Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Archives Older Nov '04 – Dec '05 -- Mascot 2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bleach Name

A discussion has started at Talk:Bleach (manga)#Bleach name concerning the article name and a request that it be renamed from Bleach (manga) to Bleach (series). The current name would seem to stem from our MoS listing manga, anime, etc as disambiguation names, and Bleach's first work being the manga series. However, some feel it should be disambiguated with series instead, as they feel manga gives the impression there is a separate anime article. I feel more folks should be involved in the discussion, because the outcome could potentially bring the need for a change in our MoS's naming section. Collectonian (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move the page, I suggest you also create a full move request via Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't. Please read the thread in the Bleach talk page. Someone else said it should be moved, several of us disagreed but I brought it up here to ensure adequate discussion. Collectonian (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another topic has come up at Bleach (manga) which could use project discussion. Multiple times its been mentioned that Bleach, and a few others, had bad media list split outs that needed to be merged back and fixed. This was recently done with Bleach (finished tonight even). However, another editor is calling into question whether the novels, CDs, etc should even be mentioned at all and that the media section should only cover the "major media" such as the anime, manga, movies, and video games. He specifically says he feels the novels are not notable enough for mention because they "have no more link to the original author than do the lines spoken by actors in the anime" and are just repeats of the manga story. I personally disagree, and our MoS specifically notes mentioning novels/light novels, CDs, drama CDs, etc. He has asked for outside opinions as I reverted his removal of the novel list. To join the discussion, head to Talk:Bleach (manga)#Media list. Collectonian (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said that the novels fail notability guidelines, and the analogy you reference had to do with discussing the novels at the cost of discussing other aspects of the franchise at the parent article. I do not take issue with the redirection of the media article. It is the level (and spottiness) of relatively inconsequential detail added to the main article that I take issue with. Dekimasuよ! 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussing of the novel is not being done at the cost of discussing anything else. No one is saying you can't discuss something else be cause the novels are mentioned. Collectonian (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A few fans who barely do any editing are complaining about the merge of the Bleach media list, even though all verifiable and relevant information was merged into the main article. Anyone else want to help explain why this unsourced, catch all page was not a "well organized" list and was not in keeping with our MoS and Wikipedia standards in general. Also, feel free to check my merging. I think I got all merged that should be merged, not including the theme list because its covered in the episode lists and the huge table seems irrelevant. The discussion is at the earlier one linked above and at Talk:Bleach (manga)#Media list....why? Collectonian (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre discussion

There is a genre discussion back here concerning Dragon Ball. If possible, let's be done with this ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shintaro Asanuma

I am also working on Shintaro Asanuma on my test page, User:Kitty53/Test page. Please help when you have time, will you please? Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Rename Discussion

A discussion has been started at Talk:Higurashi no Naku Koro ni proposing it be renamed to When They Cry, the title the English anime adaptation was partly released under by Geneon.

As a side note, maybe we need a dedicated section for rename discussions for awhile :P Collectonian (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please move Kimi ga Nozomu Eien to Rumbling Hearts already? Google shows Wikipedia is now the ONLY place that show up with this title, its just being clung to by some fanboys. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because I could have sworn "Kimi ga Nozomu Eien" was being used by 586,000 different sites. What was I thinking? The game is not known as "Rumblings Hearts", so since that's the base material, the article should not be changed only because the anime is called that.--十八 23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is (at least one some versions, and as a subtitle but still..), as I pointed out on to Kiminozo page a couple of years ago. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That was for the non-eroge version, wasn't it? And I don't think the use of an official subtitle should determine the overall title for a work if the original work didn't use that subtitle.--十八 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With exception that the root source of the material is the game - not the anime. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

These instances seem to be the exception to the rule, where essentially only a small component of a franchise is licensed outside of Japan. There are some cases that what is licensed may not be representative of the whole. Perhaps, the MOS should be expanded to address this? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of series have been renamed to the English counterpart. This should be standard, no argument. Such as Boys Over Flowers. Per WP:English. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC(UE) does not automatically have priority over WP:NC(CN). If the English name is the more common, then fine, but that should not be a foregone conclusion. —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anime and Manga comparisons

Just a quick question if I may - is it usual practice, when writing plot summaries of a TV series based on a manga, to note which chapters of the manga relate to the episode (if any)? If so, is there an example of this being done, or, if not, is it something that could (and perhaps should) be reasonably done in a list of episodes? Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be done. At most, you can note which volumes the anime adapts in the lead, but it's otherwise unnecessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it should not be done, especially not in the episode/chapter lists. It is general OR and unnecessary detail, even if it is "obvious." In the main article, when discussing the media, you can note that the anime was based on the manga, or on part of the manga (for example, the Fruits Basket article notes that the anime only covers through volume 9 of the manga), but not a blow by blow of which chapter to which episode or visa versa. In the overall plot summary, you can also have a brief, preferable source section giving an overview of changes from between the primary and the secondary forms. Beyond that, sourced information on the adapting of one to the other is nice in the production section. Collectonian (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for that. Clarity is always a good thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

InuYasha Chapter List Rescue

Here's a big project that seriously needs done as soon as possible, a rescue of List of InuYasha chapters! The format is horrible and the editors currently controlling it have chosen to completely leave out all Japanese release information! The lead is also too short, strange prose sections added to the end of the list, and the sectioning is relatively randomly decided and unnecessary. Some of the plot summaries are overly long, and rather than editing the plots down to deal with the "size" issue they have employed an highly inappropriate and hideous transclusion system that violates Wikipedia guidelines regarding subarticles. Everything is completely unsourced as well. I've left a note on the page about this, but posting here as well to see if anyone want to tackle the massive redo this needs? Collectonian (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I've started a discussion at Talk:List of InuYasha episodes#Splitting List to see about splitting the InuYasha list into season pages in a similar fashion to List of Naruto episodes, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes, and List of Bleach episodes. Feel free to weigh in. Collectonian (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Totoro and Shinto elements discussion

Anyone interested is encouraged to come participate in this discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Excel Saga media

I've tagged List of Excel Saga media for splitting into an episode list and a chapter list. A split could be done pretty easy, and I think with some relatively quick formatting fixes, lead rewriting, and addition of references, both new lists could be brought to FL status in a fairly short time as the summaries seem like they should mostly be good to go. Any takers? I've started the discussion at Talk:List of Excel Saga media#Split. (as a side note, I also reset the article's assessment from A to start as the A assessment was given with no peer review by someone who just seemed to randomly assess it first to B then to A in rapid succession). Collectonian (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to weigh in here? So far, only one person has commented and they oppose as they feel it reduplicates effort (no idea why...). Collectonian (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chi (manga)

Can someone place the appropiate tags on this article, and maybe fix it up a bit? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not really a manga, its an MIC, and outside the scope of the project. It's also just some guy's personally written manga with no notability. Tagging for deletion. Collectonian (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When did Case Closed start?

