Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

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

← Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11 →

Wikipe-tan

hahaha, awesome → Image:Wikipe-tan visual novel.png. (horray for more free-use images!) -- Ned Scott 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

More Wikipe-tan stuff (not exactly project related, but hey, she is our mascot :) ) -- Ned Scott 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (news)#Wikipe-tan makes a cameo appearance in UK magazine Games TM

"Wikipe-tan, the Wikipedia OS-tan has found its way into the latest edition of GamesTM magazine (issue 48). It's found on page 30 beside a regular column on the Japanese Gaming scene by correspondant Tim Rogers. The article is absolutely nothing about Wikipedia, but instead about the maid cafe culture in Japan. - Hahnchen 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)" (see Image:Wikipe-tan GamesTM.jpg)

Awesome! Soon wikipe-tan will have become not only the de facto mascot of Wikimedia, but a notable subject in her own right as well. --tjstrf 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, well, maybe, at least as an example of the usefulness of GFDL images. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be happy with whatever. On the original subject of this header (Image:Wikipe-tan visual novel.png) I'd like to know exactly what the text says. I get the gist of it, but having a translation would be useful not only to my curiosity but because it would enable the recreation of the image with English text. Also, the linking of Wikipe-tan and visual novel instantly made me think lolicon. Is that just me? --tjstrf 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And before you know it, Wikipe-tan would show up in all kinds of naughty mediums... No, that's just you....I hope. Anyways, I don't really like their liberal use of Wikipe-tan on an almost entirely unrelated subject without mentioning Wikipedia or even Kasuga, as the use of GFDL images needs the acknowledgement of the author. _dk 04:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current image on the lolicon page does spur complaints of ugliness occasionally, so maybe a mild ecchi image of Wikipe-tan would be useful, both there and at fanservice, where the image is not particularly demonstrative. But I'm no artist, and the community as a whole might object. --tjstrf 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I translated the Spanish on that image. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the Wikipe-tan images has been picked as the picture of the day for October 2 :-). See Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan#POTD --GunnarRene 10:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours untill Wikipe-tan is on the main page. --GunnarRene 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

*expecting anime hatred from all over wiki and cries of blatant self reference accusations* Oh wait, they already happened. _dk 03:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably obvious by our time-stamps, but she's now live on the Main Page as today's featured picture. (Anyone notice that Main Page breaks WP:NC when it capitalizes Page? ;) ) -- Ned Scott 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot success!

Dark Shikari Bot was approved for a trial. I just ran it on all Anime/manga stubs, anime/manga character stubs, and hentai stubs. It took about an hour, but every one is now tagged. Are there any other categories I should check through and tag? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be adding the tag to pages in the user namespace. You might want to fix that. --Squilibob 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not.. it is creating a whole new namespace for itself (e.g. Talk:User:Tribute to RocketmanJP rather than User talk:Tribute to RocketmanJP). Shiroi Hane 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw that... it was a very weird bug caused by someone moving an anime page to userspace to create a tribute to a banned user. I'm not exactly sure how to fix the problem they created. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It was more than one page (they were all speedily deleted), it occured anywhere someone had, for example, a test page in their userspace including an anime infobox which automatically added the page to an anime category. The bot needs to ignore any pages beginning "user:". Shiroi Hane 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There were ten pages. --Squilibob 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I see what happened. I will edit the bot's code to do that. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Not that there were really any important topics or anything vital being discussed that were archived, but shouldn't we wait a bit more than 3 and a half days for some of these discussions? I don't think the talk page is that active for it to be a problem to at least wait a week on some stuff, even if it's nothing more than displaying a good idea such as logic behind a page merge, etc. Again, not really a problem, but I thought I would bring it up. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, at least a couple weeks should pass since the last comment on a topic before archiving. That allows plenty of time for people to voice an opinion if they wish. After that, they can always start up the discussion again if they feel it's necessary. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What specifically should have stayed? --Squilibob 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Publication info for non-English-speaking countries" was still pretty active, ie not dead yet; But then anone who's interested in it can just start a new thread. --SidiLemine 13:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Page title

Isn't it contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions and just simply weird to title this page WikiProject Anime and manga? We should move it to WikiProject anime and manga (no capital letters) already. Same with all related templates etc. Unless there's some policy/guideline I'm missing? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a policy/guideline. I could only find one example, Wikipedia:WikiProject lighthouses that used a lowercase letter right after the work WikiProject. --Squilibob 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that convention applies only to article space. But in a proper noun, all important worlds should be capitalized. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This particular policy does not apply just to the article namespace. WP:NC makes it clear that the reason for the non-capitalization of the 2nd word and onwards is technical, therefore it applies to all namespaces. Capitalizing all the words also works (WikiProject Anime And Manga), however, capitalizing and (And) is unconventional. It would be logical to move the page to WikiProject Anime and Manga (according to English grammar rules), but it would violate WP:NC. But in any case, anything is better than WikiProject Anime and manga. I mean, why is anime capitalized and manga not? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the title did have the upper case M at one stage --Squilibob 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a technical issue but one of grammar. The Project's name is a proper noun and should follow the grammar rules for such. The technical issue that WP:NC talks about is that the first word in a page title must be capitalized because of the limitations of the software. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the technical issue is that the title is only case-insensitive in search when all the words in it are capitalized (like WikiProject Ice Hockey) or only the first one is (WikiProject ice hockey). Any other combination will result in a case-sensitive search. However, even if this is a grammar issue, it should be WikiProject Anime and Manga (with a capital M). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations

I was wondering. Does WPA&M do any collaborations? I didn't notice a "Collaboration of the specified-timeframe" anywhere. --Kitch 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, it tries to...--SidiLemine 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't notice it? Time to add the big white notice to this WikiProject page again then. --Squilibob 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Who removed it in the first place? --TheFarix (Talk) 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It was always there, just not in the full form with a picture. --Squilibob 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of pictures, I think I found an image we can use for the AMCOTW. Something that says "in progress" and relates to anime.. none other than our very own Wikipe-tan done as a rough sketch. I'm sure if we ask Kasuga that he'd let us use this image as well. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather use something else other then wikipe-tan. There is no need to whore her out so much. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox template change

Building on the work by Ned Scott and User:Squilibob, I have improved the optional show/hide parameter on the anime and manga portions of the Animanga infobox. This option allows you to compress long lists of publishers and networks by putting the foreign language version information into a dropdown list. (See Bleach (manga) and Rurouni Kenshin for examples.) The manga field is "publisher_other=", the anime field "network_other=". (The manga field was previously "translated_publisher=", so if you've been using the old one, it will need changed.)

The feature was previously present, but for some reason it would generate 5pt text within the hidden list, which was pretty much unreadable. It's now legible, and I have it confirmed as operating properly for (almost) everyone. Feel free to use it! --tjstrf 02:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Japanese and English publishers should be shown regardless. But when there's not many other countries do hide is there much of a point to it? Maybe we should impose a minumimum number to use it on. For instance, if there are 5 other countries (aside from Japan and US), then hide them. If less than 5, show them all. 5 may be too high, but it's certainly pointless to hide just one. And it's a hassle if it's just 2 or so.--SeizureDog 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the show/hide button should not be used before reaching a number of publishers. I'm not so sure, however, that English-language publishers should be treated differently than French, German, Chinese, or indeed other Japanese networks.

Having just the country of origin plus all the others hidden seems logical.
Though it might be useful on the English language wikipedia to only show English-language publications and networks
- There might be loads of English-language networks and publishers
- It would not represent a Worldwide view
- Animanga infoboxes are long enough as they are.

I would propose that, given a high number of publishers/networks only the original publisher/networks are unhidden. If a show was moved from one to the other during its original run, then that counts as several original publishers. But all re-runs in Japan or international distributions would be hidden. Sounds reasonable?--GunnarRene 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Maybe the advice to give is "use good judgement, if the list is long then hide others, if it's just a few and/or the infobox is very short then don't sweat it" -- Ned Scott 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the English publishers must be included. This is enwiki and the English language edition is arguably equally or perhaps more important to our encyclopedic usefulness than even the original publisher. We are a reference source for those who read English. The Japanese publishers should also be included, as they are the original. All others should be hidden. --tjstrf 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott on both last remarks. Plus english wiki doesn't have a primary focus on english-language litterature. --SidiLemine 10:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because this is the English language Wiki doesn't make the English language translation any more or less notable then any other translations. You either treat all translations the same in the infobox or you don't list them at all. Treating the English language translation differently from other translations reeks of systemic bias. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox requests

Could you add the show/hide parameter to studio and network in Template:Infobox Anime episode. Also, it could use previous and next fields to link between episodes. - Peregrinefisher 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a particular need for it there, since I can't find any instances where an episode list actually has a huge number of studios or networks. Are there any? --tjstrf 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Dragonball wikiproject?

If not can someone start one?--201 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, though there really wouldn't be much need for one. There are already plenty of DB articles here (long ones, too). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are useful when there is plenty of articles to coordinate them. If there are few articles wikiprojects are useless.--201 19:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they can be useful, but I think in this case it would be too focused a project, and therefore creting mostly a bunch of extra work rather than helping. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are Simpsons, Digimon and Pokemon wikiprojects. How do you explain that. Remember: Dragonball has as many or more episodes, at least twice as many characters and, since it was published in comics and animation, you'd have to multiply that by two.

The organization is kind of messy. There are way too many character lists. Some episode synopsis are missing and if they are done we'd have to coordinate them with comic synopsis, since the storyes tend to be line by line the same.--201 06:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a member of WikiProject Digimon, so I can tell you a little bit about that. I joined the project to help clean up the mess created by hundreds of articles, about 500 or more. Actually, right now we are discussing a major change in direction, a mass merging of most Digimon articles (yes, you heard correctly, we're going to be merging the majority of them).

