for the non-anime examples, but the principle is the same. --Malkinann (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Malkinann :)

Few comments. WP:SIZE apply on the quantity of prose and not on the whole article size an example could be Aria (manga) which out its 108 KB more than half it are not prose. Another point as you noticed the concept to have void tending to be filled can be applied to wikipedia but unfortunately in animanga articles tend to be filled by excess of plot, trivia & OR. Some people have the bad habit to stuff animanga articles with whatever they have at hands :( However in the case of chapters or episodes list there is not much room for such derives but still the split must justified with argument(s) ready if asked why did you split. In fine, that's editors choice through consensus. --KrebMarkt 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

People tire when reading long articles regardless of whether the information is presented in a list or as prose. I'm not sure why you're pointing out that people tend to fill articles with plot, trivia and OR rather than out of universe information - I know that already! XD --Malkinann (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually go around splitting episode lists (I like working with chapter lists much more, but then, I'm sure most of you already know that =) ), but in my experience, a well-developed episode list on a main article could be split at as few as 11-13 episodes, depending on WP:SIZE concerns. On the other hand, probably pretty much anything with 24-30 or more episodes could justify its own episode list, regardless of whether there are summaries for any episodes or if size is becoming a concern yet. One major point, however, is the class of the series article - if it's a stub, and it's not obvious that it could reach start-class, even with lots of work, I would refrain from starting or splitting an episode list for it, regardless of the number of episodes (this same basic reasoning has stopped me from creating a chapter list for Cooking Papa yet). And, obviously, if there are notability concerns, those need to be addressed *before* any splits are performed. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree on considering the main article - if its a stub, deal with it before splitting it up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb I've always followed as been that if a series has at least 13 episodes, split it to a "List of ..." article when there is more than a list of titles/airdates or the main article has been fleshed out to the point its getting overly long (and all 13 episodes have at least the basic details). I have split lower than that when I could justify it by having pretty much a PR ready list that could be taken to FL within a month with some clean up/tweaking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful with notability

I just read your spread in the WP:SIGNPOST; congratulations on a job well done and in progress. But being the wild-eyed inclusionist that I am, it caught my attention that "notability" was mentioned so often. I see this in a cursory scan of your discussions above as well. Obviously I don't know your project well, and you surely must wrestle with notability often in this genre, but please be careful in deletion and exclusion. Remember that notability is just a guideline, not policy. We're building the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever. Thanks for considering and keep up the good work - Draeco (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think that our project offers a lot of possibility for inclusion. From my not so good memories:

• Any anime series that was nationally broadcasted in Japan is Keep per WP:OUTCOMES just need to prove with a reference.
• Any manga that was adapted into an anime series, drama series or notable movie is Keep per WP:BK #3
• Any manga that was non-trivially reviewed by 2 or more Reliable, Credible & Relevant sources is Keep per WP:BK #1. Source can be from any language as long it respects the mentioned reliability, credibility & relevance on subject.
• Any manga that received a majors award is Keep per WP:BK #2. Awards includes Japanese manga awards, American Major Comics and/or Manga award & others major award in manga & comics fields from the rest of the world.

Subject to discussion: OVA, manga just adapted into OVA, others manga not passing the points mentioned above.

People are somewhat tired/wary of articles created on impulse like "i read the illegal scanlation so it deserve an article".

N.B.: Fellow editors please correct me if i'm wrong in my assertions. Thanks --KrebMarkt 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I actually deal often with notability issues in regards to our articles, but in my experience, KrebMarkt has basically summed it up. On the flipside, however, we have to take a very hard line against those series that are not notable, because there's a virtually unlimited number of them, and we already don't have enough time to clean up all the articles on notable subjects, without having to worry about the non-notable ones as well. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason WP:NOTE is only a guideline and not policy is that there are cases where a subject is of encyclopedic value, but doesn't pass any of the criteria laid out by the notability guidelines. That said, those exceptions are extremely rare within our scope. We do occasionally see some that claim that being popular makes something notable, or it exists, therefore it is notable, or that a work is serialized in Magazine X and therefore automatically notable. The object here is is to have more then just a brief summary or a plot outline. We are not here to catalog every anime and manga ever created, but to create articles on significant anime and manga with as much detail about their creation, reception, and influence. —Farix (t | c) 01:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with Fruits Basket monitoring