On the Case Closed page it is listed as 1996 starting date (airing in Japan on that date), but I always thought it started in 1986. It used to say 1986 on the page (I think) but now it has been changed. Anime News Network artcile on the show is very confuseing and does not clear up the matter. I am unsure of the source that states the show began in 1996, but I believe it is inncorrect. We need another source but where can we get one? I have looked but I can't seem to find any good ones.

After watching an episode of the show, a calendar (clearly shown in one of the episodes) says the year is 1988. That would make sense if the show started in 1986, but be rather off if it started in 1996. Although I sapose the show could take place in the 80's (the past) and have been started in the 90's, but there is not much information on that as well. I started a conversation here, please continue it there. That is where it was suggested that I make a post here about it. Any help would be appreciated. - Prede (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the manga or the anime? The manga first appeared in the May 1994 issue of Shōnen Sunday, while the anime began airing in Japan in 1996. Both are still running. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Random Attacks

Anyone else seeing a lot of problems with random IPs deprodding, detagging for mege, reverseing merges, and straight vandalism, in our anime articles with the same article being hit multiple times? There going to get sick of seeing my name in RPP at this rate. I've already had to have 6 or 7 articles protected to stop it. One of the vandalisms implied that its a coordinated disruption effort by 4Chan users, and I'm curious as to what all they are hitting (and feeling a little paranoid that so many articles on my watchlist are getting hit). Collectonian (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds interesting... I don't have any prodded/merge articles on my watchlist (at least, none that have been hit) so I can't provide insight into it. Are there any postings on 4Chan about this? And what are some of the articles that are getting hit? —Dinoguy1000 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is, I haven't seen anything. I suspect it's on one of the larger boards like /a/ or /v/, though /b/ is also a possibility. Smaller boards like /jp/ could also be hit, but then I haven't been on 4chan in a few days, and I only browse /a/ and /jp/.--十八 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh. If it's 4chan shenanigans, I'm surprised their mascot hasn't been hit. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't figured out how to navigate 4Chan so not sure. There is also a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Coordinated Distruption? to see what else can be done. The hit pages on my list: Four War Gods, Utsugi, GetBackers story arcs, Brain Trust (GetBackers), TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 1, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 2, TV Animation Fullmetal Alchemist Original Soundtrack 3, and Tasuku Meguro. All were relatively recent merges, with some being ones tagged for merging (in favor of deprodding), or tagged or other issues. All have since been protected. Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those articles? That's not 4chan. Or at least not any sort of coordinated effort by their anime board. (Now if it were Code Geass vandalism...) Article merges are never exactly popular with the readers though, you're probably just getting the normal flak for that. --erachima talk 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it hadn't come from 20 or more different IPs, and at the same time and with each article hit in a seemingly coordinated effort in that as soon as their hit was reverted someone else redid, maybe. Or maybe since it only seems to have been my merges, tagging etc to be hit, maybe its just one of the same jerks who vandalizes my userpage with random IPs every other month or so. *sigh*Collectonian (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist characters discussion

There is a discussion here about the large number of lists of the series characters. Everybody is invited to give their opinion and finally decide to merge the lists. Cheers.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What if we don't want the lists merged? Just pointing out that your invitation to join in is very biased toward one outcome. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so let me do it again. There is a discussion here to discuss if we want to merge the lists of not. Everybody is invited to give their opinion. So?Tintor2 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura and Cerberus vs Keroberos

I've started a discussion on the main Cardcaptor Sakura talk page to discuss the issue of the name of Kero-chan's main article Cerberus (Cardcaptor Sakura) and whether it should be renamed to Keroberos per the MoS, along with all instances of Cerberus changed to Keroberos within the CCS articles. Input there from the project would be greatly appreciated. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Madlax and Noir images

Aren't Noir and Madlax character pages overusing images ? Margaret Burton (6 images), Madlax (5 images), Mireille Bouquet (5 images), Kirika Yuumura (5 images). Isn't it a bit too much for the purpose they serve ? Jean-Frédéric (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Tag for excessive non-free. Collectonian (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Jean-Frédéric (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut down Mireille to just (2) and Kirika to (3). I'll add commentary some commentaries. Overall, the articles themselves need a lot of cleanup. Fox816 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your opinions. Recently, i ask Fox816 for helps and he/she told me that i can keep 1 instead of 2. I’m asking you if i can keep it, it’s going to be deleted soon. OgasawaraSachiko (Talk) 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of opinion. We're just following policy. There's a grand difference. As well, I said you may have some luck keeping the first one, I never made a decision that you could. That aside, Ogasa needs more insight on non-free images and what can and can't be included in articles (mainly individual character articles). Fox816 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I need some help with editing the Ojamajo Doremi article

I've been considering doing an overhaul of the Ojamajo Doremi article and all articles related to it (Such as Sharp, Naisho, Motto, etc) as I feel they are not written well. However, there are very few English sources I can use, as the show was not very popular in the US, yet it was very popular in Japan and elsewhere.

I'm just not entirely sure where I should begin. I've requested someone to translate the Japanese article into English, but failing that, I'd like to overhaul these articles to improve them.

What can I use for sources? I can use the show of course, but what about a fansub of the show? I help work on the only existing English fansub of this show, and we do a very good job with it. Can I cite our fansubs as sources, or would I have to stick with the original episodes? My own knowledge of Japanese is minimal, so my job with the fansub is just quality control of the script. This would make citing dialogue and conversations between the characters difficult without using the fansub.

This seems like a daunting task, but I strongly feel that this anime needs better articles, I just don't know where to begin.