In other words, even if a subject isn't that notable, the amount of work and article maintenance can also justify a WikiProject. But if the topic at hand doesn't have a major issue with, say, a large amount of articles or something like that, then creating a WikiProject probably isn't the best answer. It sounds like the Dragonball case is borderline in this area. One alternative to a new WikiProject is to start a "task force" or sub-group of an existing project, such as this one. It would get it's own talk page and to do list, and would be a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, it may be useful to investigate the creation of various task forces, similar to what WikiProject Military history has done. I could see a Dragon Ball task force. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Dragonball or its articles, but it looks like there are quite a few. There's a Sailor Moon WikiProject, which is the same level of narrow focus; we cover several dozen articles, and it's working beautifully. --Masamage 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't get what Ned said, my head still hurts. Isn't there a "from A to B" amount of pages, there is need for a task force; more than B amount of pages, a wikiproject is needed" or "Amount of pages > B, wikiproject; amount of pages =< B, task force" rule?

I think Dragonball is bigger than Sailor Moon (in some countries DB was even bigger than pokemon), NEVERTHELESS they should get the same treatement either both task force or both wikiproject. Either sound fine to me. whatever you choose would be ok.--201 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

One isn't really better than another, and there really isn't something like a number of articles requirement. They're just two ways of collaborating. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're the expert. Lead the way, haha.--201 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

It's supposed to go at the top right of the wikiproject page (only the main).--201 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. Infoboxes aren't good for everything. -- Ned Scott 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its huge! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only do they look silly on a page, are huge, and are utterly pointless, but we don't need to add anything more to an already crowded top-of-page. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My main problem with the box is the size of the image. Apparently you can't pass a size parameter to the template, it is set to 300px. I've dropped a message off to the creator's Talk page to see if they can change it. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now that you said so, I do find it unecessarely big. I hope that can be fixed the way you said. Most infoboxes I know are 250px wide. In this case, I don't know I'd say from 250 to 200px. What do you think?--201 00:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WikiProjects need an info box. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, some use it and is relatively new. The size, I agree, is too big. I don't know if they are part of a guide line or against one.--201 06:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) WP:WPUN, WP:FILM, WP:WINE and WP:BEER are some of the finest examples.--201 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's Huge!!!! - Peregrinefisher 10:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming question

Over at WikiProject Sailor Moon, we're trying to make some plot-description pages, but are having a hard time knowing what to call the articles.

Here's the problem. The same five plot arcs exist in the anime and manga, but are given different names. The manga came first, which would seem to suggest that we should use those. However, everything other than the manga used the same names as the anime, including the musicals, movies, video games, and English-language manga. Running a Google search for "Sailor Moon S" (the anime arc name) gets 230,000 hits, while running a search for "Sailor Moon Infinity" gets 420, some of which are about different things.

What do you all think? --Masamage 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for common use but also state the alternatives in the article itself and set up redirects. Shiroi Hane 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Anyone disagree? --Masamage 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New cat needed

I have no idea how to do this, so could someone please make a category for yuri and shoujo ai anime? We need this to cut down on the gigantic list on yuri (animation) Kyaa the Catlord 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created Category:Yuri similar to Category:Yaoi; if Category:Shōjo ai needs to be created, we should create also Category:Shōnen ai. --Εξαίρετος (

msg) 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I see its already being filled! Yay! Kyaa the Catlord 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How are we to seperate shonen-ai from the yaoi? According to the articles, they are somewhat different. Shouldn't they be in seperate cats then?--SeizureDog 00:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching the yaoi. :p Yuri isn't anywhere near as explicit as yaoi seems to get, from my total lack of interest and knowledge of the subgenre. We're cuter and fluffier. :P So we don't have as high of boundaries between our softer side and the more explicit bits. (Then again, yuri isn't anywhere near as popular as yaoi. There aren't any screaming fanboys.) Kyaa the Catlord 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if our articles are correct. http://www.aestheticism.com/visitors/reference/aestheticism.htm Yaoi-tachi characters do get pretty fluffy sometimes. --Kunzite 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but by definition girls are cuter than boys. Boys are handsome and rugged and such, rarely cute. Kyaa the Catlord 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As a bisexual editor, I find that assertion incorrect. Boys are cute too. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say guys, I think these two cats are bad ideas. I think the lists are bad ideas as well. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it's not a bad idea, it makes as much sense as Category:Shōnen and Category:Shōjo: it helps identifying the target audience of a work. More than that, I've got doubts on some titles, like Pretty Cure: I've watched some episodes and I don't remember any lesbian relationship (I hope it isn't only some fan idea). Furthermore, "yuri" and "yaoi" AFAIK have a hentai meaning which would suggest to create the other two categories for non hentai works. --Εξαίρετος (

