Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

[[:|WT:ANIME
WT:MANGA]]

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:21, October 19, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Project

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation

Archives
Older
Nov '04 – Dec '05 -- Mascot
2006
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
May	Jun	Jul	Aug
Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
May	Jun	Jul	Aug

Reactivating AMCotW?

Just checking to see how many people are interested in restarting the Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week? About a year ago, it became inactive do to lack of support and updates. Long and short of it, I took a several month long hiatus and the whole thing collapsed.

Of course, there should be some reforms made. For starters, the Collaboration should attempt to improve the article to at least B-Class. Also, editors should only comment on nominations they are actually interested in contributing towards and not simply because they like to see the article improved. I believe that was one of the biggest problems the last time. And lastly, a nomination should have a minimum number of willing contributers before it can become AMCotW.

Thoughts? --Farix (Talk) 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think obscurity is the major problem with nominations. We'd need a much narrower scope of articles, limited to those manga/anime that are well known and have plenty of information. Most of those type of articles are already well developed. Maybe we could concentrate on getting B-class articles to GAs or GA articles to FAs. --Squilibob 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Squilibob on this one. One of the main reasons that I lost interest in AMCotW was that many of the articles that were nominated I've never even heard of/could find no resources on when searching for it on the internet. It would be a good idea to start it up again, but more guidelines would be necessary. --Miss Ethereal 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, I've been away from wikipedia for a long time, so I don't know how active the anime editors are and if they're like me, they've probably forgotten many of the wiki-tags. --Miss Ethereal 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a B-to-GA improvement drive would be easy and rewarding and fun. --Masamage ♫ 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a B-to-GA improvement drive would be excellent. You wouldn't need a deadline and you wouldn't need to be limited to one article so it's deviating away from a CotW. --Squilibob 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing something like that with all of the Mitsuru Adachi articles. So far I've improved Nine, Rough, Cross Game, Miyuki, and Slow Step. I'll be working through the remaining existing articles as I get to them, and then moving on to creating all (or as many as I can of) the others in the template at the bottom of each of them. Oh, and I made the {{Mitsuru Adachi works}} template to help link them all together. I've gotten a little sidetracked with creating Weekly Young Sunday, Shōnen Big Comic, Twilight Q, Strange Dawn, and all the Japan-related unassessed article assessment, but I'll be getting back to them. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we would need more guidelines; B to GA sounds good. On that theme, what happened to the importance thing? Did anyone ever try to do it? Was there a lack of consensus? I feel if we could have this done, we could start by the "top" articles down. And btw, if we're going to a B to GA thing, I think we really need to start by Evangelion. I know by now the mere thought of approaching that article makes most people nauseous, but we simply cannot leave it in that desperate state. --SidiLemine 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of InuYasha has been nominated for deletion

The article on the plot of InuYasha has been nominated for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of InuYasha and express your views on whether Plot of InuYasha is needed. JRSpriggs 08:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that the article "Plot of InuYasha" has been wantonly destroyed as a result of this AfD. JRSpriggs 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't read the very clear text shown every time you make an edit, have you? Let me quote:

By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to people copying my contributions. Nor do I object to edits which are done for the purpose of improving the article. I do object to vandalism and destruction for the sake of destruction. If we accept that, then why should anyone contribute anything? Why do you edit Wikipedia? Would you be content to see the articles you helped build wiped out so that neither you nor the people you were trying to help could enjoy them? Your comment is disingenuous. JRSpriggs 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do object to vandalism and destruction for the sake of destruction. Except that this deletion was nothing of the sort. By editing and participating on Wikipedia, you agree that your contributions must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:NOT, a major policy that defines what are not acceptable content to the site, explicitly states that articles that are only plot summary are not encyclopedic and will likely be deleted, regardless of whether contributors find it useful or interesting. This article violated a rule in WP:NOT, and thus deletion was the correct course of action. If you disagree with that, you can discuss it at Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your position was refuted during the AfD, especially by KrytenKoro (talk · contribs). JRSpriggs 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been refuted to you, but the consensus among the other users at that AfD was that reasoning was valid. Like I said, if you don't like that judgement, take it to DRV or in WP:NOT's talk page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in userboxen

The following userboxen have Naruto ninja village insignia (or whatever they're called) images:

and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Uchiha has the Uchiha family symbol.

These strike me as derivative works of Naruto. Even though they are fan-made, if they're derivative works, they are considered non-free, and should not be in the Template or User namespace, as per Non-free content criteria #9. I'm posting here first to reach a consensus on a) if these images are non-free and b) what should be done if they are. Thanks, --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images look like they've been released into the public domain, and thus are free-use images. I do not believe they should be deleted on this basis.--十八 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A derivative work of a copyrighted image cannot just be released into the public domain. IANAL, but at a guess I'd say these are non-free since they are recognisably Naruto-based images. (After all, if logos can be copyrighted I don't see why something that equates to a fictional logo wouldn't at least potentially be subject to the same kind of risk.) Confusing Manifestation 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that any image self-made could be released into the public domain and thus free-use. Am I wrong to assume this?--十八 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are - see derivative work. If you create a character yourself, and draw art of them, you're free to do what you like. But if you draw a picture of a copyrighted character, then you may own the copyright on the picture itself but the fact that it contains someone else's copyright is where the problems seep in. See also fan art which suggests that the best you can hope for is fair use - and Wikipedia doesn't allow fair use images on userpages. Confusing Manifestation 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would these common symbols even be copyrighted? The rain one is just four straight vertical lines. Another is just four circles. Even the Konoha logo is a spiral with a triangle attached. Some of them could even be replicated in unicode. --Squilibob 07:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume only maybe Konoha, sand and the Uchiha symbols would. The rest are just commonly used symbols. Naruto can't copyright a star. Or a squiggle. The other 3 I'm not positive about, but most of the others are generic symbols they used. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 10:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but the problem is that even the ninja insignia that are common symbols (Sound, Rain, Moon, Star, etc.) are still explicitly based on a copyrighted work. I think that in the userboxen that aren't affiliated with a ninja village (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User narutofan and WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User WayOfThe Ninja), the image could be replaced with something clearly free and ninja-ish, like a shuriken or kunai. I'm not sure what to do about the ninja village userboxen. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The kunai or shuriken is a good idea. I have looked through unicode characters and these could be used: ☾ Moon ♪ Sound / oro ☁ Cloud (maybe) ☆ Star and ‖‖ Rain. They won't be breaching image guidelines if they're just text. --Squilibob 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more recognizable symbol for Naruto in general might be to use the tomoe pattern. He certainly hasn't got a copyright on that one. --tjstrf talk 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some prototypes for NarutoFan and WayOfThe Ninja in my user space. 忍者 means "ninja", and the shuriken is the only one I could find on Commons that vaugely looks like a Naruto shuriken and isn't up for deletion. The kunai I found looks suspiciously like Naruto merchandise (one of the descriptions is "A palstic kunai" (sic)), so I avoided it, since it may or may not be a derivative work. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those look good, but the "way of the ninja" ones should probabably be gender-neutral, too. --Masamage ♫ 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His" is a gender-neutral pronoun. --tjstrf talk 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being called "dude" or "mankind" or reading a textbook with generalized male pronouns. But for the purposes of my userpage, I would never use something that referred to me, personally and directly, as 'him'. Most userboxes use 'them' or avoid the issue altogether. --Masamage ♫ 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I take being called "they" as a singular entity about the same as being called "it". You just can't make everyone happy, can you? Or rather, I suppose you can, but it may require some template functions. {{{1|his}}} should do the job here, since then you can change the pronoun to whatever you want. --tjstrf talk 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could take it that way, but you'd be the first I've ever seen. Like I said, most userboxes use "they". I don't really care how it gets fixed as long as it is. :P --Masamage ♫ 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Interestingly enough...Singular_they. Be sure to check out the historical sections. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to his/her, which seems somewhat standard in userboxen. I copy/pasted from the old box, and didn't notice the pronoun. Fortunately narutofan is phrased in a gender-neutral way. The final version could easily have variables, though. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't any objection, I'll take out the images in {{User narutofan}} and {{User WayOfThe Ninja}} in a day or two. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, just very slowly. I put all the ninja village boxes together on one page in my userspace, here, but it is still very much a work in progress. Thanks to User:Squilibob for finding those unicode replacements for the images. I'm still pondering what to do with all the boxes that still say "id". --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals?

