Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Good article Fullmetal Alchemist was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 27, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Fullmetal Alchemist: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Check that all sections have good grammar and flow (that is necessary for a good article)
  • Cleanup: Clean up the Trading Card Game. Add general information with reliable sources.
  • Expand: If there is somebody who has the novels and wants to make their summaries, tell it and we will move them to a new article (it may be the best to reduce a bit the length of the article)
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Anime versus Manga Specifics

It seems that we are faced with a bit of an interesting dilemma. As the manga progresses further and further, it also diverges further and further from the ending fabricated by the creators of the anime series. The nature of the philosopher's stone, the homunculi, their creator, Hoenheim, the gate, and even the world itself is very different. It may in fact be prudent to split this article (which is getting rather long anyway) into two separate articles, Fullmetal Alchemist (Manga) and Fullmetal Alchemist (Anime), with a short disambiguation page taking the place of the main page. Since many of the pages linked to on the main page are specific to manga and anime anyway, this would simply allow us to present a cleaner overall summary. Any thoughts?

70.65.53.168 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer keeping things together as much as possible, giving precedence to the manga and simply explaining the differences in the anime series in the subsidiary articles. This, especially since the manga length is now dwarfing that of the anime, will be the best option in the long run. Atomizing the pages simply because of some differences won't help much, we'd hardly benefit by having a seperate Pride (Fullmetal alchemist manga) and Pride (Fullmetal alchemist anime). --tjstrf talk 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That is an insanely ridiculous idea. Your point on the different lengths and content of the two forms of FMA merely underscore the necessity of separating the article. The majority of people who have experienced FMA and link to it at Wikipedia for the first time have no idea that an FMA manga even exists, apart from the general knowledge that most successful animes have a manga form. The majority of people who would consider themselves fans of FMA have never read a single FMA manga. This also underscores the vast difference between the two subjects. For they are just that. Two entirely different subjects.
I can see that there might be a need to consolidate minor linked pages. I am all for this. But trying to write a combined article for both the manag and anime is impossible. And by this I mean that the current article utterly fails the public. It needs to be separated.
Most important of all perhaps, is that the subjects need be treated VERY differently. All information about FMA (anime) is currently either known or obtainable. The community needs to focus on improving this article to reflect that knowledge.
All of the information regarding FMA (manga) is not known. Because it does not exist yet. The manga is not finished. The community needs to focus on ordering information efficiently to account for the addition of future information, and reflecting what is currently not known concerning the series.
In fact there are numerous reasons why the two articles subjects should be given separate article. But as they are all obvious I will not needlessly list them.

St.York 09:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like no one has commented on this again in a while, but the fact of the matter is that while over the years, the manga has become increasingly discrete from the anime, it has lately become so separate that this article merely adds to the confusion. This is hardly something that could be appreciated w/n an encyclopedia, and requires serious revision. I plan to attempt this, but I would probably drown in my procrastination w/o help. The general opinion of others I've talked to seems to be that every time people try to correct something, it is edited out again, presumably by fans of the anime. Then again, 'gneral opinion' was stated by one person on a forum I visit, and I've yet to figure out whether others consent to this b/c they agree or b/c they don't want to argue w/ that person. Frankly, I admire and fear this person about as much as you can someone you've only met in cyberspace, but other opinions and support would be helpful. Very.
Please. Enough w/ my rambling, but as a fan of the manga and the wonderful mangaka, I hate to see this article suffering.
senerikfred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.160.150 (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of corrections you feel were reverted without a good reason? (Oh, and if you're anonymously editing, use the anonymous signature, please.) —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what that person meant the specific changes were. I just know that they/other fans seem to cite this as reason that it's futile. (Oops. Might've helped if I'd logged in and figured out to sign comments properly.)-Senerikfred 06:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only repeated edits I've seen to the article recently have to do with inaccuracies (stating that Ed lost both limbs when he and Al transmuted his mother, when it was just the leg; or that Bradley is Pride, which would be true if the next three words weren't "in the manga") or character details, which should be handled one one of the various character pages, so I don't really see a problem with respect to people overriding truth with opinion. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should split them! For one, I have heard about the anime ending and I think it sucks! However, I don't no very much about were it left off in the manga, or if the manga even adapted the anime's ending or details (anything past episode 24) so I'm thinking "Should I even read the manga? Were did it leave off?" now, for anyone that dosen't no about the anime and manga not being the same after episode 24, or is thinking about doing one but not the other, or watever, it needs to be crystal clear to them that the anime is one way and the manga is another, and were the anime leaves us volume wise in the manga, and wat was and wasn't adapted, so yes, they should be split! -CaptinAsagi —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinAsagi (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting a split...