msg) 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of a grey area, because for many animes it can be considered original research. Some it's obvious, some it's not. Why are we even identifying articles by this criteria in the first place? -- Ned Scott 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that for many animes the presence in the cat has to be discussed, but for instance for Kizuna: Bonds of Love there's no other suitable cat but Yaoi, and I think that Yuri (better Shōjo-ai) is the most appropriate one for Kashimashi, because in those works the shōnen/shōjo ai elements are fundamental to the storyline. --Εξαίρετος (

msg) 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

@Why are we even identifying articles by this criteria in the first place?: because some dirtyminded perverts want a neat list of stuff to watch :-) Shinobu 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of a dispute over at .hack//SIGN about if it should be in Category:Yuri. I'm not even sure if these categories are worth including if we have to handle disputes about them (granted I'm in the dispute myself). Any input would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance

What's going on with the importance ranking? I got a B on the assessment scale for List of Scrapped Princess episodes, so now I want an importance number. Want, want, want; that's me. - Peregrinefisher 10:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't list an articles importance because it isn't very useful to the WikiProject. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If we wanted to list by importance, we could, but it wouldn't be particularly useful imo. Perhaps more useful would be to construct a list of what are the most important series manually, and not bother going and telling people that their article isn't important. --tjstrf 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that. But we would have to line up a few criteria first before we start, so that this doesn't degenerate in an open war.--SidiLemine 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

250px infobox

**WikiProject Anime and manga**
This WikiProject is about Anime and manga.
Shortcuts:	WP:Anime WP:Manga
Portal:	Anime and manga Portal
Wikimedia Commons:	Anime and manga
Parent project:	Entertainment
Project notice template:	{{WikiProject Anime and manga}}
Participant userbox:	{{User WP Anime}}
Has goals	Yes

Better? Now it is as slim as most side infoboxes. Several wikiprojects seem to be ok with it.--201 07:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the need for it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, it's ugly and entirely pointless. We just don't need it. In fact, the wikiprojet that tend to have this infobox are the ones where you've but them there. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Chalk it up to some frustration at having to clean up after his attempts to create new Projects, Navboxes and templates (for which there is little to no support) for the third or fourth time in as many months. CovenantD 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the author of the box and another guy placed 2/3 of the total. You only checked the wikiprojects on my page. --201 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I suspected. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics hates this too. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personnaly, I'd care more to have an animanga infobox that is the same size as the CVG one. We've got a lot of stuff that comes from video games, and vice versa--SidiLemine 14:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If this infobox has a use, I don't see it. And it's still really, really huge. Shinobu 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What Farix said. THere's really no use for it. In fact, I think we'd be better off if someone created a navigational template for all the Anime and Manga project's various subpages, like the ice hockey WikiProject has (look at the upper right of the page). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd love somethig to link to (even distant) parent and cousin wikiprojets, too.--SidiLemine 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides stating I like it, there isn't much I can do. Many wikiproject forget to make some of the elements of the box (either shorcuts, portal, notice or user template) or place the syntax in different sections etc. The purpose of the box is to gather all that basic info at the top of the page so that the reader won't have to scan for those elements. But I don't think you're buying. Forget about it. Weird, since the news box almost on top is a little, what's the word?--201 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I never said I didn't like it, more like "yeah, and you know what would be even cooler?"... But it's funny how this project is one of the most closed upon itself I've seen. Very much "us-and-them". This infobox is to inform outsiders, and as such, it's badly needed. This project might be a unique chance to get manga and anime out of geekland, and the infobox helps with it. As such, I'm buying.--SidiLemine 09:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:201 is a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user who has a history of disruptive editing. CovenantD 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that certainly puts an entirely different spin on this discussion. I don't think what 201 was doing here was consistent with a vandalism M.O., but they did seems a bit pushy... --Roninbk _{t c e #} 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the connection. this is an infobox. OK, now that 201 isn't here anymore, nobody's defending it. But to close the discussion like that seems a bit.... I don't know, stalinian maybe.--SidiLemine 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still new to the whole vandalism issue, so I guess I find it hard to imagine someone coming with the purpose of disrupting wikipedia (call me naive, but that alone is hard enough) using Projects, Navboxes and templates.... It's creepy.--SidiLemine 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fancy table of contents

I'm thinking about changing the TOC in List of Outlaw Star characters and some others if I can find a good way to do it. I want a header for each character, but the normal TOC gets to long. I don't want to use a compactTOC because I'd like to group them by affiliation, instead of alphabetically. The TOC at List of countries gives me hope, but it's mostly alphabetical. If there was a way to autohide sections of a normal TOC that would be best, but I don't think that functionality has been built yet. Until then, does anyone have any good examples/ideas. - Peregrinefisher 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