Someone help!

PsychicKid1 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the articles. There was an earlier post about it, that's now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 28#Magical DoReMi/Ojamajo Doremi Name and Merges. There is a slow, on-going discussion still going on at Talk:Magical DoReMi#Merge Ojamajo Doremi into this article There are discussions about merging them back into a single article as well, as there are no significant differences in the various seasons. To answer your question, no, you can not site your fansubs as a source, nor should any links to them be added. It violates WP:COPYVIO. You can site the episode itself but that is only for sourcing character information. The majority of the article's content should be coming from reliable, third-party sources and focus on its real-world aspects, not just the plot. Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand. Why would a third party source be more reliable than the show itself? Also, what if we're citing dialogue from the show, but since obviously the show is Japanese, how would one go about doing that if we can't use the fansub? PsychicKid1 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Third-party sources are for focusing on the series real world aspects. The plot and show contents should be a relatively small part of the series article. The majority of the article should be focusing on available information on aspects such as production, reception, broadcast and distribution, etc. See our MoS for an idea of what a proper article should have. When citing an episode, you are citing the episode itself, not any specific piece of dialog, so you aren't giving any quotes. As such, you are citing the episode, not a specific translation of it. Collectonian (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Collectonian, while all of that is correct, I think the way you phrased it is probably going to cause more confusion to someone who doesn't know policy than anything else.

When you cite a fansubbed episode of an anime as a source, the fact that it is fansubbed is considered immaterial. You simply cite the Japanese episode, and the fansub is considered as a translation of a foreign language source, rather than as an actual source. In other words, if a piece of information comes from Magical DoReMi episode 25, then you just cite "Magical DoReMi episode 25", not "the fansub of Magical DoReMi episode 25".

And no, third party sources are not considered a better source for plot information than the series canon. However, articles on fiction are not supposed to be merely plot information, and should also contain as much real world information from reliable third party sources as possible in addition to covering the plot of the work. This would include things like the reception and development of the series. Not always easy to find, but it's great if it can be located. (See Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the anime project style guideline.) --erachima talk 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What's an MoS? Can you link me to it? And thank you for clearing that up about citing an episode. I'm still not really sure why the plot and show contents need to be a small part of the article. I realize that the article isn't supposed to be a detailed summary of the show, but that seems kind of defeating the purpose, I feel. I realize development, reception, etc are all important factors that nee[[d to be mentioned, but why downplay the plot and show contents? And if you can't tell, I'm unfamiliar with standard Wikipedia procedures when it comes to editing. Most of my past edits have been met with ill response, which is also why I'm somewhat reluctant to do this. PsychicKid1 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A MoS is a Manual of Style. Its a guideline to aid in determining what should (and often shouldn't) be in an article. For anime and manga articles, our MoS is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). We downplay the plot and show contents, because they are not the encyclopedic aspects of the series. We give a summary of the plot and enough character information to aid in basic understanding, while not providing excessive and minute plot details as it violates various Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and depending on how much plot, possibly WP:COPYVIO (the later still being an issue of debate). For most series, we will have an episode list, which includes individual summaries of episodes between 100-300 words in length. Long enough to cover the major plot points and resolution, but not scene-by-scene detail. The same with summaries of manga chapters. For the over all plot, it should not be excessively long, generally 300-700 words depending on the length of the series and complexity of the plot. Collectonian (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again)An "MoS" is a Manual of Style, a page which describes the commonly accepted methods for organizing articles on Wikipedia. WP:MOS is the primary one, WP:MOS-ANIME is the most specific to our topic.

The plot and show contents don't need to be downplayed exactly, they should just be succinctly described. The best way to balance it in my experience is to remember that you're writing for a reader that hasn't seen the show and isn't a fan. This means that, while you have to describe the plot to give context, if you go into high amounts of detail you're likely to just confuse them. For some good examples of how to structure an article, look at the articles listed under WP:ANIME#Recognized articles, which lists pages that have been awarded for being well-written.

And no problem, everyone was new at one point. If you have questions, we're happy to help. --erachima talk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While the links have been helpful some, I'm still not really sure where I should begin. There's just so much information to take in, and I have no idea where I should start or what I really should try to include. The fact that they still havn't agreed on whether or not to merge the Ojamajo/Magical Doremi articles doesn't exactly help. Should I base information on the English dub (Since this is the English Wikipedia) or the original? Should I use Ojamajo Doremi (original Japanese title) as the title, or Magical Doremi (international title for dubs, including English dub). Who would be coming here more often, fans of the dub, or fans of the original? Ugh, this is making my head spin. PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the crux of the argument on the name, and there hasn't been nearly enough input on it yet. Only part of the series was licensed and named Magical Doremi, so its hard to determine if it should be used, or if Ojamajo Doremi should be used as it is the name for the bulk of the series and that bulk is mostly unlicensed. Collectonian (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we can spend as long as we need to figuring things out and still make the deadline. :) --erachima talk 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my idea is to merge each individual season into one article that covers the entire series. Each season only differs in the finer details (Such as characters, specific plot points, etc), while the overall plot remains the same. (A group of girls trying to become witches and the misadventures that follow). If we did this, then the article could be titled Ojamajo Doremi, with a small section briefly describing each season of the show, and then another section that has a list of the various dubs and brief information about them. Of course other things like production, reception, etc would also be included. I feel that the focus should use the Japanese names of the characters, places, magical items, etc, and this includes the title. And then perhaps make a seperate article that lists each episode, and then maybe a seperate article for a character list. What do you guys think? PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fairly close to what I suggested on the page, though with the sections more in line with the MoS: i.e a Plot section, a characters section (that links off to a List of characters), production, reception, media (with sections for anime, manga, movies, etc as applicable). For the episode list, a single List of episodes, that maybe breaks out into multiple season lists such as is done with List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. For dealing with with Magical DoReMi, I'm inclined to treat it much as we did Mew Mew Power in Tokyo Mew Mew, were we leave the focus on the Japanese names, but of course make the appropriate mentions of the English dub names in the List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about more or less what I was thinking. I could start working on such an article for it on my user page, and after I get the bulk finished, I could propose it to replace the current Ojamajo/Magical Doremi articles. However I don't know the proper channels all of this must go through for just a drastic change. Who would approve such a large change and where do I go to post this idea? I don't want to do all this work only to have it reverted or refused. But yeah, Magical DoReMi, and all of the individual seasons would end up being merged into Ojamajo Doremi, with focus on the Japanese version, and dub mentions where appropriate (Such as dub English names of episodes on the episode list, dub English names of characters, on the character list, etc). Can you point me in the right direction? PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to do the work step by step in one of the articles, after first weighing in on the existing discussions to ensure consensus follows (which I think it does, but best to give some more time). Then, if agreed, I'd do the the work in the main Ojamajo Doremi (series) article. Collectonian (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page on the Ojamajo Doremi series article doesn't seem very active, though. PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed, trust me, but its best to weight in there too, so should someone disagree later, its "on record" so to speak. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I will post my idea on the talk pages of both the Ojamajo Doremi and the Magical Doremi articles. If most people agree on my idea, I will start work on the large Ojamajo Doremi article and merge each season into it. What do you think I should do if people disagree, or no one even replies? PsychicKid1 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If no one disagrees after a week, be bold and start working. :) I have all of them in my watch list, I believe, so while I don't have time to do much work with them myself right now, I'll keep and eye out and can offer help/guideance as needed. Collectonian (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of the advice and assistance. I have posted the proposal in both the Ojamajo Doremi and Magical Doremi discussion pages. Even just looking at them, some of my friends think that the articles do in fact need a lot of work, even some who aren't fans of the show. I'll begin tinkering with a copy of the article on my userpage in my own time so that way if after a week this gets approved (or at least not rejected ;)) I can begin updating the articles right away. Thanks again, and I'll keep you in mind for future advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychicKid1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Saint Seiya