An IP has been editing the Fruits Basket articles to change the curse from Chinese zodiac to Japanese zodiac, claiming there's such a world of difference between the two even a child could tell. Needless to say, all the official English materials call it the Chinese zodiac. As of right now, all changes have been reverted and a discussion started at Talk:Fruits Basket (where interested parties are welcome to weigh in). I'm busy with houseguests and can't monitor things closely -- if a few more sets of eyes could be kept on things, I'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest request semi-protected status. The article edits history warrant it with at least 15 revert & undo actions out of the 50 lasts edits. --KrebMarkt 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really; the editor in question seems perfectly willing to listen to reason. Doceirias (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, yes, thankfully. And thank you for engaging with the IP -- it looks like a compromise is in the works -- will comment later if I have time. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sketchbook (manga)

I dont know what to do here about Sketchbook (manga), this one person is deleting alot of info and adding references like: "^ Chapter 1 contains 35 strips; Chapter 15 contains 12" without any fact info. He/she has made a number of changes I dont know if they are good faith or what?

Nevermind problem is fixed, thanks. (I just don thave revert and just undo) - Knowledgekid87 1:53, 13 September 2009 (AT)

They may be good faith, but they are not good. Cleaning up now...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, sorry to trouble you. - Knowledgekid87 1:57, 13 September 2009 (AT)

No prob. Would be good if others could also tweak the article. For now, I've undone the character and chapter lists, consider its only a 6 volume series with no actual demonstrable notability beyond its getting a 13 episode anime series and a single reliable review of that. It has articles on three other language Wikipedias beyond the Japanese, which seems to indicate it might have been licensed somewhere, but again, has no references and no real content beyond the chapter/episode list and some OR (which was removed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your clean-up. I will probably fix the volumes release with references later. Sorry to be annoy by sticking with WP:OUTCOMES but i want the same treatment for each article based on guidelines, policies & precedents, neither favoritism toward any article nor negative preconception. I'm tired of accusation like "you don't like it" or "you biased toward this series". --KrebMarkt 07:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Syoboi RS

Syoboi being WP:RS is being questioned, again, and none of the previous discussions seem to have ended in a really yea/nea on whether it is RS or not. Posts to the RSN have been met with "ask someone who reads Japanese" (so helpful). Discussions here have noted that it appears to gather content from TV guides type periodicals, and so its a repository of reliable sources, but may or may not be reliable itself. As this site is now used in several FLs, I think its important we try (again). I did find this seeming article on Hatena's website[25] - can any of our Japanese readers take a look to see what it is saying about Syoboi? It also does have a smattering of hits on Google News Japan, but no idea which of those are reliable. Also this link[26] but not sure if its a personal site or something else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject have been brought here three times in the past:

• January 2008
• February 2009
• April 2009

Erachima's argumentation supporting Syoboi as RS

I will wait for more findings before making my opinion. --KrebMarkt 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Both articles Collectionian found focus on functionality, not how the information is added and maintained. The Hatena one says anyone can edit, but that's evidently not accurate. It also mentions several programs used, but I can't tell if those programs provide the site with data, or if they allows visitors to the site to interface with their recording devices in some way. Doceirias (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Kuri-ousity RS?

Site, staff. They've been stable for a couple years, do consistent reviews, and have been cited multiple times by ANN as a news source and at least once by Mania.com (note: I haven't done full searches, that's just noticing them in passing), which means they at least consider it reliable. Some of the staff have published professional reviews, others have done reviews for sites of marginal reliablity. RS or no?

My personal sense is this is borderline, thus my question. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The design alone screams crappy fan site. Doceirias (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the staff, Shannon Fay is certainly reliable - her reviews have appeared in Anime Fringe and Manga Life - both RS - and I know we've used some of her reviews from those sites before. Owner Lissa Pattillo has been published in Comipress twice, but other than that, not sure I'd call her a professional yet (neither were reviews, just summaries of current news events). Would go borderline for now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's borderline -- the question is, which side of the border? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Doceirias: What the site design says to me is "yet another comic book blog." —Quasirandom (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Other website

I have mentioned it here and there. There is a French webzine "du9" offer a limited selection of articles of in English. It covers the whole comics field including manga.