~~I'd say KISS. Use the normal TOC and then use a typical article nav template. Keep things like print versions of Wikipedia in mind, as well. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)~~

*smacks forehead* I think I didn't realize exactly what you were talking about when I said that. I thought that custom TOC box was a mix of the TOC and a nav box, but I see that's not what it is, it's just the TOC. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues a ton with some images I found

I stumbled across this image after becoming aware of a page up for deletion that used these images extensively:

Image:DBGT_Logo.png, a redrawing of the logo visible in Image:DBGT_splash.jpg.
Image:One Star DB.png, a redrawing of one of the colored balls in Image:DragonBalls.jpg, which appear to be major plot elements according to the latter's associated article. It doesn't look like a trivial work either, so the image of one of those spheres is likely very much protected.
Image:One_Star_DBZ.png, the prior scaled down and placed upon the letter Z.
Image:DB_Movie.png, It's Image:One Star DB.png recolored green. Recoloring does not change the intent of the image to look like that in Image:One Star DB.png, if only a different color. Some strips of film are also layed on top of it.

They're used in a series of article for a series of comics and animation, entitled Dragon Ball, started comming out in 1984, so I don't see them being out of copyright. Could I get some assistance in removing the very poor use of copyrighted imagary from wikipedia? The images are everywhere. I put the first image I saw listed here up for deleting before I realised the other ones were actually also not unique works by the uploader. Can I get some assistance? I get the feeling I'm going to make a some fans of this work very angry if I just go and list them all. Kevin_b_er 07:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The only one I can see being considered a copyvio is Image:DBGT Logo.png. I don't think the image of a star in a circle can be claimed as something owned by the Dragon Ball series. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the copyright status of these images. Is it that you can't draw your own version of something that is copy protected? - Peregrinefisher 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's correct. All fanart consists solely of illegal copyright violations (thank the ridiculous US copyright law), and while generally nobody cares, its against Wikipedia policy. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy on plot summaries

I've proposed a slight re-wording on WT:NOT#Plot summaries part 3 for our current policy concerning plot summaries (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7). Requesting comments, especially since I don't recall the original discussion regarding the wording being advertised much. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, your proposal would require a rewrite of the current Anime and Manga structure recommendations, is that correct? Thanks, TheronJ 19:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but I guess I didn't notice Theron's comments until just now. No, they would not require a rewrite of our structure guidelines. Our guidelines do focus a lot on characters, but at the very beginning we note to also follow WP:TV and WP:FILM structures when appropriate. If anything, we only need to add to the structure guidelines (i.e., give direct examples off the TV guidelines for reception, impact, production notes, etc) rather than change what's there.

Also, nothing new is actually being proposed, rather, just a slight change in wording to better reflect what is already going on. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the change, as the issue you intend to address (plot summary usage on Wikipedia) is not clarified in any way by your change and indeed made more ambiguous. Muddying the waters in one place won't help us solve the problem in another. --tjstrf 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to address that issue with this change. Rather, the intent was to make the wording not favor one side or the other, while still retaining the rational behind the policy. The consensus on plot summaries still isn't completely clear, which is why the wording shouldn't favor one side or the other. This is a proposed change to better reflect our current state rather than to initiate change. -- Ned Scott 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Anime Article Format

Hi, I'd like to propose that all articles relating to Anime or Manga, use any names as specific by Romanization. I say this because many series have a mixture of using the English dub names. So I suggest whatever is the most "official" name be used as official, with any Dub or Manga Translations listed if the name is different in the English edition. Also, when making an article I think we should look at everything, not just literal translation, for a much more accurate and official Article. If the format is set to this, then we can have a continuity between all Anime and Manga Articles. for example One Piece uses almsot all Japanese names and spellings, but Detective Conan's Article is under it's English name, Case Closed.--Pyrgus 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. Yeah, that's sort of the topic of a long debate. Pretty much the closest thing we can agree on is to use the most common name, which might or might not be the "original" romanization. See WT:MOS-JA's archives for examples of past discussions on this. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipolicy to use the English language title WP:NAME#Use English words unless the native language title is more commonly recognized among English language users. What you are suggesting is to ignore that policy. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And then, of course, there's the camp that claims fans don't actually count as english language users, so we should always use official names regardless of fan usage. Yep, basically just a big mess. --tjstrf 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bots with no images

I'm getting tired of browsing through anime articles like Gundam or such that needlessly shows specs and info about specific Mobile suits/ robots without providing a picture of the robot. I doubt it would be serious copyright infringment to make sure most (or hopefully all) suit models get a picture- its just seems that people are too lazy to find them. This is the first time I wanted to help by changing the site, but the only pictures I can find are through google searches and thus don't qualify as "fair use." For example, I've tried to get images for the aricle "RX-110 Gabthley," and the closest match I've found is at http://www.robot-japan.com/Gundam-Robot/gundam/z/RX-110.html. I'm just too new at wikipedia to do it right, so does someone want to look into this for me or talk me through it? and is this even the right place to talk about this? If not, PM me or something after you delete this (Gosh, I have NO idea about what I'm doing).