I've added it to the front page list, but Saint Seiya and its sub-articles could really use some help. The infoboxes need fixing. Someone made a very bad attempt at a media list break out a few days ago, which has been undone. The main article is suffering from a lot of "terminology" and all the sequels/prequels/movies were given their own articles when they really don't need them. I've done a huge merge tag, but some project input would be good here (and help with the clean up). The {{Saint Seiya}} template also needs redoing. Collectonian (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? The currently running Saint Seiya spinoff series and movies are separate manga and films, they generally should have their own articles unless they're at a microstub level. --erachima talk 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look around Wikipedia, you'll see that's actually the exception, and few franchises really warrant separate pages for each respective component. Doceirias (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per our MoS, unless they are significantly different , they do not need separate articles at all. From what I saw, they are all related in terms of plot and character, so I see no need for each component to have a separate article. Collectonian (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Few franchises, yes. Saint Seiya being among the select. It's not quite Dragon Ball, but it's still one of the most popular franchises ever. Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas volumes place in the top ten shonen sales in Japan every time a new one comes out.

But whatever, they can be split out again if necessary once I've dredged up the information for their distinct notability. --erachima talk 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If they expand to a significant length with extensive third party sourcing, yeah, they can be split. But popularity (in Japan - the series flopped in the West) alone does not justify splitting. Clear distinctions between them sometimes does - the new Giant Robo manga got split off the article for the Giant Robo anime, largely because they share only a writer and style, but not continuity. Not being familiar with Saint Seiya, there may well be a few books that can justify a split based on that kind of logic, but it should probably be discussed on the Saint Seiya talk page before doing. Doceirias (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Doceirias, Saint Seiya didn't really flopped in the West. It might have flopped in the U.S. (I don't really know), but it was very popular in Latin America and some European countries. Just see how many articles there are about it on the Spanish and the Portuguese wikipedias. :) Cattus ^talk 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly minor series in English. Which is just splitting hairs, since the point was that there are unlikely to be enough sources in English to generate articles worth splitting off. Obviously, using sources from another language is an option, but splitting the articles off before those sources are found and added would not be a good idea. Doceirias (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's like erachima said, if there's sources, they can always be split. Cattus ^talk 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I know the source that says that Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas is so popular. I would like to add it to the articles depending how their merge end.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiyosha's manga rankings, which lists the top manga sales in Japan each week. Found it while looking for Bleach sales info. (There are various blogs out there that translate the weekly rankings, if you're not comfortable navigating the pages in Japanese.) --erachima talk 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That alone doesn't mean they all should be split. Popularity isn't a reason, significant difference is. If its popular, great, sourced reception information on any of the variants goes in the main article's reception area. Splitting should be done if there is a significant difference in the variants, not just the presence of sources. Collectonian (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a separate sequel series with a new author released a decade later sounds like a significant difference to me. --erachima talk 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Significant in terms of content, not when it was released or it having a different author. Often times if a series has a manga and a light novel version, they have different authors. Doesn't make them significant enough to have different articles. Is a completely different story with no shared characters/plot to the rest of the Saint Seiya series? Collectonian (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a mess... I went ahead and cleaned up the infobox on the main article, reordering sections by release date (as best I could), merging in additional info from the various subarticles on volume counts and release dates, and linking out to individual chapter and episode lists. I didn't add or remove any individual components, since I'm not familiar enough with the series to judge what merits a dedicated infobox module, what should be listed in an "Other" module, and what should be ignored altogether. I'll take a look at the template in a minute, I should be able to have it cleaned up in five. —Dinoguy1000 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, the template's been updated too. I'll keep an eye on the status of the merge and further update the infobox and template as needed. —Dinoguy1000 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin, japanese help!