Is Manga and Anime still considered a foreign word? Last I read the definition was wrong in many dictionaries.... including the OED (Which stated that manga and anime usually contain science fiction and fantasy elements --which is not true (Considering Roman and OL manga and anime), and some I've read say more violence and sex which is also not true... (considering Marybell and Hime-chan no Ribbon, for instance). If it's considered a foreign word, then it should follow foreign word rules, shouldn't it? And if it's considered native, then what do we do about plurals? Just wondering. It seems like the project leans towards Japanese word rules over American... i.e. Two manga versus two mangas. (Firefox and many of the programs I have don't think they are words and underline them as wrong... but then it also underlines sensei...) Be interesting to add this to the article proper too on anime and manga, as well as common misconceptions on the International field about these two.--Hitsuji Kinno 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with Japanese words, what we have done is dealt with them from the standpoint of the Japanese language since they are loan words and originated from another language other than English, thus they should follow the language rules of the language they came from, so I disagree with adding the plural 's' to the end of anime/manga when speaking about them in the plural form. The other words around anime/manga tell the reader how many there are. And if there isn't something already, shouldn't this be stated at WP:MOS-JP?--十八 09:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are treated just like "deer", "sheep", and other English words which don't change when pluralized. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be added when it is not the correct form to begin with? The words may have found their way into English dictionaries, but that doesn't mean that normal English pluralization rules now apply. It is also very uncommon for people who use the pluralization "animes" or "mangas" and is generally a sign of ignorance, just like when they use "sheeps" and "deers". --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are exceptions ("futons" is one that's mentioned on the WP:MOS-JA page). I added a header for the paragraph on that page which talks about this. As already mentioned here, though, "anime" and "manga" are pluralized the same way as "deer" and "sheep" (without an "s" being added). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Naruto Task Force

I just created the page I'm going to add it to the Work group section. Uch iha 23 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Naruto articles have always left me with the impression that they are very comprehensive and well organized to begin with so I wonder if there really is a need for a work group on this specific subject. I would prefer to reserve work groups to areas where quite a bit of work is needed, such as when there are a large numbers of stubs or incomplete articles, instead of "just because". It would also better to propose the work group here first before it's created. That way, we can see how much support the work group has first or if it is really needed. --Farix (Talk) 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did propose it at the Wikiproject council, though I'm not sure if he announced it anywhere else. --tjstrf talk 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to have the support yet. But any work group of this WikiProject should be ran by the this project. Otherwise, the WikiProject would have no control over what becomes work groups of itself. --Farix (Talk) 19:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted two users who do a lot of editing on the Naruto pages before about establishing a workgroup but they seemed uninterested. You would need those users to participate as they already informally manage the Naruto articles anyway. --Squilibob 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um so should I add the {{inactive}} template or should i propose it for deletion? I could delete.. I wouldn't mind. Uch iha 23 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

I would like to suggest that every article in Category:Macross_spacecraft be merged to a single "list of" article and cropped appropriately. Most or all of them need some sourcing and so forth, and doing it like this will greatly simplify the logistics of that matter, as well as following some precedent for merging other mecha. Jtrainor 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the ones that are short enough get merged in while the ones that are longer still retain their own article space? Because if you merge them all in, SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie for example are going to blow up the article. --BrokenSphere 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess SDF-1 and VF-1 should remain separate because of their importance. Jtrainor 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if I could get a little help with this. I'm not good at cropping stuff into such articles and I'm afraid I'd just end up with some gigantic unwieldy beast of an article. Jtrainor 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin III is listed as a Featured Article Candidate

Lupin III is listed as a Featured Article Candidate. Go here to show your opposition and support Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lupin III. --AutoGyro 03:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of chibi and super deformed

The proposal of a merger between super deformed and chibi happened December of 2006, and still hasn't been resolved. Anyone interested? The discussion is here. JohnnyMrNinja 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merge necessary as the Chibi article is 100% wrong. Chibi is used to refer to a child version of an adult or teenage character. --Farix (Talk) 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen chibi used as anything but an insult in Japanese. Admittedly, I don't read the kind of manga that would use that word, but I wonder if it isn't mostly a misuse of the words by English speaking fans. Doceirias 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English fans often translate it as "small" or "cute", but it's actually a slightly derogatory word for small, more like "runty" or "shrimpy". A good example is in the Sailor Moon manga; the character Chibiusa is intially annoyed and insulted by her nickname. --Masamage ♫ 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it just be deleted as nonsense? Then maybe someone who actually knows what chibi means could make a note on the super deformed page? Looking at the chibi history, is is quite prone to spam and gibberish. JohnnyMrNinja 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably become a redirect to "super deformed", yes, because in colloquial usage they are they same thing, so we should have the trope live at its correct title. --Masamage ♫ 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the term chibi used as a synonym for "super deformed". But the whole article is clearly original research and I've prodded it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)

Yeah, people will draw somebody all cute'n'chubby and say "chibi style!" or something. It's not limited to Sailor Moon fandom (I first encountered it in Final Fantasy fanart), but I think it probably originated there: we have the older girl with buns and pigtails, and she's Usagi; we have the younger one with shorter limbs and the same hair, and she's Chibi Usagi; then we have the infant who basically epitomizes SD art, and she's ChibiChibi. --Masamage ♫ 01:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi has gone to AfD. The discussion is here. JohnnyMrNinja 08:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an appropriate spoiler warning?