Ignatius Anteros 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What would be the right fair use tag for the above image? Anyone? - Peregrinefisher 03:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a characterimage tag somewhere. Shiroi Hane 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikia has a characterimage template. Does anyone know the name of one for wikipedia? - Peregrinefisher 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is {{Character-artwork}} (listed in the list of fair use tags linked when you upload an image) Shiroi Hane 08:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Null (scanlation) up for deletion.

I have initiated an AfD on the article for the Null One Piece scanlation group here, based on notability grounds. Feel free to have whatever input you feel fitting there. --tjstrf 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a Anime and manga-related deletion on our Deletion sorting page. Thanks for the heads up. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So that's how you do that... thanks! --tjstrf 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon articles up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon game mechanics

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types

Add your input as needed :) — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with us, as they do not overlap with manga or anime in any real sense. --tjstrf 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, I guess, but they are in Pokemon, which is a subset of Anime/Manga. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're CVG material. We do cover a good bit of the Digimon franchise, but as far as Pokemon goes the articles focus far more on the games than they do the anime, which is as it should be. Those articles especially contain only trivial mentions of the anime content, as they are focused on gameplay aspects. --tjstrf 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But now we know about them in case we feel like voting. :) --Masamage 03:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how an anime based on a CVG doesn't concern us. I always hated the game (cards, game boy, you name it), but I love the anime, and it's one of the best sold in the world. If we take digimon, I don't understand that we desregard pokemon. --SidiLemine 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(I loved the games, thought the manga was decent, and hated the anime myself.) The reason we don't cover Pokemon is because the primary form of the work is not the anime and manga at all, it's the games. Same reason we are supposed to write articles about the manga form primarily in most cases, it's the original form. --tjstrf 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we not even contribute to the Pokemon anime/manga articles? Just curious; slightly surprised. I guess by 'contribute' I mean 'include them in our scope'. --Masamage 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Pokémon does have its own dedicated project (more than one, last I looked), but there's no reason that someone cannot be a member of both projects. I cannot speak for 'we', but I personally have no interest in Pokémon so leave them to it. Shiroi Hane 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Arr, of course. Silly question; thanks. ^^ --Masamage 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ranma 1/2 articles

Someone needs to take a hacksaw to the Ranma 1/2 character articles. Pages with entire paragraphs dedicated to fanfic portrayals do not have a place here. And I'm not going to do it since it's far too much effort to invest into an anime I don't even like. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the outright fanficiton section in most of the articles. I'm not too familiar with Ranma, so I'll leave it up to those who know the series to decide how to clean up the remaining cruft on the articles. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed the fanfiction sections! Nah, seriously, as long as the main body of the articles remains somewhat neutral (which is my main concern), I'm fine with it.Facer 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please keep it on the talk pages, as I intend to get to the Ranma1/2 articles soon, and would appreciate to have as much material at hand as possible? Thanks in advance.--SidiLemine 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You can use the history for that, but if the removed material is about fanfiction then it is useless to the project anyway. Shiroi Hane 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, good riddance.--SidiLemine 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

148.202.98.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverted my removals of the fanfic sections. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lame! --Masamage 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I already talked that over with NeoChaosX; I'm ok with the fanfiction sections being deleted now.

By the way, the character navigation template could use a 'major adversaries' (or something like that) section so that Herb, Saffron, Pantyhose taro, Rouge and Ryu Kummon can get a place in it.148.202.98.195 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yah, we're coming to an understanding about the fancruft in Ranma articles. Not a problem anymore. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that proposal of adding a major adversaries section to the Ranma template navigation the anon made could be useful; since Saffron, Ryu Kumon and others don't fit in the recurring or minor characters category and they already have their own page (full of biased cruft by the way), a major adversaries section on the template could solve that. If you have thoughts about it, the proposal is at: Template_talk:Ranma_navigation we can discuss it there.Facer 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, per notification of the anon, I've proposed that several individual articles about Ranma locations be merged into a single 'Locations of Ranma 1/2' article. You can see the proposal at Talk:Furinkan and leave any thoughts there. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Macrons in Japanese names.