Can somebody who knows Japanese add the kanji of "Futae no Kiwami", and "Zanza" to the Sagara Sanosuke article? Thanks--Tintor2 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Those would be Zanza (斬左, zansa) and Futae no Kiwami (二重の極み) (aaaaaaaaugh!) --erachima talk 02:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks^_^ (why that shout?)--Tintor2 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. (English dub joke. Try a youtube search for Futae no Kiwami.) --erachima talk 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW! Now I see.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but does zanza have a literal meaning or is it just a game of words like Battosai (it needs some explain)?--Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese film editors wanted

WikiProject Films has solicited interest in creating a Japanese cinema task force. We'd like to cordially welcome all regular editors of these articles to voice their interest in starting this task force so as to see if there is sufficient support. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kazue Takahashi

I am working on Kazue Takahashi on User:Kitty53/Test page 2. Does anyone have time to help out? Just wondering. Thank you.Kitty53 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone there? Are you dead?Kitty53 (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If ANN is the only reference you've been able to find, they won't pass WP:BIO. Collectonian (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am working on finding references. In fact, I found some bio parts in the Japanese Wikipedia.Kitty53 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But the JAWP can't be used as a reference. It can be used to write the article (by translating its contents), but you need to find good sources for everything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Himura Kenshin

One of our GA character articles, Himura Kenshin, is currently up for peer review before making a push for FA. If anyone has time, additional comments/feedback would be great. Collectonian (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The conception section can be expanded, a few days ago I added info of the redesign as hitokiri from this image of the kanzenban. Could anybody with Japanese knowledge expand it?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anime voice actors

Yūko Gotō and Brianne Siddall are just a few examples of many, that are in poor shape. It's simply a list of all their roles, along with a few personal life details. I'm not a complete expert on anime, so I'm asking for help here about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust us, we know :( Unfortunately, most voice actors are likely unnotable as is, and even in Japan the ones that might be notable seem to receive little coverage in various sources, much less in English sources. Collectonian (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Though there are several magazines which cover the industry. Voice Animage is one, and there are at least 2-3 others. I don't know if anyone here has those magazines, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to start going through them, and tag them with prods and AFDs. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RM request on Case Closed: The Last Wizard of the Century

There is currently a RM request on Talk:Case Closed: The Last Wizard of the Century on Case Closed movies that have not released in English: they should carry the Detective Conan name or the Case Closed name? Discuss. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags in Infoboxes

Possibly something that could be of importance to us, the TV project is having a heated discussion on whether flagicons should be removed from all TV infoboxes. See Template talk:Infobox Television#Flag usage for the start of the discussion, and Template talk:Infobox Television#Proposal: Flags should no longer be used in Television Infoboxes, per WP:FLAG for the current requests for oppose/support Collectonian (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Chapter list volume references

I recently started cleaning up, expanding, and referencing List of Case Closed chapters, using the Bleach and Naruto chapter lists as samples. These lists both have individual English and Japanese sources for each volume released, and that's how I started to do the Case Closed list. However, recently I had a look at the InuYasha chapter list, and it seems to just list the sources under a "general" part in the References section. Theefore, I want to get a wider opinion: is either of these methods preferred? Does it matter? Should the MoS mention this in any way? (as an aside, is there any reason the Naruto list is titled List of Naruto manga volumes as opposed to List of Naruto chapters, especially when the two sublists use "chapters"?) Strike that, it's called "manga volumes" because individual chapters aren't listed on it. Should have thought it over more carefully. =P —Dinoguy1000 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Both actually work, it just depends on what's available. The General/Specific mirrors what is often done with episode lists for the lists of titles. I personally prefer the general/specific, when possible, for the manga lists as I think it keeps the table neater and keeps the references from being glutted with the same basic links. See List of Marmalade Boy chapters for another list using that system. The criteria, for me, of being able to do general/specific is if the pages being used have all of the volumes listed with the dates/ISBNs either right there, or one click away (or by a flick of the mouse for sites with a javascript page change). Probably would be good to discuss, though, as we get more chapter lists getting cleaned up and hitting FLC, we should be clear on whether the general/specific is acceptable referencing, or if we have to put an individual reference for every release date and ISBN.

For the aside, I believe its because List of Naruto manga volumes is just a list of the volumes, while the sublists actually include the chapters as well.Collectonian (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, that's what I was thinking, but it never hurts to make sure. ;) In the specific case of the Case Closed list, using a "General/Specific" format would probably cut ~10-15k from the page size on an already oversized page, so there's another bonus. —Dinoguy1000 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a third way, which is to still use the general reference as a footnote to the column header for the information in that colunn -- c.f. List of Yotsuba&! chapters. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

General referencing is definitely good if it's available. I found no available single source for all the volumes when I did the Naruto chapter lists, and simply had a lot of references. Same for List of D.Gray-man chapters, which I'm working on now. By the way, I know a fourteenth volume came out for the aforementioned list, but given that my Japanese skills are rather nonexistent, I don't know what the title is. Help would be appreciated. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monopoly of ANN info links - why not others?

I'm a long time anime/manga group member, but haven't actually done much except add the button to my profile awhile back due to not understanding much how wiki works XD (I had to try out the sandbox to even know how to do this)

I noticed the discussion here [Hypocrisy regarding external links] and think it deserves a more broad discussion.

In my opinion, the link sections of the anime info pages used to be a lot better - a lot more balanced, at least. A few years back (prior to the creation of the anime/manga group) if you loaded up most anime info pages you'd find links to AniDB, Anime-Planet, NFO, or a number of other smaller sources. Nowadays it seems that the powers that be decided to put a monopoly on information and only allow ANN (or very seldomly, Anidb), and I don't get it. Isn't wiki all about good info for its readers? Why was an arbitrary group of people able to censor everyone else except ANN?

I don't use AniDB/NFO so I can't attest to them (others can chime in if you want), but I do use ANN and Anime-Planet and both are valuable resources for different types of stuff, and both are quite popular and well known.

ANN:
+Awesome staff info
+In depth voice actor info (my main source for this)
+Easy relational links between tons of series/manga
+Sometimes good synopses, often nothing or poorly-written info

Anime-Planet:
+Unique synopses (all of the info is written by someone/edited)
+Screenshots
+No blank info pages
+Recommendations (user-submitted) - the best feature

So I guess this begs the question, why is ANN (pretty much) the only informational / non-official site allowed to be posted as an external link? Yes, it's great for news, and it's great for the stuff listed above, but it's not the ONLY resource and a group of people forcing a monopoly on information goes against the entire point of wikipedia. IMO Anime-Planet and (if they exist) other equally as high quality sites should be able to be listed as anime resources too, just like they were in olden times.

Phamenoth (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I see ANN as an extensive and generally reliable resource. As far as I've seen Anidb is mostly based around information on what fansubs are available. Animenfo also provides information on fansubs and the other information they do have tends to be less reliable than ANN and harder to get corrected (I posted the same error report multiple times over a couple of years before giving up, and some of those errors were still there last time I checked). Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ANN is considered a reliable source and the anime equivalent of IMDB or TV.com for linking. AniDB, AnimeNFO and any other fansub distribution/listing site was banned and all links removed, and most of their templates deleted. Anime-planet I've never heard of. If its notable enough to have its own article, like ANN, then it can be considered, but it isn't. Its nothing but some little site with a blog and a recommendations database that adds absolutely nothing of value to any article and doesn't meet WP:EL. It has nothing to do with "forcing a monopoly" or anything else. There just happen to be very few reliable anime sites that meet the EL guidelines. Wikipedia is not a link directory nor a link farm. ELs are kept to a selective minimum. Collectonian (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

After looking at Anime Planet, it doesn't contain any new content that doesn't already exist on ANN. On top of that, the content that is on Anime Planet doesn't appear to be verified by the site's maintainers. The "reviews" on the site are user summited blog entries and the user submitted ratings are inconsequential. In short, Anime Planet deals more more with opinions then facts. And under Wikipedia's External Link guidelines, we are suppose to avoid linking to opinion sites. --Farix (Talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the content on Anime Planet is unique, not copied from other sites. All of the data for each entry is gone over manually by the site owner before being added. All of the reviews contained within each entry have been manually selected by the site owner (although anyone can post their reviews & opinions in the site's forum). Anime Planet's main function however is acting as a database to find related and/or similar anime series. On Anime Planet you can find unique synopsis for each series, data such as broadcast dates, studios, episode counts, and also find similar series that you might also like. The screenshots on Anime Planet are also original & not copied from any other source. That gives you 3 different items of original & useful content for every series on the site.

As far as not having an Anime Planet article on wikipedia; I have seen one here in the past, but it got high-handedly deleted just like the external links to Anime Planet. It's very convenient to refuse to allow a site to have an entry on wikipedia, then turn around and use it's lack of an entry as an excuse to not allow any external links to it either. Cypherswipe (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "convenient" its reality. It is an unnotable little fansite that I wonder if you are the owner of or somehow affiliated with that you gave it such a rousing sales pitch. It is not a site that has any notability for having an article. If one existed at all, then it wouldn't have been "high-handedly" deleted but deleted by consensus for having no notability and being nothing more than any other small website of little consequence. However, as there is no evidence such an article ever existed at all, that whole point is moot. Being "original" means nothing for the purposes of reliability, notability, or linking. The site has no value in either of those areas and links to it will continue to not be added as it does not meet a single Wikipedia guideline or policy for inclusion. Collectonian (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me dissect this one by one.

All of the data for each entry is gone over manually by the site owner before being added.

When I looked at the website, I didn't see any of this, at least not to the extent that it would be useful.

All of the reviews contained within each entry have been manually selected by the site owner (although anyone can post their reviews & opinions in the site's forum).

Which is one reason we should avoid linking to the website. In fact, we avoid including links to reviews in the external links section. Instead we citing those reviews from columnists/reviewers at well known and notable websites as part of a reception section.

Anime Planet's main function however is acting as a database to find related and/or similar anime series.

Again, this is a reason to avoid linking to that particular website. It is not a feature that enhances the person's understanding of the topic.

On Anime Planet you can find unique synopsis for each series

This is irrelevant. Every website should have their own synopsis instead of copying off of each other. But that doesn't make for a reason to link to the website.

data such as broadcast dates, studios, episode counts,

ANN is far more complete.

also find similar series that you might also like.

Irrelevant and probably a reason to avoid the link. It doesn't add to the understanding of the actual topic being linked to.

The screenshots on Anime Planet are also original & not copied from any other source.

The External link guideline advices that we not link to image galleries.

All in all, you actually gave us more reasons why this website shouldn't be linked to instead of why it should. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of Anime Planet's information is off, anyway. Take a look at the Last Order: Final Fantasy VII page ([1]), for example. First of all, that's more of the plot of the original game minus Zack, even though that's even a little bit of a stretch. Though it's listed in the "Other Names" bit, they messed up with the correct name being Last Order Final Fantasy VII. The plot is just a retelling of events, and no character knew Sephiroth's plans. They never once tried to destroy Jenova. In their Advent Children guide ([[2]], they basically say Kadaj was the only enemy to appear (he had two 'brothers', you could say, Lox and Yazzo), the team later bands together again in a video game sequel, and the only original-playable characters that got more than five minutes of screen time were Cloud and Tifa (Cid and Barret were random and irrelevent). The Ginga Nagreboshi Gin page ([3]) calls him Silver (the translation of Gin, the dog's real name) and says he's named for a silver stripe (Gin is a silver brindle/tiger striped/tora-ge, basically meaning that he is silver with slightly different colored silver stripes, not a single stripe). These are only three, but there are deffinately more innacuracies just regarding plot. Plots doesn't need to be referenced unless the material is argued over, anyway, and everything else can be found on official websites. And Anime News Network has been recognized by many different 3rd part sources. The articles that are smallest are the ones about small and less-popular manga and anime.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

References in infoboxes?

Something that's bugged me for awhile now is whenever I see a reference in an infobox for, for example, a premiere date or broadcasting company. Is there a policy or guideline concerning this? Is there a wider opinion? Am I just looking for something to complain about? (not 100% sure on that last one... ;) ) —Dinoguy1000 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the general view is that there shouldn't be any references in the infobox, as it should either be sourced from the primary work, or supported by the article where the sources should be. I see it quite a bit in character articles and it chafes some as I wonder if the information is relevant enough to be sourced in the infobox, why isn't it instead sourced in the article. Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If the information has already been cited in the article's text, which it should be anyways, then there is no need to cite it again in the infobox. --Farix (Talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be no need. I've very occasionally copied a ref from the main text into an infobox for frequently mis-"corrected" bits, to more firmly assert, for ex, yes this series really is shōnen. Both otherwise, yeah. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to rename the anime userbox page

I recently started a discussion over at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Anime to rename it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Anime and manga. Everyone is invited to join in the discussion there. —Dinoguy1000 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference help?

I'm looking for a reliable reference to use for the statement in List of Fruits Basket characters that "In Japanese society, non-black hair is often considered "disrespectful" or "unnatural" and is made fun of." I've seen it said, in one form or another, and have no reason to doubt it, but I'd like to nail it down with a citation before it gets challenged. Can anyone help? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That statement is either a gross exaggeration or extremely dated. Everyone dies their hair. They might die it black again for a funeral or a job interview, though. Doceirias (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or possibly both. So your recommendation is to just cut it? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say the context renders it redundant anyway. Pretty clear the character is being bullied for being different. Doceirias (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin merges

In the on-going effort to get Rurouni Kenshin cleaned up and ready to go to GA/FA, it has been tagged to merge in some various sub-articles, including its OVAs, movie, a CD, and a bad media split out. A discussion has been started at Talk:Rurouni Kenshin#Merges for each suggested merge if anyone would like to weigh in. Collectonian (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Exile

Last Exile could really use some project love. Its main page is badly formatted, with no sourcing, and the badly written statements that end up being false. The characters are in bad shape as well, with a bunch of individual articles that read like little personal essays with absolutely no referencing and no establishment of notability. I've proposed that they all be merged into a single List of Last Exile characters. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Last Exile#Character articles to list. I've never seen the series myself, so the clean up and work I can do here is limited to fairly basic stuff. If anyone would like to adopt this page for overhauling, feel free to chime in :) Collectonian (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did some minor work on the infobox, as well as updating the episode list to use {{Japanese episode list}}, but I've never seen the series either (I wish G4 would bring back Anime Unleashed already =P ), so I can't really do much either. —Dinoguy1000 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks :) I tackled the non-plot elements, fixing the MoS issues and adding the anime broadcast/distribution info, the soundtrack info, the Japanese episode titles, episode airdates, and references. I also added a section on the rumored live-action movie, though may not been totally warranted since it appears to have just been a one time rumor. Now...here's hoping someone whose seen the series might come in to deal with the plot, characters, and provide some episode summaries :D Collectonian (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently running manga templates

I would like the project's opinion on templates that are used to show what manga are currently running in a given magazine, such as {{Series in Weekly Shonen Jump}}. Is this a good thing, or does it have too much of a propensity to become dated if no one cares to update it? Or if a template was not to be used, what about a category? I bring it up because I'm unsure if this should be one of the things taken from the Japanese wiki, as I only used to see it there until just recently. Like ja:Template:月刊コミック電撃大王連載中, ja:Template:LaLa掲載中, or the template which the one above is patterned on, ja:Template:週刊少年ジャンプ連載中.--十八 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say using a category or template is unnecessary and very likely to an annoyance to maintain. I can't see that it would add much value versus what we already have with the tables showing the current series. Collectonian (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it any more or less likely to get out of date than the list in the article itself? I do find it an interestingly way of being both informative and navigational. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the template is easier to maintain than a category. I don't think every magazine needs them, but as long as they are being maintained, I think they're fine. If we notice one getting out of date, bring it up or nominated it for deletion, but for the moment, whoever created them is probably planning on keeping them accurate. Doceirias (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excel Saga

Excel Saga is one of our few featured articles, having passed back in 2006 when we had no MoS and FA had looser criteria. Back in March, I left a note on the talk page noting it has a lot of issues, including not being anywhere near MoS compliant, excessive non-free images, too many unreferenced statements, use of non-reliable sources, and a complete lack of the very basic information about the series (like sourced statements on manga releases, anime releases, etc). It has tons of production info, but little else. I tried to do a MoS conversion, but honestly couldn't sort it out as it is rather convoluted in structure right now, with a lot of stuff blending plot, reviews, and commentary in the same paragraphs. No one answered and I intended to take it to FAR for delisting at the end of April, but forgot. Someone finally answered, reminding me of the article. Before taking it to FAR, though, I figured I'd see if anyone wants to actual tackle giving it the massive overhaul it needs. Meanwhile, I've tagged it for the non-free, needing expert attention, and having too much plot (at least from what I can figure out). A discussion is also at Talk:Excel Saga#Article Issues with only the one person answering today after its sat unnoticed two months.Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I cleaned up the Excel Saga navbox just a few days ago. Not that it has any bearing on the article's cleanup, although I did just finish working on the infobox (is it just me, or do I always take the easy work? =P )... —Dinoguy1000 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL...well, sometimes infoboxes can be a rather aggravating mess to clean up too (and hey, its still important since its one of the first things seen ;) ). Collectonian (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not giving me much to go with here, Collectonian. Beyond release information, which is in List of Excel Saga media (and cited, I believe), what other "basic information about the series" do you want to see? The major production staff for the anime are identified when relevant, and I doubt that Rikudou's drawing assistants really merit much mention, though I can add that if desired. I'll admit that the combined character and plot section defies MOS-AM, but guidelines tell us to ignore all rules and to be bold. Perhaps some text could be cut from that section, but it's pretty close to the bone as it is by my reckoning. The use of proprietary images is consistent with other FAs put out by the project and promoted last year, and I personally feel that their use meets the requirements of policy and guidelines. But the article would probably survive without them. And I'm still not sure what needs citation.--Monocrat (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I see your reply here, but not seeing on the page when I refresh. Weird. Anyway, for one, its not just you who is expected to do the work, as problems with an FA article is something the project as a whole needs to address. My gut response, though, is to say that if you aren't seeing all of the issues, not understanding the major MoS problems, and can't see all of the unsourced statements that are glaringly obvious to me, then that might be part of the problem. The media list split out is, in fact, another major problem. I've mentioned part of its problems there, of course. Its not as hideous as some, the basic information also belongs in the main article, in the media section. Its been agreed that a whole scale split like that is not appropriate at all and needs to be cleaned up and merged back in to the main article where it belongs. Appropriate splits are a list of characters, a list of episodes, a list of chapters, and, if relevant, a list of light novels. Standalone, single splits, not one giant media split. The article needs a lot of work to get it up to current standards, not old, out of date ones. Collectonian (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the case for having a media section, with appropriate links to lists of manga, episodes or what have you, and I'm willing to work on that. But beyond that, I'll ask again that you please tell me what the "major MoS problems" are. If they're so obvious, why not list some of them or sprinkle "citation needed" notes throughout the article. (I don't intend to cite every sentence in the article unless I have to.) That would go a long way towards allowing us both and others to make needed improvements. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that request. I might be unreasonable in disputing your stance on the images and the combined character/plot section, but I won't reverse edits made in good faith, and I think you're acting in good faith! :).--Monocrat (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this WikiProject

Do disambiguation pages relating to anime and manga also fall under the scope of this WikiProject, given the banner at Talk:InuYasha (disambiguation) and Talk:Astro Boy (disambiguation)? I ask because Talk:Dragon Ball do not have one. Should it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases like those, where most to all of the items are anime/manga articles, then yes, the disambigs should be included in our scope.Collectonian (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The scope section doesn't explicitly state anything about disambiguation pages, but I see no harm in assuming that they would fall under our scope. This is especially evident when you consider that our project banner has a ratings setting specifically for them, and the non-article animanga category seems to be almost exclusively for them. ;-) Speaking of which, our article assessment documentation (and many other things on the project page) needs some work done. It's not terribly helpful when it only talks about A-class, GAC, and FAC assessments and peer reviews. —Dinoguy1000 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, thirded, and fourthed. I keep meaning to propose, but keep getting distracted. I think that whole area needs an overhaul (and how about examples in the scale that are actually from our project LOL) Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do some typographical work on the "Scope" section, and also add the Videogames wikiproject to the list of sister wikiprojects. If there are any objections, feel free to do a partial or complete revert. —Dinoguy1000 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool...I'll try to find sometime and energy this week to do a proposal for a new assessment page. Collectonian (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I couldn't decide where best to list the VG wikiproject, so I left it out... I doubt it would qualify as a parent project, but it's too closely related to just be a "similar" project. And is there any reason that the Pokemon project is listed as "similar" rather than "descendant"? —Dinoguy1000 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea, it should be moved up to the Descendant section. For the VG project, maybe similar like Square Enix? Collectonian (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I moved the Pokemon and Square Enix projects up to the "Descendant" section (WP Square Enix actually explicitly lists us as a parent project), and added the VG project to the "Similar" section. Any complaints/comments/etc.? —Dinoguy1000 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have lots of those, but not about that ;) Looks good to me. Now...if we can just clean up the page as a whole LOL. Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon is a descendant project of VG, not AM; reading their project page (or hell, even just the article itself) makes this abundantly clear. This needs to be moved back to "similar". —TangentCube, Dialogues 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it be a decendent of both? We're a decendent of both Japan and TV. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree: it's a descendant of both as the Pokemon franchise includes anime, manga, and videogames. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'd really like to know is why this project is claiming video game articles like Mana (series) and Chrono (series) as some of its recognized articles. The information on anime and manga on those articles is really, really insignificant. It'd be like WP:PHILO and WP:PSYCH claiming Evangelion as one of its article because of the "Inspiration and symbolism" section.--Nohansen (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same reason albums sometimes claims any anime/manga article that includes the soundtrack info in it, and video games tries to claim the same articles that have a one paragraph video game section (i.e. excessive project tagging) :P Personally, I'd like to see that reduced except where the anime/manga related series actually has significant coverage or a separate article, and then our project tag should only be on those specific articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a movement at one point to put the project banner (and relevant categories) on the redirect page for the anime or manga adaption instead? Likewise, the video game banner on the redirect for the video game adaption's name. Doceirias (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up project

~poking~ to see where we are on the proposed clean up task force? Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll start to write it up sometime this weekend, or whenever time pops up. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. To be honest, I've been too busy to follow up on this myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that there is an inactive animanga cleanup project/Collaboration of the Week? —Dinoguy1000 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes...it probably needs to be moved under the project properly. Might be something to include in the clean up task force as a subsect, especially for the bigger clean up jobs? Collectonian (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Here is a very rough draft. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Should we also include a section on pending FL delistings and FARs that need quick attention? Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right. Feel free to write it in and spruce up sections as you see fit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. Any opinions on the best way to work in the CotW project/workgroup? —Dinoguy1000 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the disambiguation page Animanga

I'm working on cleaning up the disambiguation page Animanga, and I wanted to ask you knowledgeable folks here what the actual definition of the word is. Is there something that is a combination of anime and manga, or is it really just a word referring to anime and/or manga things? Any clarification will help! Thanks -- Natalya 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but shouldn't ani-manga and aniManga redirect there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Also possible is if Films comic is really the only accurate meaning of the word (and the other three entires aren't easily confusable), we could just redirect the disambiguation to it instead. Knowing if that's true or not would require some knowledge on the topic; hopefully there can be some clarification from those familiar? -- Natalya 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll modify this question - any objections to redirecting Animanga to Films comic? -- Natalya 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against it. If there's anything that can be merged, the better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists and List-class assessment

Something that's been bugging me for awhile is that we don't consistently assess lists as List-class. Should this be done with *all* lists, or is there some other system being used that I don't know about? Would it be possible to have a seperate assessment scale specifically for List-class articles? —Dinoguy1000 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I started looking around, and on the project banner's talk page, there's an old discussion (more a handful of comments, really) on this issue. In it, Farix made a distinction between lists along the lines of List of anime conventions, which he said should be assessed as lists, and character, episode, etc. lists, which he said should be assessed as articles (please forgive any personal interpretation on my part =P ). If this is the opinion of the project as a whole, it should definitely be noted in the assessment documentation. Any further thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should do the method used by some other projects; assess lists same as articles as far as Start, B, FL, but have type=list set on them. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that lists should be assessed as articles. How are you going to differentiate a Start-class list from a B-class list from an FL-class list? On top of that, by assessing lists like articles, there would be no way to separate the assessed lists from the other assessed articles on the automatically generated quality statistics. And given the amount of initial resistance when adding FL-class to the quality statistics which took over a months to overcome, the idea of further braking down the statistics based on type would be DOA. --Farix (Talk) 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

YuYu Hakusho

User:Abtract is currently placing a truckload of citation tags on the article. Anyone want to look into this? I don't think what he is doing is bold, more disruptive in my eyes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...I hope he isn't being retaliatory. I can't believe he actually put {{citation}} tags on the article headers! I've undone his edits and given the article some proper over all tags. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, now this was just ridiculous. Don't you agree Collectonian? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I see the tiger has not changed his stripes at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people never change I guess. Have you added YuYu Hakusho to your watchlist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and gave it some initial MoS fixes. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)