Why it's RS: Pedigree 5 mentions of this website in paper books & publications oriented toward publishers, scholars and the like. In addition Xavier Guilbert its editor-in-chief was a panelist in the Angoulême International Comics Festival 2009 and participate to the International Bande Dessinee Society 6th bi-annual conference each time invited and presented as "du9" editor-in-chief.

Plus i should mention that Xavier Guilbert spent 4 years in Japan, useful to interview mangaka like Daisuke Igarashi

My very pov comment: Probably the most independent & quality driven among the French comics websited despite being just a webzine --KrebMarkt 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Digimon episode lists

You may or may not realize that the Digimon franchise is on its 10th anniversary this year. Seeing as the main series articles would be too overwhelming to clean up at the moment, I'm going to go ahead and bring the episode lists (Adventure, Adventure 02, Tamers, Frontier, and Data Squad) up to standards instead. I don't think it will be a problem getting quality list intros for putting all them in FLN, but my concern is getting citations for airing dates. The earlier series, particularly Adventure and Adventure 02, are lacking in citations that completely list their English episode airing dates. Searching through the archives of the defunct Fox Kids website shows that they didn't list airdates at all. I've gotten the English premiere date for Adventure 02 referenced, but I haven't checked for Adventure yet. I'm wondering if it's possible to get through FLN without having these dates fully cited? Arsonal (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the archives of FoxKids or Foxbox? It may help me source airing of other episodes. Also it would be impossible to get though FLN without having the dates fully cited. I tried on List of Case Closed episodes (season 1). DragonZero (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I happened to remember Fox Kids' website URL, so I managed to pull the archive here. The child pages seem to work for most cases. I don't know what Fox Box's website is/was. I may just go ahead and see what happens by putting them up on FLN when I'm done. I'm starting to notice that American sites don't tend to care at all about listing airdates... Arsonal (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Song stub articles

Wolfer68 has created several stub article for (maxi) singles most of which do not appear to be notable. Only a few have charted. Should I just be bold and redirect those that haven't charted or wait?陣内_Jinnai 01:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally go with bold (no surprise, right? *grin*) with an explanation in the edit summary and, in a case like this, a personal note on his talk page explaining. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Digimon cleanup

I have made a proposal with regards to the cleanup of Digimon character articles and lists here. Comment, proposals, help, etc. would be appreciated. G.A.S^talk 05:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Manga covers - English or Japanese?

Looking through some articles on here, the Naruto article uses a English cover while the Rurouni Kenshin article uses a Japanese cover. The previous discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_33#Use_of_English_or_Japanese_covers_in_infoboxes, from January 2009, ended in no consensus.

After looking over the discussion I would like to have consistency regarding the book covers, and I support using English comic book covers whenever possible. In the rare cases where there are multiple styles of covers, use the latest tankobon printing in the infobox, and only put other covers if they differ significantly (i.e. for Parasyte it would be the Del Rey cover in the infobox and the Mixx cover later in the article, as the Mixx cover is completely different) - In the case where two different countries have their own English versions (i.e. one in the United States and one in Singapore), I suppose it would be individual consensus depending on the article. For Japanese covers, they would only be included if they differ significantly from the English covers (i.e. Ranma 1/2 Volume 1) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I lean somewhat the other direction: the guideline for the literature project is to try and have the first edition where possible, not the first English edition nor latest edition. We use the same notability guideline as they do, and manga are books, so there's some argument for consistency here. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Quasirandom. I prefer having the first tankobon be the infobox image of a manga-based article. If there is a separate chapters list, I wouldn't mind seeing the English release be used there. Arsonal (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually the best option is the cover of the first Japanese volume as it will be obviously the first into the Public domain. If you can't that one target either last volume of the series or first volume of the English edition. A 230px first volume Japanese cover are sometimes ridiculous difficult to obtain. --KrebMarkt 15:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

1. Where is the guideline for the literature project that asks for foreign book covers to be used first? The project page did not point me to any particular project guidelines, so to get an answer I asked in the project talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Literature#Book_cover_guidelines

2. "it will fall into public domain first" shouldn't be used for which image is better, until a book cover actually becomes public domain. I do not know how Japanese copyright laws work, and who knows if someone will extend copyrights of things.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus the "where possible". For older series, I've sometimes had to resort to a reprint/bunko cover, or if I can only get a thumbnail, an English cover. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea the "where possible". I reached that same conclusion after uploading 100 manga covers :p --KrebMarkt 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Quasirandom: if possible, the first edition cover should be used, so the Japanese cover is the best one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am asking about the Literature guidelines to confirm that the guidelines are what Quasirandom stated they are. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the previous discussion, then you would have noticed the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Infobox, which does state to use the "most significant cover historically", which is generally the first edition. —Farix (t | c) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the guideline is "The image presented in the table should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition, but occasionally it is not. For example, sometimes authors make drastic revisions to texts and later editions are considered to be the "preferred" edition. The most important factor in choosing an illustration for your infobox is knowledge and reasoning: do you know why you are choosing that image and can you justify it?" - It does not specifically address foreign language books. From looking at the featured literature article as an example, I conclude that for the English Wikipedia the most historically significant book cover for a manga series would be its most prominent English-language cover. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the most historically significant cover would be one in the original language. Insisting it has to be an English cover in order to be a historically significant edition is basically saying that it can be notable only if it has an English edition -- and yet we have a GA-class article for a series that has no English edition, and articles on unlicensed-in-English series regularly survive AFDs when reviews of foreign editions are found. And, indeed, WP:V explicitly says sources do not need to be in English. So claiming that the only historically significant edition can be English is ... not logical. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Keep in mind the GA modern book article in which the cover chosen was in English. Obviously they considered whether what they had was the most historically significant.

2. My post doesn't say "Don't upload a cover if there is no English version," it says "if there are two covers available, pick the English version" - My statements were not remotely intended to sideline articles about series not published in English.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is this imaginary guideline for the literature project to "try and have the first edition where possible, not the first English edition nor latest edition"? If you look at FA foreign book articles such as The General in His Labyrinth, you'll see that the book project does indeed use first English editions in the infobox. Kreb's argument that Japanese covers should be used because they'll be the first to fall into public domain is also pretty ridiculous. Until a cover actually is in public domain, then either cover is equally non-free (and planning ahead ~70 years for this sort of thing is pretty silly in the first place). I support first editions of first volumes of English translations in infoboxes as they are the most informative images to English-speaking readers.--Remurmur (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree; we prioritize the official English edition over other editions for naming -- using the cover for that edition seems consistent with other policies. Doceirias (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:BIAS. Manga without English edition should not have any cover to avoid the hassle to replace the Japanese edition cover with English one later? Just to undercut, you i might start to create articles for every single Notable manga not published in English with shiny Japanese cover. People would just love to replace one cover by another for the sake of increasing edits count as if there are not others more important things to do. --KrebMarkt 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of the rest of your post has to do with anything we're talking here, and it doesn't make a lick of sense to me, but I have seen this bias thing trotted out before and had no idea why. It simply isn't at all relevant here; we're the English Wikipedia. Focusing on the English editions -- like every other project does -- isn't bias. It's just being consistent with all the other rules, and using the edition most likely to be recognized by the target language audience. Doceirias (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My view is which ever one we can find a quality image of. We don't need to set a rule for this and creating such a rule is WP:CREEP. But generally, I try to find a quality image, at least 200px in width, of the Japanese cover first before resorting to an English cover. That's because we are first and foremost discussing a Japanese subject. —Farix (t | c) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

While we are discussing a Japanese subject, many aspects of the article are tailored towards the English-language adaptations (for instance using the English-language names, quoting from the English-language release, citing the English-language release, using the English versions for creator commentary, etc) - In your view, why would it be preferable to use the Japanese book cover while tailoring other aspects towards an Anglophone audience? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We quote English languages sources because they are the most readily easily available sources. But that doesn't mean that we don't or shouldn't use Japanese sources when they are available. —Farix (t | c) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is acceptable to use Japanese sources too. It is that English sources are preferred when there is a choice, and Japanese sources are generally used when English sources are not available. Likewise a Japanese book cover would be used if no English book cover is available. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the English language source is preferred is irrelevant to which cover should be used in the infobox. These are two entirely separate issues. The fact is that there is no preference on covers, and it is my position that there should be no preference on covers. —Farix (t | c) 01:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was asking why it would not matter for the book cover, when it would matter for the other aspects of the article, including the naming/romanizations, the presentation, the sourcing, etc. Why would there be no general preference for the book cover when there is a general preference for the other aspects of the article? All of these aspects are part of the overall presentation of the subject. I argue that the entire article should be geared towards English language speakers, and that the choice of a book cover is a part of the overall presentation. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

English language sources is only preferred because it is easier for most readers of the English language Wikipedia to verify against. Official romanizations are preferred because they are official. Everything else, however, has no language preference. That many article only have English language reviews is a sign that they need to incorporate more non-English language reviews. It is not to be taken as a sign that there is a preference for English language reviews. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the Japanese versions and English versions have differing romanizations (i.e. Death Note) - When there is a choice between those two, the English versions get chosen. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ny view, which I've taken from doing a lot of video game articles and has a clear guideline is to use English covers when they exist and otherwise use the original language's release cover, which in this case is always Japanese. The basis for this is quite simple: This is an English Wikipedia and the readers are more likely to be average English-speaking readers and the infobox image serves a clear and distinct purpose compared to other images - it is used as a visual cue to let the reader know this is the right article they are looking for.

In cases with extreme difference in covers. There is precedent for multiple covers used in the infobox.陣内_Jinnai 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As always, my view is the first volume Japanese cover should be used where ever possible. It is the first edition work and appropriate per the literature and film guidelines (which also do original language theatrical posters first). Yes, there is one literature FA with the English cover, and others that are GA/FA with the original cover. This is also in keeping with our infoboxes, which do emphasis the original version first, English second, other languages third. Yes, we use the English title and names, but that is no reason to completely deny the Japanese cover nor to hide them. If there are significant differences, I'll put both in the chapter list to reflect this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a good reason too, especially if the English name is not on the Japanese cover.陣内_Jinnai 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the literature guideline above; it asks to use the most significant cover. It often, but not always is the first. Using the featured article foreign book example I concluded that for a foreign language series, the most significant book cover would be an English book cover. As for films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines says "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." - It does not specifically address English vs. non-English, but I'm not certain if this is supposed to be implied. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One literature article using the English cover is not a valid extrapolation for the idea that the English cover is always the most significant, and even most often is. Using that logic, there shouldn't be infoboxes at all as Le Père Goriot doesn't use one, nor do La Cousine Bette and La Peau de chagrin. And, contradicting your example, is Candide, which has the original language first page. "original theatrical release poster" = original language which would be non-English in a foreign film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth was published in the 1980s, while Rurouni Kenshin was published in the 1990s. When those two books were first published, they received modern book covers. The historical book articles, by the guidelines of WP:Literature, use frontispieces as those are the most significant covers/images for those works. In addition, I'm not sure if anybody scanned an English frontispiece for Candide. The other two works have entirely graphical frontispieces, and the one at Le Père Goriot was from a version published in Philadelphia. Are there any featured articles of books published in the 20th and 21st Centuries that have a book cover(s) that counteract The General in His Labyrinth's book cover? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The reverse is also true.陣内_Jinnai 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then end sum of all of this is that there is no preference, and probably shouldn't be a preference. The best illustration for an article should be based on a case by case bases depending on image availability and . . . well . . . which image was added first. If the image added first is the Japanese cover, then it should remain. If it is the English cover, it should remain. No one should be switching from one to another without creating a consensus for the change. And that should require much better arguments then those presented here. —Farix (t | c) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the first English or Japanese cover. If a French cover was uploaded on an article where there was an English release first, I think that's grounds for changing it.陣内_Jinnai 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So: "A Japanese or English cover, preferably of the first volume if available, preferably of the first edition"? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And not changing whatever version of the relevant cover is uploaded first without discussion and consensus.陣内_Jinnai 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, no edit war please.

Speaking of French cover, there is an one-shot manga which was published first in French before being published in Japanese. French or Japanese cover ? --KrebMarkt 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the manga made news in English about being first published in French, I'd go with Japanese in those 2.陣内_Jinnai 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned as such the French Dicomanga. The mangaka was without publisher and the one-shot serialized on his personal website when he was contacted directly by a French publisher for that work. Few months after the French volume release, he signed with Square-Enix. I know there are some bold publishers in France. --KrebMarkt 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>

• side-comment: This discussion shares similitudes with Talk:Mobile_Suit_Gundam_00#Gundam_title. --KrebMarkt 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE?

For some time now, the displayed title at the top of pages has been customizable via the {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} parameter. One such way the title can be changed is by italicizing part or all of it. This has been suggested to be put to use on some articles, but there seemed to be controversy about how the MOS applied to this usage and whether individual wikiprojects would be able to overrule this (generally no, but in this case, the MOS didn't really seem to specifically address this issue (back in April-June, when it was being discussed)). Does anyone here know of any solid consensus regarding this, or any MOS/NC guidelines specifically addressing it that have been added since then, and if so, how would it apply to our articles? If there are no stylistic restrictions on its use now, is it something we want? Just so everyone knows, this was prompted by an edit to List of Bleach episodes inserting {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Bleach'' episodes}}, causing the title to display as "List of Bleach episodes". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There's been a series of edits to the manga/anime lists, (almost) all by the same editor. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a nice stylistic touch. My experience with such usage is from the Star Wars Wikia, where the italicized title is the standard for all works, both written from a real world perspective and from within the universe itself. However, I can see why applying MoS-type changes to titles as if they were text could cause some debate. For example, one might argue that an article such as Reflection (song) must have its title written as "Reflection" (song). That would just cause headache. Arsonal (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively, NOT. There is no consensus for suing this anywhere in Wikipedia outside of the taxonomy articles, and I do not think any one project should go against this (even if some have). The last discussion shows solid consensus against it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was asking first what the current consensus on its use was (with links to relevant discussions), and what the MOS/naming conventions have to say about it - all later questions are directly influenced by the answer to that question. That being said, Collectonian's reply suggests only that there is no consensus, and not any actual guidelines or policies against its use, in which case I may start a more general RFC at some point asking whether it should be used on articles whose titular subject would normally be italicized in prose (focusing on books, films, video games, etc., but probably other things would fall under this as well). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions compiled at Template_talk:Italic_title#Related_discussions - there was an RfCTemplate_talk:Italic_title#RFC:_Should_this_be_used.3F which showed clear consensus against its use unless/until it is done in the software rather than with a template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. I believe that consensus was for Wiki-wide and includes taxonomy as well.陣内_Jinnai 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaning, that the consensus was to have the taxonomy folks to stop that? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a larger opposition to it either overall or until it could be used with software than there was support wiki-wide or in taxonomy.陣内_Jinnai 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Video games

Should we be covering video games based on anime and ifso, how close to the anime should it be? Victorious Boxers: Revolution is based on Fighting Spirit (manga), but very little of the plot and gameplay resemble it. Do we not cover any video games based on anime? If so what about games like Naruto: Clash of the Ninja which clearly is a retelling of the main manga/anime using anime-style graphics or Sword of the Berserk: Guts' Rage which is suppose to take place between certain volumes in the manga? The scope is quite vague: "Video games related to anime or manga are under a shared scope with WikiProject Video games;" and I know some have argued one way and some have argued another in the past. I'd like this to be cleared up as more games are coming out based on anime and manga.陣内_Jinnai 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say we primarily cover the games when they are covered in the main article and are not notable or have enough RSable content to have their own article. If they are in standalone articles, primarily leave it in VGs hands and we should stay in a more secondary role of just helping with vandalism and accuracy related to the source work, and offering up reviews/info from our realm of sources that also discuss the game, unless working on a GT/FT that it would be a part of (or just enjoy working on both). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to contradict the way we handle visual novels. Also what about games like those in the .hack series which are interwoven specifically between anime and game?陣内_Jinnai 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't consider visual novels as the same vein as the standard video game and .hack is definitely a more unique situation and one where we should probably be involved in all the articles. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit too conservative there. I think if a video game is a retelling of the story or sometimes even a side story, it certainly could warrant it, especially if the side-story is later picked up in the manga or anime. I do agree with your general concern about the scope being a bit to wide though, but I don't quite view visual novels as the same as say, most anime-based rpgs which have similar elements to visual novels; both are plot-heavy, both generally are focused on character interaction/development, both use anime/manga style artwork, etc. (In both cases there are exceptions to these rules and we don't cover ones that don't follow the last one for either category anyway). The mechanics do differ, but i fail to see why one being somewhat more interactive than the other would denote it not being under our scope. It is after all listed and listed for a reason.陣内_Jinnai 01:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we get some comments from others here?陣内_Jinnai 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)