I'm currently in the middle of undertaking to properly spell (with macrons where appropriate) as many Japan-related articles as I can get my hands on. What is the consensus here? I guess most common English-language name general goes, yes? The one in particular I'm asking about at this moment is Asuka Langley Soryu from Evangelion. She's named after a naval ship called the Sōryū; for now I'm leaving her name macronless - what do you all think? LordAmeth 11:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, it's all at WP:MOS-JA.--SidiLemine 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My read of WP:MOS-JA tells me that the official trade name takes precedence, which would therefore be the GAINAX romanization, (without macrons.) The reference to the vessel in the Trivia section however should probably have the macrons. --RoninBK_TCE# 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not necessairly the GAINAX one. but the fact is that Sohryu is used in more versions than Soryu, so use Sohryu. WhisperToMe 05:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Former GA

It would be quite useful to have a list of all anime and manga forme GA, A, and FA articles. Is there any easy way to do this (other than to roam all the articles in the project and tag them one by one?--SidiLemine 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To me there isn't much point to tag former articles; I don't think they're "more special" than B-class articles that need work. I don't think there are any former FAs in the A&M category either (based on my cursory scan of the category). ColourBurst 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bishojo game is one. _dk 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be useful as they generally are closer to GA than most B-class. The idea I have is that it would be nice to have many GA in all types of articles, to serve as examples and to stabilize the general structure of A&M articles. furthermore, it would be good to see what gets them all delisted, so we can try to prevent this in the future (I personally think it's the constant addition of fancruft as soon as they get attention, but who knows?...). I think Cowboy Bebop is one too, althought not sure. --SidiLemine 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop was a former FAC (candidate), not a former FA. I see your point, but I don't think the current structure allows for that yet, so you'll probably have to go look through the category yourself. (Naruto, one of the of most viewed pages on Wikipedia, is also a former FAC.) I find that candidacy and failing tends to fail with the amount of references (that's usually the most common reason), so I don't think they're "closer" (but they tend to be better written). ColourBurst 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see WP:JAPAN for the other former FAC. There's a bunch of anime articles in there. ColourBurst 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Both former FAs and GAs are now listed with the former FACs.--SidiLemine 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Article names for lists

We have a few articles that violate the naming conventions for articles that are lists. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions

Lists should not be called Famous Xs or Notable Xs yet we have:

Notable anime TV series listed by year
Notable anime movies listed by year
Notable names in anime

I think that the "Notable" should be dropped from these article names. Notability is implied as wikipedia requires notability anyway. They're also definitely lists and so should have the prefix "List of" in front of them. One of the articles was this way but was renamed, I'm assuming, in line with the other list article names. --Squilibob 14:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any articles with notable in the title - who decides what is "notable"? Shiroi Hane 19:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely rename them. List of anime TV series by year, List of anime movies by year, and list of names in...wait, what's the last one? --Masamage 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we have categories for these things.. as it stands do we go for "list of all anime series listed by year", "arbitrary list of just some anime series by year" or just delete them altogether? Shiroi Hane 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Call it "List of anime series by year," but have it be a list of all anime series by year. - Peregrinefisher 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have some partially-filled cats: Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Manga by date of first release. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is basically just List of anime but in a different order.. and that was deleted for being unmanageable and duplicating a category. Shiroi Hane 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The cat can't include info that a list can, like the specific year. - Peregrinefisher 23:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

However, that information is in the article (I'm not pushing for deleting - I was active in List of anime before it vanished on me - but if someone does pick this up for AfD these point will need to be addressed). Shiroi Hane 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The first two lists are baseless at the moment. Why don't we change the lists so that they focus on television ratings or whether they went gold in VHS/DVD sales. Name them on specific achievements, on something that we can reference where a definite line can be drawn. --Squilibob 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. That's very needed, as per discussion below.--SidiLemine 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas on what to rename these lists to? --Squilibob 12:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability guides?

Is there any sort of bottom line for inclusion of manga and anime series articles? I'm wondering this because as is, there does not seem to be any applicable guideline for notability on manga whatsoever. Wikipedia:Notability (books) specifically does not apply to comics, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria seems similarly uninstructive.