At Minako Aino, we have placed a spoiler warning in the midst of this section. The paragraph enclosed in the warnings details the death of the character in the final episodes of PGSM, which was released in 2004 and which has not been released in English. It seems to me that this warning is entirely justified per several of the points at WP:SPOILER, and doesn't fail any of the "should not be used" criteria. The one at the bottom of that section talks about not using the warnings in character articles except "around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across"; I feel this applies, but apparently not everybody does. I'd like to get a wider subset of opinions. Any thoughts? --Masamage ♫ 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel there should be no spoiler warnings what-so-ever. I don't know how many agree with me, but I feel they break up the encyclopedic tone of articles when they're used and restrict them unnecessarily. Leebo ^T/C 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But does this fit the existing policy, is the question. --Masamage ♫ 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're asking, but it's a disputed guideline rather than a policy. I don't agree with it. Leebo ^T/C 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly would this need a spoiler warning? Also is it really a spoiler or just a plot detail that plays on the viewer's emotions? It is in a section discussing the plot of the live-action series and the series is dated. Just because it hasn't be released in the US isn't enough of a reason to mark it with a spoiler tag. --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having aired in the US is listed in the bullet points. And this is for the live-action series, not the anime, so it's 2004. How recent is 'recent'? --Masamage ♫ 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such bullet point. You've already stated that it is unlikely to be aired in the US. So not being aired in the US can't be used as justification for placing a spoiler warning. And I also wouldn't call 2004 recent as far as television series goes, where 6 months isn't very recent either. --Farix (Talk) 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misremembered its specific point, but bullet two does indeed include "TV shows that have not yet aired in all major markets." (Also, for what it's worth, Malkinann said that, not me. She's probably right, but.) --Masamage ♫ 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That point is meant to apply if it is known that a TV series will air in several major markets. But since that is highly unlikely, that point doesn't apply. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any sign that it might actually be released in the US, then I might support this warning. As is, no, since all the English fans of the live-action series will already know. --tjstrf talk 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is true that those English fans who do wind up seeing it for themselves will be a very tiny subset. Most will have to be fans by osmosing what other people write about it. --Masamage ♫ 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New cat

I've created Category:Manga anthologies to help people find anthologies. Please help populate the category. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template

I've created the {{Studio Ghibli people}} template by splitting it off of the film template. I've also added it to all the people listed in it, as well as the Studio Ghibli article. Here's what it looks like:

Enjoy. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Someone proposed the merging of all the Serial Experiments Lain episode articles with List of Serial Experiments Lain media. After checking the said episode articles contain no additionnal data. So I propose the merger be changed to a mass (13 articles) deletion. The articles have not moved in eight months, and I figure that's 13 less stubs for the project.--SidiLemine 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Being an inclusionist, I really don't know how to do this. If someone wouldpoint in the right direction, I'd be most grateful.--SidiLemine 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect the episode articles to the list. That is usually the best method. --Farix (Talk) 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Farix. As long as it gets the number of stubs down, it's good for me ;). --SidiLemine 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, where can I find that nice little table that used to be on the project page, with the number of stubs, start, B, etc.?--SidiLemine 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess.--十八 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot. --SidiLemine 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I've nominated both Template:List of Anime Ep TV and Template:List of Anime English Ep TV for deletion. You can find their deletion discussions here and here respectively. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine infobox?

I've been thinking it would be good to create a magazine infobox to go with {{Infobox animanga}}. It could include such things as the publisher, when it was founded, how often it's released, what day of the month it comes out (since most monthlies in Japan come out on the same day every month), and language. Thoughts? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would first check to see if there is already an infobox to fit the need. There is no point in reinventing the wheel if you can slightly modify an existing one. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And what do you know . . . Template:Infobox Magazine --Farix (Talk) 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was only asking about it. Thank you for being so polite about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was wanting one that fit into the animanga infobox for consistency through all anime and manga articles. Almost all of the parts to the animanga infobox have less specific equivalents. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you create one that would fit inside {{Infobox animanga}}? It's not going to be used in conjunction with the other components. The standalone {{Infobox Magazine}} will serve the purpose. --Farix (Talk) 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of maybe one example where a magazine has been adapted into an anime. Some film articles like Akira (film) don't use the Anime infobox so I don't think there would be any inconsistency. --Squilibob 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very rarely do film only articles use the animanga infobox. And if Netrun-mon is the only case, then a different solution should be looked at. --Farix (Talk) 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books on anime

Part for my own self and part to help with articles on anime, I'm looking to buy some books on anime. This book caught my eye, and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about it. Also, if anyone has any other suggestions for books on anime. While we're on the topic, those of you who do own books on anime should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about that book, but Fred Patten is a good writer (at least what I've read in the past). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now own this book, though I haven't yet read it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend: Clements, Jonathan (November 2006). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, Revised and Expanded Edition. St. Paul, MN: Stone Bridge Press. ISBN 1-933-33010-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) --AutoGyro 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is branching off into manga now, but considering how closely manga and anime are intertwined, Frederik L. Schodt's Dreamland Japan is good and an update to his prior book, Manga Manga, even if it's more than 10 years old now. --BrokenSphere 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (a very respected work in the field of comics) contains some interesting points on the difference between American and European comics to manga.--SeizureDog 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Criterium

I was wondering if we coul settle the Article Important dispute by using the "what links here" stats, basically saying that the article with the most articles pointing at it (excluding of course WP articles, user pages, portals, etc) is the most important. This has been used by others, and seems pretty consistant to a few exceptions.--SidiLemine 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was a dispute. I thought we had a general consensus not to use it. Who is going to maintain importance if we do start using it? We're over 6000 articles tagged now. --Squilibob 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagree with the incorperation of an importance scale. It would take too long to tag all the articles, and in the end, it doesn't really help that much.--十八 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there wasn't any dispute. I just assumed from the fact that it wasn't used that we didn't agree on anything, and I didn't know we had agreed not to use it. The main idea behind using it was that it enabled things like the AMCoW to function on some kind of an importance basis. Also, when people not from the project, say, people working towards 1.0 pass by, they might say, "hey! That's a top importance article, in a terrible condition! Let's do something about it!", and give a hand. That's basically it. As for maintainance, there's not nearly as much mantainance to do as for quality, and we definitely are using, and maintain, this scheme. Seeing how every single other project does use importance, I thought we might be able too. --SidiLemine 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it's not true that "every single other" project uses importance. WP:WPCATS doesn't. WP:TOKU doesn't. WP:BUFFY doesn't. I'm sure I could find more. --Masamage ♫ 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry I got overcarried. Maybe I went too far saying "all". I just wanted to point that some projects with great amounts of articles do, and seem to live well with it.--SidiLemine 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that we never considered the importance scale to be all that important or useful enough to the project to bother with. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point. I was more thinking about the people outside the project, but importance being strictly project-managed, I can see how this makes no sense. Thanks all!--SidiLemine 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, even if we did decide to use the scale, how would we determine it? What one person considers important, another person may not. The importance scale leads to nothing but problems, one person may think an anime is of high importance and others may think the exact opposite. Using the scale would just lead to more problems than it would solve. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox animanga character

I've been working on a prototype for an anime and manga character infobox. Partly to provide a uniform design, and also to make changes to the overall layout easier to implement without having to track down and edit numerous series specific infoboxes.

The template provides numerous general fields that can be applied to a wide array of anime and manga characters. More series specific fields can be added using template extensions, if they are deemed appropriate. --Farix (Talk) 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put month and day in the the birth parameter? --BrokenSphere 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter will take any format you like. Just be sure to wikilink it so that individual's preferred date format will work. --Farix (Talk) 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe the explanation of those parameters should be reworded to date of birth and date of death then; given years tend to be vague or nonexistent most of the time. --BrokenSphere 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a test with Naruto Uzumaki which showed some minor issues with the extensions which I was able to fix. I would still like to see more comments for or against the design. --Farix (Talk) 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was some rule against including measurements like height and weight in infoboxes? I think it was in reference to real people, though, in which case it's sort of more crufty than with fictional characters (since with characters, it's a lot harder to just look at them and tell). Anyone else remember what I'm talking about? --Masamage ♫ 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. So that would probably eliminate such fields as height, weight, measurements, blood type, and etc. that aren't essential information to the character or storyline. While these fields are now on the chopping block, I won't remove them just yet until there is more input. --Farix (Talk) 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood type might actually have a use since the Japanese use bloodtype as a way to determine personality. All the other fields can go, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards blood type being more or less trivia that should be removed from the infobox, unless someone can demonstrate that blood type is important to the plotline. But what about hair and eye color? Granted the infobox's instructions says to only use them if they are not obvious, but are they really necessary or are they also just trivia?

When you say "without having to track down and edit numerous series specific infoboxes" does that mean you intend to replace existing character infoboxes with yours? I hope that is not the case, editors should be allowed the freedom to design and use their own templates. We don't enforce editors to use our Infobox animanga, for example. --Squilibob 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see a problem with replacing one infobox template with another if the new infobox template lends itself to be more versatile then the one it is replacing. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seems like the whole point of using templates.--SidiLemine 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope that it will be versatile. There are a few of these that are formatted in the blue style that the Infobox animanga uses. Kanon, Oh My Goddess!, Ranma, School Rumble, and Tenchi Muyo. That style should be an option to use as well. --Squilibob 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies/Cultural References in x anime

Are there any existing guidelines or precedents for discussing parodies or cultural references in x anime outside of trivia sections, especially in their own article space? I just found List of School Rumble season two parodies, and as much as I'm a fan of the series, I doubt it would survive an AFD nomination on OR grounds. So what to do with it? --BrokenSphere 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that topics such as that are little more than trivia and should not be included in Wikipedia per WP:TRIVIA, though I'm sure there may be exceptions.--十八 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are here for such pages. --BrokenSphere 02:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason these articles get delted would also have to do with a lack of references and, as you said, original research that cannot be verified.--十八 04:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on a similar topic a few months ago, and I think the consensus is that if it's not referenced, it's not allowed, and 99.999% of this stuff is not just unreferenced it's unreferencable (apologies for that horrible Frankenstein of a word). Confusing Manifestation 05:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I began editing the Lupin III article, those sections were mostly un-referenced, but even after I found references for them, I felt like they do not add much to the article and so moved the sections to the talk page so that they may remain there for future reference. --AutoGyro 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mantain a Cultural References article for The Big O only to keep the "Influences" section in the main article void of fancruft and original research. I added a few items I considered cool —and verifiable— but these sections/articles never amount to much.--Nohansen 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good. SR is full of influences/parodies, but the major problem would be how to source them adequately. --BrokenSphere 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we talking about cultural references within an anime, or references to that anime in other sources? --Masamage ♫ 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original inquiry and the subject of that article I mentioned, which I won't contest the proposed deletion of, was re. the references within an anime. --BrokenSphere 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possiblity for fixing the infoboxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgeese has collapsible infoboxes-- let's just make all boxes be like that, then AMIB's complaint about size will not matter anymore. Jtrainor 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make the infobox pointless. --Farix (Talk) 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't, because one could just click Show to pop 'em out. Also, I meant to post this to WP:Gundam, I'll go and do so now. Jtrainor 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still pointless and completely defeats the purpose of placing an infobox on an article in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's as Farix says, we shouldn't be hiding information as it's counter-productive. A radical change to the infobox to make it more space efficient is what is needed, without hiding the important base information. --Squilibob 07:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Gundam

I appreciate the efforts by WikiProject Anime and manga. However, your child WikiProject, WikiProject Gundam, is based on an unreferenced flagship article Gundam and seems to be a WikiProject dedicated to generating more unreferenced articles. I started a thread here in hopes to improve the efforts of WikiProject Gundam. It would help if those in WikiProject Anime and manga would assist WikiProject Gundam to become a Wikiproject to "collaborate on encyclopedic work" as stated at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Gundam is pretty much a ghost ship. None of the listed participants appear to be active. Complaining about it, and making incivil accusations about its goals, aren't helpful really. I'd like it if a seasoned administrator like yourself would assume more good faith. Kyaa the Catlord 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the parent projects should always be responsible for their child projects, a lot like in real life where parents aren't always resposible for their children's actions due to the child having a mind of their own. Likewise, these child projects tend to branch out away from the parent project and only really have a slim connection to the parent project, especially when you go from something very broad such as WP:Anime to something very narrow such as WP:GUNDAM.--十八 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Add to the drama that WP:GUNDAM was saddled with all the non-Seed related pages by someone who was not really related to it last fall. Could the pages be improved? Sure. But coming to this page and complaining about it isn't contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, imho. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted that Gundam related articles are in serious need of cleanup, consolidation, and across the board rewrites. But to hold WP:ANIME responsible for the actions, or lack of actions, of WP:GUNDAM is beyond the pail. Of course, the WP:SCISSORS campaign a few months back didn't help matters either. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. On the other hand, asking politely for help is always okay. --Masamage ♫ 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUNDAM is an effort to improve these articles. The group has done a lot of good with centralized discussions and group goals. But, people can't do everything at once, and not everything will be perfect just because there is a WikiProject related to the topic. WP:GUNDAM is whatever you want it to be. Propose things there, inspire people to fix things, that's what it's there for. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing with WP:GUNDAM is that I think originally, there was just WP:CE, which was people interested in Gundam SEED stuff. Then it kind of all got shovelled into a big pile to be WP:GUNDAM, which produced a problem since there are not many people who know enough about UC Gundam stuff to be able to update it properly. Jtrainor 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are all of the reliable sites

I've planning to rewrite Blue Submarine No. 6 (using my own sandbox currently), but I want to know if any of these for reliable for writing a reception section. I don't see any thing on the main page specifically listing reliable sites.

Thanks, THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're ok. I wouldn't rely too much on the smaller ones, like animeworld, amr, and animeacademy). AOD, THEM, Sci Fi and ex.org are very good choices. Might see if anime news network reviewed it as well. Kyaa the Catlord 22:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments by Kyaa. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime on DVD is also very good. You might want to check AniDB and Anime Jump too.--SidiLemine 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. OAD. Anime on DVD. Understood. Going to bed now.--SidiLemine 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not quite yet. Get all your reception section packed with the metacritic from animecritic. --SidiLemine 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doujin notabilities

I know that doujinshi are inherently non-notable unless proven otherwise. The question is: how do you prove otherwise? No matter how well a doujin sells at Comiket and doujin retail outlets, there is no record of those statistics on the internet (except, say, on export services where they would provide a ranking but no statistics...and those sites are of questionable notability/reliability too) As for reliable sources to prove notability...are there any magazines in Japan that mentions doujins (doujinshi, doujin games, etc)? I ask because some dojins really are notable (for example, Tsukihime and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni even before their anime adaptations), but it is really difficult to prove they are notable especially to an oblivious deletionist Wikipedian in good faith. _dk 09:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I can think of is the booklet they give out to the Comiket visitors on what's going to be at the event. I'm sure that more high-profile doujins would get more coverage in something like that, though I really am only guessing. The only other way to test it would be to wait for a doujin to get mentioned in a mainstream gaming magazine like Comptiq, and possibly picked up for a manga/anime adaptation. Apart from Tsukihime and Higurashi, what other notable doujin games are there?--十八 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the games in Category:Dojin soft are notable...(but most of those articles do nothing to prove that notability). In particular, Touhou Project is really famous, as it ranks among Higurashi and Tsukihime (aka top notch), though its format really prevents it from being animated (but there are commercial novels and manga being serialized). And then there are Melty Blood and Ragnarok Battle Offline which were so great they were acknowledged by the source material's companies...and then there are the critically acclaimed Eternal Fighter Zero, The Queen of Heart, Glove on Fight (by critically acclaimed I mean from English review sites; I wouldn't know if the Japanese mainstream picked up on them). I'll stop myself here.

Well, the reason I'm bringing this up is because User:JohnnyMrNinja has placed a {{notable}} on Immaterial and Missing Power, part of the Touhou Project, and I'm having trouble proving the game's notability (Not because it's not notable, but English reliable sources just cannot be found for dojin games). It is very easy to prove that Touhou is notable, but less so for IaMP, except that it is part of a very notable series. I can't really say "It is notable because it is part of Touhou, which has a myriad of serialized manga and novels"....I'm sorry if this discussion seems out of place, but since this discussion should be about dojin in general I thought it would be better to bring this up here instead of WT:CVG. _dk 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm no expert, and that user has complaints on his webpage for overreactions, the IaMP page itself looks fine. I couldn't work out why there was a non-notable claim for it. Then I went and looked at the Touhou project page...and that's the only game in the series that has it's own page. Maybe that's why the notability tag was added for? Why does that particular game get a whole page when none of the others do? Doceirias 08:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I haven't gotten around to making the other articles....orz _dk 08:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it looks like User:JohnnyMrNinja added the notability tag without explaining why in either the edit comments or the talk page. The article makes a fair claim to notability, so I would either ask him to defend his actions or take the tag off as unjustified. Doceirias 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does the subject meet the notability guideline for WP:CORPorations, and can to provided the reliable sources demonstrating that notability? --Farix (Talk) 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that you ARE allowed to use other-language sources, especially if there's a lack of English ones. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, all doujinshi (and doujin) pretty much stays non-notable unless:

A) The doujinshi gets a non-doujin adaptation. (i.e. The anime version of Higurashi no Naku Koro ni)
B) The doujinshi gets re-released by a "real" publisher. (i.e. The PS2 version of Higurashi)
C) The doujinshi is a past work of a now established manga-ka. (i.e. I dunno, old Clamp works?)

--SeizureDog 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, since that would be saying that Higurashi wouldn't be notable if not for the anime and the remake (which I believe is not true, but is a systemic bias based on the lack of knowledge about the doujin scene). Although, as I said, it is difficult to prove that such doujin are notable and thus the above standard would inevitably do as a compromise. I have some problems with point C though: Ken Akamatsu (mangaka for Negima and Love Hina) drew H doujinshi on the side (they are derivatives of Final Fantasy 7, etc), but the doujinshi still wouldn't be notable.... Thus gives rise to another question, does the notability of a work establishes the notability of the author? If it does, does that notability establishes the notability of the author's other works? _dk 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a more subjective issue, but think about it this way: Obscure (usually early) works by notable authors become notable because after the author makes their popular works, people seek their early stuff out and make it notable after the fact. That old Akamatsu dojinshi isn't going to be notable because there is nothing to say about it. The entire article would read "Golden Saucer is an H dojinshi by Ken Akamatsu, based on Final Fantasy VII. In it, Aerith Gainsborough, Tifa Lockhart, and Yuffie Kisaragi have a threesome. It reflects Akamatsu's typical art style." (Why do I remember all this, anyway?) If there was some interesting incident about it, we could merge it into Akamatsu's personal article, similar to when authors do one-shots. --tjstrf talk 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause Golden Saucer was hot? :P It probably warrants inclusion in the Ken A article, since it isn't listed. Kyaa the Catlord 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: If the (now famous) mangaka created a number of such doujinshi (I dunno, more than 10?), then a List of dōjinshi by MANGAKA could be made. If they only created a handful, then they can be mentioned as small blurbs in the "List of works" section of the article for the mangka.--SeizureDog 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

07th Expansion up for deletion

This article was first tagged with a speedy delete, but I changed it to an AfD so a discussion could take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/07th Expansion. And yes, I realize that this page is only loosly connected to this project, but I thought the people here would be the best to comment about it.--十八 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case is a prime example of what I'm worried about on the above section. Although 07th Expansion is out of their dojin phase already... _dk 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Fullswing

could anyone help improving this page? I'm reading translated version (currently volume 6) and anyone more knowledgeable than me about this manga please improve (especially nihongo thing) --XNZ 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shin Lupin III episodes Featured List

List of Shin Lupin III episodes is a current Featured List candidate. Please discuss and vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Shin Lupin III episodes. Thanks. Kariteh 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this wikiproject dead or what?? No one's voting! Kariteh 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. Lots of anime stuff to be edited and fixed.--AutoGyro 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title for the multi-format series.

WP:TV-NAME suggests that the "articles about series that have been presented in multiple formats such as radio, television, or novelization where a significant portion of the article covers information other than television and disambiguation is needed use (series)".

So, you can consider move Bleach (manga) to Bleach (series) and Naruto to Naruto (series).--JSH-alive 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto is fine the way it is no need to change it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Bleach has the problem of not being big enough compared to the chemical to warrant the Bleach page being a disambiguation page with links to Bleach (manga) and Bleach (anime), but the anime does follow the manga close enough to not really need to warrant its own page (minus the Bount saga). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since the manga came first, that is why we use the designation of (manga) to the end of those. Typically, pages in WP:Anime use this convention, like Air (visual novel).--十八 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air is a good example, as neither the visual novel nor the film can be considered "series", which I think is a major reason use of (series) isn't so great.--SeizureDog 22:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed WikiProject merger

It has been suggested by myself to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels into Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games as a task force. A rationale is viewable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Proposed WikiProject merger. Please place all comments there; this is merely a notice to inform related parties.--十八 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First completed English release of a manga series?

My little bit of research seems to point to Mai, the Psychic Girl being the first manga series to ever be completely published in English. Can anyone help support or deny this claim? For the record, Mai was first completed (in English) on July 1989.

Other contenders that don't make the cut:

The first publishing of Barefoot Gen in 1978 didn't get past the first couple of volumes.
Stuff like "I Saw It" (also by Keiji Nakazawa) doesn't count because they were a one-shots (not series.
Lone Wolf and Cub (which started being published in the same month as Mai) didn't finish its series until April 1991.
Kamui and Area 88 (published at the same time as Mai) didn't finish their epic double digit volume runs (at least not in comic book form).

Any help to establish my original research would be much appreciated.--SeizureDog 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New reference: unusual place name readings

It doesn't come up as often in anime and manga as in other Japan-related articles, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Place names with unusual readings may be useful when translating. I've place this link on the main WP:ANIME page, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About navigation box

Please let me know about idea of the project on the navigation box in the articles. I was trying to translate and enhance the articles about major Japanese anime awards, like Animage's Anime Grand Prix (ja), Animation Kobe Awards (ja) and TFA's Tokyo Anime Award (ja) that there had been little description in English Wikipedia, though each award should be already well-known and recognized their authorities at least by anime fans in Japan. I thinked, if wikipedia treats about the awards, should enhance these a little more.

Therefore, after the enhancing/creating of two of three articles, I put navigation boxes for winners, like Academy award (Best Picture):

Template:S-awards

Preceded by Turn A Gundam	Animation Kobe Award for TV Feature 2000	Succeeded by Angelic Layer

However, they have been removed from some articles [1][2][3] by the reason:
it's good to note this award, but it's not really a logical system of navigation once you are on that -this- article
I did not know about this rule, for I do not usually edit in the category so much though I capriciously participating this time. By chance, do the anime articles have something a special rule about navigation boxes? Is this NOT a logical system of navigation? I have been very perplexed. Thanks,--Morio 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule, but it's entirely unnecessary and just adds to the clutter at the bottom of an article. So yes, I agree with Ned Scott's reasoning on removing those succession boxes. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, there's a TON of ways we can relate one article to another, and make a succession box for that. If we did it for each situation we'd have a mess. People who are looking to navigate between these articles are more likely going to be doing so from the article for the award, or maybe from a category or "list of" type article. The general reader who visits the article about a given anime probably won't be wondering "who won this award next" right off the bat.

Although, I would like to point out that this is excellent information. We should definitely make sure it's noted somewhere in each of these articles that they've won this award (which would give a link path so that people can still reasonable find "who was next"). -- Ned Scott 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I removed all navigation boxes. Thanks,--Morio 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, I found the navigation boxes useful. Regardless, I agree with Ned Scott that the info should end up in the appropriate articles as it establishes notability and provides independant references for the series involved. Edward321 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language dubs, etc.

I've noticed many articles covering (often in great detail) foreign versions of anime. Editors put in huge lists of foreign names for characters. For example, in the Space Battleship Yamato article some guy put in a bunch of info about the various Arabic dubs and which are more accurate, etc. In my opinion, this sort of thing is a waste of space. If I wanted to know what Sailor Moon's name was in Spanish, I'd check the Spanish wiki. Obviously the English language dub/names/changes are relevant, but I have no interest in the quality of the Sinhalese Evangelion dub. What do you guys think? Sometimes people get irate at me for removing what I find to be trivial. Evan1975 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines specifically indicate that the only ones that should be included are the English and Japanese. Any others should go on their specific language version wikis. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New cats

I have created the following categories: Category:Chinese mythology in anime and manga (currently here) and Category:Japanese mythology in anime and manga. I'd hoped to create a navigation tool for those interested in mythology. I felt I would be silly not to inform this Wikiproject. I would appreciate help populating and policing these categories. Alternatively, I would also appreciate the project's thoughts on the categories (positive, negative, should exist, shouldn't exist, and everything in between). CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible naming. The way the category is named, I would expect articles such as Oni in anime and manga and Kappa in anime and manga (articles which we don't need btw). A better phrasing would be Category:Anime and manga featuring Japanese mythology, but I think both options are too long. I'm actually not even convinced the categories are needed, seeing how it's not even really a genre. I think having Category:Fantasy anime and manga is good enough.--SeizureDog 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, this seem to be a degree of overcategorizing that is better left on the ash heap. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. This worries me, because these categories are, in part, intended to prevent articles like Oni in anime and manga from popping up. You are right, SeizureDog, that this naming is a bit problematic, I'll have to think on that. As for WP:OC, I can see where you're coming from on this, I didn't really intend to claim this is a genre of anime as much as it is a genre of the tradition and reception of mythology. I have, in the process of discussing various 'IPC' (WP:IPC) AfD's, been thinking about whether or not this is OC, and I haven't quite mad eup my mind on that yet. I'll definitely have to think more about it and I welcome more opinions here or on my talk page if any editor wishes. :) CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

User:ChuChu is edit warring about demographics again over on Baccano. Maybe it's time we locked down the rules about when to include a demographic. It's my feeling that we should only include a demographic when it is obvious, and not include them if there is some doubt. Not every anime or manga fits into one of the four main demographics. If the original manga runs in a magazine with a clear demographic, then by all means list it. Should original anime (not based on a manga) have demographics? I'm fuzzy on this. Light Novels do not use the shonen/seinen shojo/josei demographics, and the words should not be applied arbitrarily to those articles. Doceirias 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime based on light novels do have a certain demographic. where exactly did you get the idea that light novels aren't aimed at a certain demographic? ChuChu

Check your own talk page. We had this conversation a few months ago. Light novels are aimed at male or female audiences, but these particular terms are not used. I lived in Japan five years and base my opinion on that and the light novel guidebooks I've read, and a native Japanese speaker backed me up on it. You refused to believe us, so we let the matter drop...but there is clearly sufficient doubt. Doceirias 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember that discussion. but I also mentioned the existance of light novels for boys. there are light novels for boys just like there are light novels for girls. ChuChu

Like I said then, light novels for males and females does not imply the use of the manga demographic jargon. Look, I don't want to rehash these arguments; I just want to make sure that these demographics are appearing on everything by group consensus. Doceirias 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? manga demographic jargon? LOL there are light novels for boys and light novels for girls, thats a demographic. aimed at boys = shounen demographic, and aimed at girls means shoujo demographic. its as easy as that.

BACCANO is published under a label for boys, its as easy as that. there's no need for a group consensus about this. if you want to remove a demographic so much, then how about removing the "shoujo" from the shoujo light novel Maria-sama ga Miteru. ChuChu

Absolutely not true. There are light novels for a male audience. There is no such thing as shonen light novels. Same goes for girls. These demographic terms are not used with light novels. I have asked you several times to provide any sources that use those terms, and you have simply insisted on a blanket definition that is completely unsupported, and actively denied by native Japanese speakers and myself. I realize that essentially boils down to two opinions versus yours. But we don't need a reference to not include a term, while we do need a reference to include a term that is in doubt. Doceirias 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? again? the existance of light novels that are aimed at boys? of course there are light novels that are aimed at boys. Lets take for example the new light novel label for boys: GaGaGa Bunko, as mentioned by the publisher in this link: http://gagaga-lululu.jp/gagaga/about.html 少年向けエンターテインメントノベル文庫 --> entertainment novel bunko for boys. ChuChu

Yes. And "shonen muke" does not equal "shonen." These are different things. Doceirias 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muke, not muke, doesn't matter to me at all. aimed at boys = aimed at boys. ChuChu

We could obviously do this for weeks, but the reason I posted it here instead of on your talk page is to hear what everyone else thought. I'm gonna shut up now. Doceirias 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Doceirias' point is the words shounen and shojo are not used to describe light novels, only manga, whether or not they are aimed at boys or girls. Kinda like hentai being used in the West for "pornographic anime" (when in Japan it's used for "perverts"). I might be wrong...--Nohansen 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about light novels that are published under shounen muke labels and light novels that are published under shoujo muke labels. a light novel thats published under a shounen muke label is a light novel thats aimed at boys. demographic = shounen(boy). thats it. ChuChu

(Indent) Ok, ChuChu, but you do see that "shounen" is not used to describe light novels? Only manga. Even the shounen article says so, Shounen is a Japanese word used in English to refer to manga intended for boys. The point is: Are the members of the Project OK with using these terms (shounen, shoujo, seinen, josei and kodomo) in all its articles to describe the demographic, however "wrong" they might be?--Nohansen 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the brackets "[[" and keep it like this: Demographic = Shounen. and not linking to the shounen wiki entry. describing the demographic has never been "wrong" so its fine mentioning these terms. ChuChu

But wouldn't we, meaning WP:ANIME and Wikipedia in general, be contradicting ourselves, then?--Nohansen 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting ourselves by mentioning the truth? ChuChu

By saying a light novel is shounen, when the shounen article says its a Japanese word used in English to refer to manga intended for boys.--Nohansen 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the word shounen thats associated with manga is wrong. thats what should be corrected; it should be Shounen manga wiki entry and not a wiki entry for shounen(boy). just like how the italian wiki entry is for shounen manga and not for shounen: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dnen_manga

light novels for boys are of course light novels for boys so its: Demographic = Shounen, and not Demographic = Shounen manga. ChuChu

Well, then Colbert was right. We can redefine reality. Make that, "Wikiality". (Italian Shounen article)--Nohansen 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL so they have tricked me, they have shounen linking to shounen manga entry >.> anyway that doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected. a Shounen manga wiki entry like the japanese entry 少年漫画 and a shounen wiki entry for the japanese wiki entry 少年. ChuChu

Jumping back in here: I would have no problem with the light novel articles saying demographic = male (or female). Doceirias 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that either. ChuChu

Baccano's manga is serialized in Dengeki Comic Gao!, a shōnen magazine. That's pretty much how we determine these demographics, by where they're serialized.--SeizureDog 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manga adaptations of light novels are not really reliable. Shinigami no Ballad's manga is shojo, for instance. Doceirias 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the most part, adaptions tend to stay in the same demographic. I don't see why something can't have multiple demographics though.--SeizureDog 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I just don't think the demographic of the original work should be determined by the adaptations. Welcome to the NHK is not a shonen novel or even a light novel, despite the highly successful shonen manga it was adapted into. Doceirias 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the NHK novel wasn't published under a shounen label, but a general label. thats why its not a shounen novel. ChuChu

Perhaps we should just avoid demographic descriptors as shojo, shonen, seinen, and josei altogether and just use English terms --Farix (Talk) 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this: Demographic = males or Demographic = females. Doceirias mentioned this above, I have no problem with this. ChuChu

And "young boys", "young girls", and etc. But that it also applies to all topics withing the scope of WP:ANIME including anime, manga, and light novels.

I'm against this. Are we supposed to say "18–30 year old males" instead of seinen? Or the more vague "yound adult males"? I prefer words to phrases.--SeizureDog 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to light novels now (and a simple choice of male or female.) We can debate whether to change the others later. Doceirias 05:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT update

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has been updated recently with a rewrite. Everyone should take a moment and check it out. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Stuff worth thinking about -- especially the discussion on the talk page. —Quasirandom 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So digesting it, my understanding of the major change is that notability is now not automatically inherited by subarticles. The basic argument being that if something is split off for length, either a) the subject is notable enough for an article, which case that needs to be documented in the subarticle, or b) the writing is not summary enough and probably should be merged or moved. Does this fit other people's interpretations? —Quasirandom 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically the core concept. Too many lists of fictional things were being created; there was no real-world information being shown, and minor fictional universes were being covered in greater depth than most of the extremely notable works. Many of these lists are being deleted. That, and the fact that the old WP:FICT contradicted WP:N and WP:NOT, led to the rewrite. It tries to compromise by translating "...subject of multiple reliable secondary sources (even for subarticles)" to the more reasonable "...contains significant real-world information (even for subarticles)", and I think it's about as good of a compromise as we could strike. Plus, with transwiki to the Wikia Annex becoming an option soon, I'm hoping fiction AfDs will be used only as a last resort. In essence, it raises the bar, but reduces the harshness by discouraging deletion and encouraging merges/transwiki instead. — Deckill er 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So to take a semi-concrete example, suppose for a series there's subarticles for the five main characters. Two of them are notably popular (shown by pop-culture references, allusions in other works, poll results, fan art, iconic uses, and so on) but the others, while just as important within the story, haven't caught on. The two warrant their own articles, but the three should possibly be merged back into the main article. Something like that? —Quasirandom 02:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Or, if you want all the characters in one place, you can put them all in a cast of characters article, since the real-world info for those two characters will probably be enough for a characters article (and you can probably find other info about the characters in general). — Deckill er 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Spoiler Debate Redux. I really can't see how this can end well. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SPOIL wasn't based on other policies and guidelines; the WP:FICT update is an extention of WP:NOT and WP:N. — Deckill er 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the current spoiler guideline was rewritten to deal with problems with WP:NPOV, and there have been an attempt to bring in WP:V. But that attempt hasn't gone any further then the occasional editor mentioning it. --Farix (Talk) 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding where the similarities are between WP:FICT and WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, WP:FICT and WAF are pretty much ignored anyways by "fandom". There needs to be a rewrite of FICT but making it even more restrictive isn't the right direction. Kyaa the Catlord 05:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a fansite. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but these things should reflect consensus and not make rules disregarding the reality of the situation. Wikipedia may not be a fansite, but creating subjective rules while blatantly disregarding actual practice is a bad idea. More care should be taken to create rules that have a snowball's chance in hell of being followed and not being disruptive. Kyaa the Catlord 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual practice is exactly why we're making these pages. You might not think so, but more and more stuff on Wikipedia is coming in line with these guidelines and policies. We have more fictional GAs and FAs, we have lots of merges and AfDs (did ya know they finally merged the Pokemon articles?), and all in all, more editors are learning how to make better articles. Yes, there's still a large amount of work to be done, and new editors won't know this stuff right away, but that's why it's a guideline page. If people did everything correctly right off the bat, without being told, then we wouldn't even need guidelines. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are more GA and FA articles now than before, suggesting that more rules is the cause of this is a stretch. Expansion of rules does not improve the encyclopedia on its own, good editing does that. We don't need more guidlelines or MOS pages to improve editing and the way the guidelines and such are normally used is actually counterproductive and disruptive, as in the case of the edit war fests of SPOILER and the FUC changes. (If you doubt this, see the List of Code Geass characters page where an edit war is occuring right now because one admin continues to remove pictures used for identification purposes of characters who deserve pictures for identification purposes (which is still allowed). Kyaa the Catlord 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "more rules", it's a better guideline. They're not counterproductive, and they're not disruptive. Regarding List of Code Geass characters, that admin is completely right to remove those pictures because they are the second images to identify the characters, while another image is already doing that. I'm sorry, but the disruption you speak of is normally the result of users who are acting like you are acting, and is not the result of good, sound advice. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because questioning the wisdom of the vocal motivated minority is bad. I forgot. I'll blindly accept and not raise my voice from now on. I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to discuss changes. I must have been thinking about some other encyclopdia that is actually built from consensus. Kyaa the Catlord 07:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in regards to the "second" image claim, yes, these are the second images containing the characters. But a solo shot identifies better than a group shot where the character is small and blends in. Yes, you can expand the image by clicking on it, but then you lose the "this character is on the left, next is... etc" text. It is a crappy way to identify characters, it is better to have them in a picture where you are not distracted by their more flashy neighbors. Of course, the policy doesn't make any attempt at addressing this concern and how it makes the encyclopedia less useful rather than improving it as you claim. Kyaa the Catlord 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I think what Ned is saying is this: It's better to have guidelines that represent what the WHOLE of the body of editors want rather than the subset of editors who might be working on a specific area. Just because a few people might want a certain relaxed standard (which is often called 'crufty', god I hate that word, but it fits for the moment), doesn't mean the policies SHOULD. There are other sites for such. Think about it this way -- instead of trying to get WP to be what /you/ want it to be, get WP to be what /it/ wants it to be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; the rewrite was created to reflect the rapidly increasing inclusion standards at AfD and GAC/FAC, WP:NOT and WP:N, as well as the numerous working models that have shown that fiction can be covered correctly. Before, WP:FICT was a grand exception to policy; it allowed lengthy unverifiable lists of minor terms (directly contradicting WP:NOT and the parent guideline, WP:N). Even now, the rewrite is fairly lenient when compared to WP:N; if you have significant real-world info from primary sources, it's still fine. It was built to take an objective approach to notability for fiction by requiring notability from the perspective of the real world (as opposes to arguing what major/minor characters are). Lastly, the rewrite stresses better use of AfD as a last resort: WPAnime's numerous character lists should not be popping up at AfD unless no real-world info can be found, the info is already at Wikia or other Wikis, and/or nothing can be merged. — Deckill er 12:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the key will be to approach one matter at a time; nobody will be slapping hundreds of AfD tags, because it contradicts how WP:FICT recommends to handle these scenerios. I think the best thing right now is not to worry about character lists quite yet; instead, I recommend focusing on merging individual articles that cannot establish notability into the lists. If the lists cannot establish notability, then it's just a simple transwiki and redirect to the main article sometime in the future.

This guideline is going to be hardest to apply on anime series, since all the great interviews describing these characters are in Japanese, and there are a lot of enthusiastic anime fans on Wikipedia who like to describe the characters in detail. But AfD standards are increasing steadily, and applying the new WP:FICT correctly can save all this hard work from deletion by transwiki or redirecting it to the parent article (it could have very well said that "anything not meeting this standard should be deleted", but that would defeat the purpose of a compromising guideline that we tried to strike). It's also important to look at it in the long-run: if WP:FICT was not rewritten and the standards at AfD kept increasing, then we'd have contradicting guidelines and policies, as well as new users being misled. There's a lot of work/adjusting to do, sure, but in the larger picture, it beats mass deletion and a conflict with Wikipedia's stress on real-world perspective. — Deckill er 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the nihongo template

As part of revamping List of Yotsuba&! chapters, we have a question about our current ~~hack~~ use of the nihongo template. If someone who knows more about its proper use could provide some guidance, we'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ETA: To expand on that - what's the proper use of the template when the English translation (the first argument) is separated from the Japanese text by, for example, being in a different table column? —Quasirandom 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't use the template. What you did pretty much defeated two of the proposes of the template, which is to declare the Kanji characters as Japanese and add a CSS class to it (t_nihongo_kanji). --Farix (Talk) 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we need to leave the kanji bare and manually italicize the romanji? Gotcha. Thanks. —Quasirandom 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese episode list

When the template was first made I didn't think people would want to list four possible titles when the dub title was different from the original (as in, Title in English, romaji, kanji/kana, dub title), but there seems to be a few lists like that (such as List of Digimon Adventure episodes). With that in mind, I was thinking there should probably be something like "DubTitle" parameter added, and have it display in the next column. Or is having four titles going overboard? Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on that, but as long as you're fiddling with the template, it could use a misc column. I've been using the EpisodeNumber2 slot for that sort of thing, but it would look better after the title. Oh! Edo Rocket or Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei both had an extra bit of information that probably didn't NEED to be there, but a misc. column would allow for it. Doceirias 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Aux1= (and 2,3). -- Ned Scott 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Maybe I should have reread the template before trying to add that stuff in. Got SZS sorted out, so thanks. Doceirias 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sailor Moon episodes uses all four titles. And yeah, as Ned Scott says we use the Aux parameters. --Masamage ♫ 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two matters

Dear WikiProject Anime and manga, you are invited to join the move request for Goku since it's been much slower than expected. I also asked something at WP:WPDB and thought you could help in seeking the answer. Much thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure your tone is appropriate. "Much slower than expected" is a very heavy indicator of expected outcome (in this case, approval to move), that you expected this to be done over the course of a few hours. It would seem that you have clearly come here with the sole intent to canvas for votes. If you were to do this properly, you would also have notified users involved in the other concerned pages of this move. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Production

In an anime article where there are no verifiable facts regarding the japanese production, is it acceptable to instead include aspects of the english production process? Hellspawn 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Boogiepop Phantom, a current WP:GA nominee. Feedback appreciated.--Nohansen 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

I tried something a few hours to see how long it would take to be reverted. It didn't take long. So I ask, If anime film articles (Metropolis (2001 film), Perfect Blue) use the Film infobox; why don't anime TV series articles use the TV infobox?

I understand why we use it for franchises like Ranma and BLEACH, but when the article's about only one medium the TV and film infoboxes provide better information (see here). Furthermore, the animanga infobox can be problematic (see SandyGeorgia's comment on the Lupin infobox).

What do you guys think?--Nohansen 13:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]