I have an few suggestions:

Manga--> Split into List of Fullmetal Alchemist manga

Music, Anime Details, Broadcast Info & Video Games--> Split into Fullmetal Alchemist media and materials

Just a suggestion... RedEyesMetal 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the manga information should be split last, as it is the original work. It needs to be fleshed out, too. —TangentCube /c /t  19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to split and merge all the media information — the manga chapter guide, the episode list, the music and drama CD lists in the main article — into a single article; for example, List of RahXephon media. I don't think there's enough material yet to split Fullmetal Alchemist into manga and anime articles. —TangentCube /c /t  10:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think everything from the section Opening and ending themes onward could be put into a media page. As for the manga chapter guide and the episode list, those could still be kept on separate pages with links to them from the main and media articles (like what Bleach has). --Eruhildo 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've actually been working on one off-wiki for a while, but wording lead sections makes me lazy, as does finding sources. —TangentCube, Dialogues 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transmutation Circles

There are a large number of transmutation circles used in the anime, but the science behind them is never explained. How does the shape of the circle affect the transmutation? Does the manga ever touch on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.97.213 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.161.254 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have all the English volumes that have been released so far, and none go into specifics about the circles themselves, at least not as far as I can remember. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Alphonse Elric(historical)

Nothing found on Google to show this was a real person. Until evidence appears, let's keep fact & fiction separate, please. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If this historical Alphonse Elric does exist, they should have separate articles. -Yancyfry 04:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anime and manga

i'm sombody who just wached the videos and movie and the diffrences arn't that clear. Just saying that a plot out-line should be added if sombody haddent see or read FMA before it could be confusing like when talking about when the plot lines split it says it happens when they encounter greed (also this is the first time he is even mentioned. which time? when we meat greed or when the brothers do? might even need two diffrent sections i.e MANGA PLOT and ANIME PLOT because anyone who isnt a fan would be lost oh one more thing name the humiclious would do it myself but i cant spell and have poor grammer(220.237.202.87 07:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Spoilers perhaps?

Im on episode 43 of the english anime series, plan to have them all watched sometime... One surprise was ruined for me, now that i know dante is the leader of the homunculi... No spoilers there? other than that, great article, nice work :) Tresmius (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for spoilers; in the past, there used to be spoiler warnings, but after very lengthy, heated discussions on the matter, these were deprecated and removed. The archives of the following are heavy with tl;dr, but may provide some insight: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, Template talk:Spoiler. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FMA Novels

Is it okay if I add pages on them? I've read four of them so far and I'm reading the 5th as I type this out. Ominae (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Individual novels do not need articles. However, table list for them with summaries would be quite welcome. Collectonian (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Names in FMA

At List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, an issue arose over the use of Ishbal vs. Ishval, that got contentious enough the list is currently under full protection while we discuss the issue. User:Egan Loo (who claims to be a former Viz employee who worked on earlier volumes) insists that we should use Ishval because it is the "correct" spelling and what the creator uses. Ishbal, however, is the English spelling used in the anime series, and appears to be in use now in the Viz manga translations. In a general Google search, Ishbal is also the most common spelling. During the discussion, it came up that not only are we being inconsistent with the spellings of this term, but with many proper names. An RfC was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RFC on FMA issue. That discussion also brought up the broader issues and the wide sweeping implications for all FMA articles that such discussion could have, so it was felt that this needed to be a wider discussion, centered here in the main talk page. For the Ishbal vs Ishval, for example, if we feel Ishbal is the spelling to use then many other articles need to be checked and corrected, and Ishval would need to be renamed. I'm going to point both of the other discussions here to centralize. Collectonian (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we use "Ishbal" for the anime and "Ishval" for the manga since the manga clearly uses the v and the anime clearly doesn't. Thats my opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The only problem there, is that in later volumes of the manga, it has been changed to Ishbal. :P Collectonian (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

FMA manga has now sold over 30 million volumes in Japan. Here is the ref if someone would like to note accordingly: [1] Collectonian (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. --MahaPanta (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Retry

The reason it failed:

GA Fail
* Images need fair use rationale
* References go after a full-stop
* References aren't formated properly, please check You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}..
Basically aside from the lead and story, the rest of the article is just lists, turn it into prose. Before you re-nominate for GA i strongly advise you to take a peer review. M3tal H3ad 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the fair use rationales and put the references after full stops. --MahaPanta (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article failed GA for many reasons. It is lacking references (not just an issue of formating). Also, the article does not conform well to the Anime and manga MOS nor the general Wikipedia MOS' and needs clean up in that regard. It also suffers from excessive plot and in-universe information. It is not even at B class yet, in part because of these many issues. Collectonian (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I'm making my changes one step at a time, starting with addressing the issues brought up in the last GA nomination. --MahaPanta (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Release image

"This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Friday, 22 February 2008."

Does this still apply? The image seems fine to me. --MahaPanta (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it is. I don't see any warning templates on the image. Collectonian (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Nope, no problem with the image.MKguy42192 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre Thriller ?

Is this really a thriller, ? I have heard it called "steampunk" "Action", "Adventure", "Comedy", "Magic"(if that's even a genre) , "Drama", "fantasy" and even " War" , but never a thriller. I have not seen enough of this to be sure, but I think it's not a thriller. If it is a thriller, we should get more specific. An Action thriller? Drama thriller? Horror thriller ? Political thriller? See thriller is very broad and vague. The other genres up there are correct though, in my opinion. Comments? Any other suggestions? Take anything up there down? I think it's good the way it is currently, minus the "thriller" genre. - Prede (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scary ... I was just about to begin a genre discussion ... oh well! As fate would have it, here's pretty much what I had in mind:
[[Adventure (genre)|Adventure]], [[Science fantasy]]
Thoughts? Perhaps the inclusion of action or comedy-drama would be too much? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, drama would fit to the anime, but comedy-drama would fit to the manga. Im fine with anyone.Tintor2 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Adventure , Action, and Science Fiction I would be fine with. Not so much on the comedy-drama though. I am fine with just drama there. Also we should probally just remove the thriller part, unless there is a reason it should be there.- Prede (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Newer proposal below:
[[Adventure (genre)|Adventure]], [[Comedy-drama]], [[Science fantasy]]
Looks about right, and science fantasy is a sub-genre of sci-fi so that would be the best choice. Just can't figure out if action should replace comedy-drama (note that the guideline says two or three genres would be sufficient). But what about steampunk? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How about Steampunk instead of Science fantasy, it seems more specific to me at least. It is a sub genre of Fantasy(with prominent elements of science fiction/fantasy in it )I am happy with just Science fantasy there though, although perhaps Steampunk is better. I think it may be . - Prede (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Adventure" and "Science fantasy" are just perfect, exactly what I had in mind. "Action", "Drama" and "Comedy-drama" (even steampunk) are just excessive and don't adequately represent what the series is about.--Nohansen (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So the first proposal was best? Well I can't argue that, since it does seem to be more beneficial than considering action, comedy-drama or steampunk. Everyone agrees? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Like i said I feel that Steampunk may be more specific then Science fantasy, and that Drama or Action being up there would be fine as well. But I am alright with just those two added there. They seem fine. I just think a possible drama or action might be good still, and steampunk seems to be a specific part of Science fantasy. (So steampunk in place of Science Fantasy) - Prede (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the first one is the best, as comedy and drama would be minor.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do the edit per this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Perhaps something about it being a "Steampunk" could be written into the artcile, or something. Just a suggestion though , I am happy with the genres as of now. - Prede (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean as a genre, category or something else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly just a snin-bit about how the technolgy there comes from the "Steampunk Genre" or something. Written better of course . like example:
"Full Metal Alchemist features an abundance of steampunk technolgy..."

something small but informative, similur to that. - Prede (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Tintor2 if there is an appropiate place it can be cited. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Anyone else have any comments on this? - Prede (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Think we're pretty much done here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant for the "Steampunk" part written in the artcile. If we are going to add it, where may we do that? - Prede (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that we're reducing genre clutter, but is it really necessary to overkill with the editorial comment about it? If someone can't read it the first time, there's no need to say exactly the same thing five words on, and it only serves as clutter in the editing window. (And no, having this type of overcommenting in other articles isn't a reason to do it.) —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is to keep away ppl from editing the genres, as this seems to be a BIG problem with these articles. And the other reason why it is repeated is because it could easily be missed the first time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a constant threat on this article, however, and I can't see how someone could miss the comment when it's the first thing on the line and it's longer than the genre list itself. People changing "Wrath" to "Pride" were more persistant here, but that's what "undo" is for. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character Article Cleanups & References

I've just spent the last 2 hours cleaning and giving reference to the Alphonse & Roy pages, so if anyone would like to take a look and maybe improve it a little that would ne nice. We still need to work on:

  • Dante
  • Izumi
  • Winry
  • Father
  • Scar
  • Hughes
  • Hohenheim

RedEyesMetal (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Now Im sure those two now pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What these character article require is a in-universe clean up, but it confuses me that some characters like have different characteristics in the manga and anime, so I do not know how arrange the sections. What is hard to find is conception information. All the conception I know is fan-sourced. When I made the production section in the main fma article I could find some reliable sources. In all those interviews there werent any mention about the character, at least not explicit.

Other thing: there are many character lists and need to be merged, any idea? (I was thinking some things but I couldnt get anything, all I thought was merge all homunculi article in one and all military articles and merge them in one) Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: SakuraCon - Travis Willingham seems a fansite, something which is not reliable source, although Im not sure if that is a fansite.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your question about why there are so many character lists, it was done because the manga not only differs greatly from the anime, but also because of WP:SIZE. Even if we did merge. trimming down everything would look messy and horrible. If you wanna read it, it's in one of the archives. RedEyesMetal (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they differ a lot, but its confusing there are 5 king bradley articles. The info of manga and anime could be merged in the same part without confusing anybody. Since he has two different homunculus names, he could be simply called king bradley. Those lists are also overdetailed and thats why they fail WP:SIZE.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. we'll have to think this through. I'm gonna try a "trial and error" scheme by seeing what I could do with a merge of a few lists....RedEyesMetal (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Any doubt of the merge ask me, I have also been thinking in several merges but I couldnt get to anything. I think tthat if there are two homuculi with the same name we could add something like this: sloth (manga) and sloth (anime), so we dont need to misk them. However, characters like Envy and others that have the same appearance need to be misked.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I had started on improving Winry's article but had to stop at around 35%. Once summer rolls in and it still needs work up I'll finish it but feel free to go ahead if anyone has the time. In terms of the characters lists, I go with the merging of three Minor lists, which are completely unnecessary to have so many. A number of the characters in the Minor-Anime list can be cut out. Some only appear in one episode and the information is too detailed for such. The voice tables add small unneeded byte size when you can use the anime voice temps. A lot of cruft can be cut out so that all the notable characters can be merged into one. We can section off the Manga-only on one list than placing them in a single article. At least we'd be presenting all the info of all the characters on one page instead of having people navigate between three. Fox816 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The FMA character seriously needs more clean up. There seems to be double lists of darn near everything to have one for the anime and one for the manga, when one version is barely needed, much less two. Why is there not a single List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters that a bunch of these bad lists/character articles can be merged into? As for the differences, that's not really relevant. The character lists should focus on the manga (primary work) and note the differences in the anime. Excessive details for either version is unnecessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review Notes

For those who are not following the current peer review, there are two items I can't really take care of myself. The first is a suggestion of adding a summary of the Ishval war in the plot section, since its mentioned several times in the article. The second questions the need for the terminology section, which may cause problems in an FA run. Now, as I recall, this section was a merge from a deleted list? So ideas on tackling this? Also, a question of my own that came up...the plot section seems to be missing the rest of the plot and seems to end in a teaser-style sentence. Can someone finish it up? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the manga is still going on. Also, I have no idea how to move every terminology section to the list (except for some that could be easily done).--Tintor2 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My thinking is that when they are first mentioned in the plot section, give a short def, like I did with state alchemist, if its likely to be confusing. And link off to the full articles (though that's another clean up to deal with later :P). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I see, I think those articles need to be deleted or redirected since they fail natability.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, they do. Some can be shortened up and merged into the future character list to start sections, but they all pretty much fail WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Done.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how to move Ishb/val to plot? I cant figure it out.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the article need more changes? I dont remember any other thing from the peer reviewer. I will add more about the manga plot later, but, does it require more changes to go through a GA review?--Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that was it, but may want to post on the PR to see if there is any more feedback after the changes. Also, still need to get a copyeditor to come help out as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)