As I see it, this would only rarely become a problem, but a recent prod on +Anima (which stated the article did not make a claim to notability) made me wonder about this. I ended up defending the article based on its existance as a 10 volume internationally published book series, and the prod'ding editor withdrew the request. However, the lack of any form of citeable guideline on the subject made me uncomfortable. I believe a project guideline or standard would be useful here. Comments? --tjstrf 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FICT is the guideline for all fictional works, regardless of media. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not applicable in this case. I'm not talking about character articles or plot summaries, I'm talking about the main series article. --tjstrf 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think as long as it was commercially published, it's notable. This specifically excludes any fan works and vanity works. Now, just being notable doesn't necessarily mean it gets its own article, as there may not be enough citeable references to make a decent standa-alone article. In some cases, a series may have a page, but an individual volume may not, or a work may have a paragraph or two on the creator's page, but not have its own page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the way I was leaning as well. As an added note, I believe any series which has been made into an anime, or commercially translated into another language, or won an award, etc. would probably fall into the category where we should have an article on it, while series that have not been honoured in these ways would fall into the category where we can have an article on them. --tjstrf 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Extending the question, what does "commercially published" mean? Tankobon? Inclusion in comic magazines? And what about dojinshi? There are many notable dojins out there but most of them are not, so where do we draw the line? _dk 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Commercially published" means that the author was paid a fee for the publication rights (whether in a magazine, a collected volume, etc.) or the derivative work rights (anime, radio drama, theatrical production, etc.), rather than paying to have it published (as is the case with vanity publication). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For dojinshi, we could probably apply a guideline similar to that used in WP:PORNBIO: the extremely prolific artists get articles about themselves/their dojin circle. Also, commerical translation into multiple languages would probably be a good standard of notability. Probably a more important topic for us to cover than individual dojin or artists would be the magazines that publish them. --tjstrf 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think those are too loose. "Extremely prolific" isn't easily quantifiable. Dojin is essentially vanity press. They should only be considered notable iff the mangaka is notable and, even then, should be restricted to the mangaka's page, unless the doujin itself has had some other major claim to fame. (i.e. notable literary award.) --Kunzite 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I just stated that if an author is extremely prolific, we give them a page. Not that we then create an individual page for every slash pairing they ever did. I don't know what sort of awards exist for dojin. And then, of course you enter into the case of people like Ken Akamatsu and Oh! great, who started as dojin artists and then went into mainstream publication of multiple anime-adapted manga series... is their early stuff notable? I hate determining notability. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the suggested guidelines for anime and manga are too loose. There are many very very minor commercially published manga that are one volume long and there is very little information available on these titles. Going through the request list, I've seen many of these titles. i.e. Aqua Drop (アクア・ドロップ) is the perfect example. It's a small, one vol. manga It's better listed on the mangaka's page Nozomi Ōno than on its own. --Kunzite 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed for short stories, merge to the author unless it received an award or something. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Monster of the Day

At Talk:Sailor_Moon_episode_001#MOTD_Profiles we would like to know if it's alright to add a profile for an MOTD as our formatting stands we have villians with their group affiliations. Like Sailor Galaxia with Shadow Galatica... The MOTD would then fit with the episodes. However, we are concerned that this might be too much fan-crazed information. The MOTD would include list of attacks, the name, type and creation of said monster. (Master would be debated). Naming the attacks of said monster would slow down the Story section.. and it would provide a quick scan, however is this too much info or too insane? --Hitsuji Kinno 16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what a MOTD is, but if they actually do occur in every episode it would seem sensible enough to add. Just make your own template for it if you plan on templating the field, rather than adding an extra to the projectwide episode infobox. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep it minimal. The idea of writing any summary of the plot is just to aid more significant and/or real-world topics, etc. Considering the monsters really could be anything and not really effect the plot, it'd be best to keep this info minimal. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My feeling has been that the amount of Monster-of-the-Day info that would be appropriate within a brief plot summary is probably all we need. We could use The Oracle's MOTD bios as external links. --Masamage 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal updates

Hi. Portal:Anime and Manga: I've added a series and bio for this week, but next week is still blank. Also, the news are from August. --GunnarRene 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and archived the news items from August. I also added something new for December, so the news section isn't too out of date anymore. -- 9muses 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It also looks like a weekly series and biography need to be selected from now until the end of 2006? -- 9muses 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomo-Dachi

Hi, I've done a lot of work on the Tomo-dachi anime convention article. A few weeks back it was marked that it read like an advertisemen. Since I have tried to reduce this. Even so it would appear the admin whom marked it as such has yet to return or answer my discussion piece about it. Could one of you guys look and see if you think it still reads like an advert and if it does tell me how to clean it up? Thanks Butch-cassidy 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up a bit the most obvious parts ("a lot of media attention", and so forth), and put a "citation needed" tag where it was most needed. It should be alright from there. --SidiLemine 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was rather surprised no one had mentioned tomodachi means friend(s) in Japanese :/ Seems like pretty basic information. Anywho, I added that in.--SeizureDog 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. Butch-cassidy 10:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:School Rumble characterWhy is this template called School Rumble character, while it's a generic template that could equally well be used on any other chara? As far as I can see, there's nothing SR-specific about it. I would also like to note that its size and font-size are different from {{Infobox Animanga}}; that should be corrected. Shinobu 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also.. Those school rumble character articles should be merged into one article. --Kunzite 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone had a list of such articles that needed merging (in fact was it you Kunzite?) but I can't seem to find it anymore. --Squilibob 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. User:Kunzite/charmerge. Some of them have been done. --Kunzite 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounded like you. :D --Masamage 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I'm a mergist. Urgh.. School Rumble's worse than it looks. The character names are not in MOS-JA format and it looks like the main characters each have a write-up in 3 places. I'll save it for next weekend. --Kunzite 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC for episode article naming conventions

Since this seems to be one of the more active WikiProjects that also deal with episode articles, I thought it might be worth mentioning here that there is a request for comment on episode naming conventions:

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. Also, when disambig titles are used for episode articles should they be (ShowName) or (ShowName episode). All are invited to join the discussion and give their input.

-- Ned Scott 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives