Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 →

Contents

Discussion of format for Lists of chapters

Bringing this up here as no one place seems appropriate -- and if we're using these as our models, we should make them solid. I'm not entirely happy with the layout of the current Featured Lists of chapters/volumes of manga. Currently we have two versions, seen in List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Yotsuba&! chapters, both with problems. The Naruto form has one obvious extensibility issue: most manga don't title their volumes. I think this is information better suited for the right side of the large row, along with other volume-specific info like cover characters and whatnot. Another problem is how the volume number is buried in the middle of the row, instead of on the left like all other series lists. I also don't like the separation of ISBN and release date, which in the naive volume table found in so many manga articles is placed together as natural compliments. The Yotusba table handles this better, but I'm not thrilled with that solution either, separating of each edition's ISBN and release date.

So what I'm hoping for is a discussion of how to tweak these to better. Any thoughts/suggestions? (And maybe, once we're happy with the result, we can template it a la {{Japanese episode list}}, so beginning users don't have to muck about with table formatting as much.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Were you to switch the place of Release date and ISBN (like List of Fullmetal Alchemist manga), I'd say the Yotsuba build is perfect. I'm not sure I understand your qualm about the two though. Do you want ISBN and release date given alongside each other? As for volume titles, they don't seem entirely necessary; volume title is usually the same as one of the chapter titles. Putting them in the large whitespace, if anywhere, would be the best location. ~SnapperTo 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Definitely use a template to standardize the table format. The ISBN should be located where the Naruto chapters have it. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why should it be there? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the need for a template, and a need for standardization. I also agree with not liking having ISBN and release date separated. How about stacking them? With the ISBN directly under the relevant release date? For volume titles, I'm inclined to say put them with the volume number like Volume 1 - title, since most don't have them and those that do are usually listed that way in solicitations and store catalogs. One thing I thought about last night while reading a volume was side and extra stories. I'm guessing they are listed in the chapter lists, but how are they dealt with in the summaries? Collectonian (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about stacking -- I think I'd have to see an example to tell. For the side- and extra stories, it makes sense to have a one-sentence summary, possibly as a separate paragraph, after the main volume summary, clearly marked as such. I'm about to tablefy a manga list that has one, and so can show an example of what I mean in a bit. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, before I start tripping over myself, here's a list of data elements that we might have -- italics means it's required: volume number, volume title, Japanese ISBN, Japanese release date, English ISBN, English release date, list of chapters, other volume info (such as cover characters), volume summary.
Did I miss anything? If not, the problem being, to have a layout that can adapt to having any combination of the optional elements, because pretty much any combination can be expected (and probably already exists for at least one series). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think that is everything we should need on 99% of stuff, though I guess we should also consider re-releases? Like Viz's re-release of Ceres and Fushigi Yugi, which had different covers, ISBNs, and went from being flipped to unflipped. Or, more rarely, something like Aria, which is now being re-released by a different US licenser's? Obviously, these are special cases, but I think its good to at least discuss how to deal with them since I'm hoping this discussion not only leads to a consensus on formatting, but an addition to our style guide for helping editors :) Collectonian (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping so to, for that last. For releases of older, formerly flipped manga, that's a good question. A similar issue is whether/how to document Japanese re-releases in bunko/other editions (which have different number of volumes, usually, from a tankobon edition). Currently, it's rare to do more than note the existance of re-releases like that, and even that's very hit-and-miss, but then see Marmalade Boy. (Aria may not be our best test case, as it has the further complication of switching Japanese as well as English publishers.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
re stacking: What do you think of this layout?
re older prints: You could probably get away with using <br /> to separate different releases in the same cell; we already do that to separate writers from artists in manga infoboxes where necessary. This doesn't address the problem of releases with different volume counts, but a template can't handle that anyway. —TangentCube, Dialogues 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's got possibilities. One bonus: if, say, there's no English version, presumably we can make the template smart enough to omit that row -- which is easier, when working in HTML tables, than omitting a column. (I also like how your example has someone translating a classic 40+ year old manga.) Others: what do you guys think? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reworked List of Naruto chapters (Part I) to try and address what has been brought up: ISBN is given alongside release date, Japanese column would simply be freakishly wide in the absence of English data, volume title is stuck in with "volume extras" in the event that there is none, and the rest should all be fairly consistent throughout the various lists. TangentCube's suggestions for different/reorganized releases would still apply. Thoughts? ~SnapperTo 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I confess I'm not thrilled at putting ISBN and date together like that, but it may be a matter of presentation. Maybe something like ISBN 4-08-872840-7 (3 March 2000) would be clearer?
How about having the date in one cell and the ISBN in another cell, both under the Japanese header (sample)? Also, something that's got me confused...the headings. "Japanese release" and "English" release is all good, until you get into English release where? US, Australia, UK, etc? Neutrality and guidelines would seem to dictate that be included where available as they are all English language releases, but how do we reflect that in the headers? Collectonian (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That goes to an issue I was waiting for this to settle before raising, which is that many the manga/anime articles do a very poor job of distinguishing between (and being accurate about) whether a series was licensed in the US alone (rare), North America (most common), the English Commonwealth (increasingly uncommon), or worldwide English language (increasingly common). It doesn't help that the news sources aren't always good about being clear about the region. I was going to propose that an informal workgroup go through everything in the List of manga licensed in English and the anime equivalent and verify all licensing statements. In any case, that should probably be discussed under another heading, as I've yet to find a manga that is currently licensed in English to different publishers in different regions -- but there are several anime that have been (such as in Singapore and North America). FWIW, I try in my manga tables to accurately specify either NA or English release -- the name of the field should be flexible. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I like the sample. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (on the sample). And agreed on the issue of needing to do better with distinguishing (and good catch on US really needing to North America in most casts). One I can think of where manga is released under different publishers (though through an import agreement) is Trinity Blood. Though the table lacks summaries, it gives on idea of how I dealt with the Australian release dates. With Madman's import agreement with TokyoPOP, I think it may become something we'll see more on those specific titles, since technically while it is still the same translation, Madman does also sometimes use another company's English translations, and in both cases reprints the manga under their own labels. It also shows one option I've been using for tables before discovering the other way, for showing which country/area.Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm concerned with in TangentCube's sample is that it specifically gives a place for a (fair use) image. Given that all images in manga lists would be fair use, and given that fair use images are being removed from lists left, right, and centre, is it a good idea to provide a template that specifically has a spot for an image? (Especially as longer-running series can run to 18 or so volumes) -Malkinann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No reason not to; if images can be justified, they can be added, if not, they can be left out, and the list would display properly either way. Doceirias (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should. There is really no reason to have an image of every last cover of a manga series and it would certainly fly in the face of WP:NFCC (and from all of the discussion there, I think Malkinann is right, they would all get stripped out quickly). I think, it should be handled similar to the way the list of episodes are, with a single image of the first volume (preferably the Japanese release) at the top of the list (if a separate page) or in the section (if in the main article), and an additional image only if necessary to illustrate a very dramatic difference in the covers in Japan versus the US. Collectonian (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking about the "cover art" lines, that was supposed to parallel the "cover characters" sections found in, for example, the Naruto lists; I didn't feel like making up character names for an image that doesn't exist. That section is intended for other details about the volume people may want to include. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was assuming. I was also assuming it's a generic example, as that may not be the only sort of thing to be included. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To throw the offer out there, I'd be willing to make another template like Template:Japanese episode list for whatever format is agreed upon, unless anyone wants to beat me to it :) -- Ned Scott 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Coolness. I was hoping someone would do that. Once we get the layout and the field names nailed down -- which it sounds like we're nearly there. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a volume title, which is preferred: no cell or an empty cell? —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If the volume title is going to be a separate cell, then I'd prefer no cell. Blank cells give the impression there is one, we just don't know what it is yet. Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What about chapters that have been serialised in magazines, but not yet collected in a bound volume? Are there going to be some fields for the top bit to indicate ISBN and dates of re-releases in a different format (ie. flipped vs unflipped for English releases, or for manga where it is re-mastered and re-released?) -Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the not-yet-collected, currently List of Naruto chapters (Part II) and List of Yotsuba&! chapters handle them in a separate section; unless someone can come up with something more elegant, I like that style. For rereleases of any form, I suspect the best solution is to double up entries in the cell with a <br/>, the way multiple publishers are handled in the infobox; for an example, I ended up doing this in Aria. No matter what we do, we'd still need some sort of prose explanation of what sort of rerelease was done. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like how the doubled-up ISBNs and dates look like in Aria, it's too cramped and difficult to read which belongs to which release, despite the bracketed publisher at the end. Can there just be a few aux fields that would display up the top instead? (And a few aux fields that put information in the side bit next to the chapters?) -Malkinann (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather have as few columns as possible; when you include the row that is used for chapter lists and extras, attempting to calculate which rows are present, how wide each row is, and how many rows to use for the two columns seems like a logistic nightmare for a template. In fact, I'd rather have a fixed number of columns (hence my question above), but even hiding/unhiding the title is less of a problem than hiding/unhiding multiple auxiliary fields. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

After playing around with HTML boxes and trying to fit them into solutions, I've come to a few conclusions. I'm up late with insomnia, so this is likely to be a bit rambly, so please bear with me.

Problem one is technical: conditional columns are feasible, but hard to make foolproof, and we want this to be an easy-use template. Problem two is flexibility: As much as I like the idea of TangentCube's example that puts Japanese and English ISBN/date in separate rows, this only looks good when there is the volume material (chapters, summary) below it (it also doesn't look great on wide screens, with its one narrow and only three wide columns), and we need this to be usable when all that's available is basic publication info. (Much like the episode template still looks good when all you have it title and air date.) With those two constraints, the result is a layout very similar to the Yotsuba&!/revised Naruto I.

One drawback: This template will only work for manga licensed in English. Fortunately, we rarely have extensive articles on unlicensed manga -- Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou being the only example I can think of, and it's not even ready for GAC. A disappointing loss in flexibility, but one I see no way around.

I also see no better solution to rereleases than I did for Aria (manga) (and Malkinann is right, it's not pretty except in wide enough screens), aside from separate rows straddled by the volume number, and I don't think we can template that with enough flex to take into account all contingencies. I may be wrong about that, but the coding problem makes me shudder.

So here's my detailed proposal: a five column table. The first row has VolumeNumber (which should be centered in the cell), JapaneseDate, JapaneseISBN, EnglishDate, EnglishISBN. The second row has two cells, first cell straddling three columns has Chapters (which have to be formatted by the editor), second cell straddling two columns has OtherVolumeInfo (or some such field name; this is a place to stick information like volume title, cover characters, or the like). The third row has one cell straddling all five columns, containing ShortSummary. If neither Chapters or OtherVolumeInfo is present, omit that row; if ShortSummary is not present, omit that row. If neither the second or third row is present, use a thin border below the row; if either one is or both are present, use a thick colored border of of the color specified in LineColor. Whether there should be a border between the two cells in row two, I also have no strong opinion; but if OtherVolumeInfo is absent, there should not be one.

The consensus seems to be that the second row should be display in a font at 90%. I do not like this at all (I think from an accessibility standpoint, or at least as a kindness to older eyes, Wikipedia should use smaller-than-normal fonts as little as possible), but accept it.

Whether the column headings should be flat a la revised Naruto I or stacked a la Yotsuba&!, I have no strong opinion right now. In any case, those are outside the proposed template, which can handle either one.

I hope that's clear enough for community purposes. Have at it. —Quasirandom (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, though I prefer the approach used by the Yotsuba&! list over the revised Naruto list. I've drawn up an example here. The only problem I see is that when defining ChapterList (or any list format) through a template parameter, it needs to be preceded by an empty HTML element, or else the text of the first line is treated as raw text, not wikicode. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah -- I did not know that, about the formatting in a parameter. We'll have to mention that in the template doc. And this morning, I kinda prefer the Yotsuba&! stack myself. If no one else has tweaks, I think we have a standard layout and enough info to template it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, except we haven't dealt with the other issue mentioned above: English language releases in multiple countries. A manga series could have English language releases in Europe, Australia, and North America, and as they are all English language, we should cover them all otherwise we're getting into the regionalism territory. So how do we account for that in the table? An optional 4 more columns at the top row? Collectonian (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The only way I can see to handle it is similar to reissues, with double entries in the cell. Unless we can add a second row after the first, based on whether EnglishDate2 and EnglishISBN2 are present, in which the Volume, JapaneseDate, and JapaneseISBN cells straddle span the two rows. Stack the various English releases, that is. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, check out User:Quasirandom/sandbox2 for an example of what I meant by the spanning thing. This is cobbled together from Aria (manga), which has a complicated publishing history, with rereleases in both Japan and in North America. Ignore the publisher labels for now -- how to handle that, we can work out -- this is only for the layout I was trying to describe. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I see no real difference in the output of your example over what's in Aria, except for the cell borders, and that can be mostly replicated using <hr /> instead of <br /> to make a horizontal rule in the current cell. However, it doesn't look quite the same in Internet Explorer (6; I don't have 7 to test); the element produces a full line height space, compared to Firefox and Opera. —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Line breaks and parenthetical notes are fine for seperating releases. In my opinion, it's worse trying to deal with an indeterminate number of parameters with simple HTML/wiki scripting. —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Keep it simple and back to non-split cells it is. BTW, I've swapped the columns in the Yotsuba&! list, to the order I proposed above. Moving JP and EN release info improves it a lot. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has been addressed before, since I haven't read the discussion in-depth, but I'm still a bit confused on the focus of listing the chapter titles. It doesn't seem to add much, and the focus is mostly on the volumes. I don't feel strongly about it, one way or another, but figured I might be missing something. -- Ned Scott 10:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, its to be fair and give equal treatment to the original format the titles were published it (serialized chapters in magazines), but someone else may be able to give a better, more detailed explanation. Collectonian (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As Collectonian says, more or less. I hope, though, we're not giving it undue focus -- I've been trying to craft a format/template that's flexible enough that chapter information can be included if editors deem it important or omitted if not. (So far, all manga FL have them; there are some manga lists that, if I can get them to FLC, won't have it because the chapters are unnamed or non-existant.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right -- unless anyone has any objection, I think TangentCube's current version is ready to be official. That is, copy the template into mainspace, document the quirks, test it on a list or two (I volunteer to use Yotsuba&!), and add mention of it to WP:MOS-AM (I can do that too). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody be opposed to naming the fields more generically (that is, "Original" versus "Japanese")? There isn't anything that warrants tying this template down to just J/E manga, in my opinion; it could also be adapted to works from other countries by simply using generic terms for the parameter names and using parameters to show which language(s) the table is for. —TangentCube, Dialogues 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you expand a little on that last clause, on how that would work? You're right, we shouldn't restrict this to just Japanese, given Korean/Hong Kong/et cet comics. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a naming field such as NationalityOrigin= could be used to replace the Japanese at the top of the template with any nationality required. Showers (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The two examples at User:TangentCube/sandbox3#Single-language release are an example of what I mean; specifying "Language=(x)" in the header template call will change the output from "Release date" to "(x) release date". —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think its ready for test runs as well. Has anyone checked to see if Ned has time to do the code up for the options and all? I also volunteer to deal with Marmalade Boy for a test run, as its one that is missing such info already, and Wolf's Rain to try it in an article where the list is in the main article rather than on a separate list of page. ;) Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not clear if Ned or TangentCube is doing it. Tangent? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have template code ready, I just don't know what to name it. The obvious "Manga volume" is misleading if we use the template for more than just manga, and I don't know what generic term would be best. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What about "serial fiction volume"? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
How about "Template:Manga list"? -- Ned Scott 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, silly me, I understand the question now. If the concern is about being able to use this for more than just manga, then I'd simply call it Template:Comic list. -- Ned Scott 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll go for {{Comic list}}. It's better than anything else I've come up with. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
How about {{Graphic novel list}}. It better fits the volume format the list is intended, leaves room for American and other style collected volumes, and can fit Japanese light novels as well. That also avoids the connotation that its for individual volumes of comics (the colorful magazine style ones). Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's call that one the winne, wrap this puppy up, and stick it under the tree. ... or something like that. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to add the new template to your watch lists I'd say (I left a comment on the template's talk page, but I fear no one will see it for days on end).--十八 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template in action

By way of a second arbitrary section break, I've put this in action in List of Yotsuba&! chapters. Looks really good. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've applied the new {{Graphic novel list}} template to Wolf's Rain's manga section. Before and after (and ROFLOL, we had the same idea at the same time and edit conflicted :P!) Collectonian (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Heh.) I've applied it to Lovely Complex's manga list, as an example of what happens without chapters or summaries -- and, um, it's got a really weird gap above the table. (At least, it does in Opera 9.25.) One that widened the more rows I added to the table. Any clue what's up with that? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, see Template talk:Graphic novel list#Bug? —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've also applied it to the Marmalade Boy article, which has no summaries or chapters (for now) and features three separate lists of volumes. Two things I noticed: with the default width at 99%, if you have an image beside it, you must remember to change the width or it will overrun the images; and with the OneLanguage option enabled, you can not put a reference on the header of the date field because it automatically adds "release date" after whatever word you put in. Now if only I could read Japanese so I could get summaries of the novels :P Collectonian (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since I have most of the English volumes, it's on my TBD to add summaries -- once I get the other volumes. For the referencing of the release dates in a single-volume form, you may want to add anchor it in the prose above. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have all of the English volumes (ridiculously well read at that LOL), so I can add the summaries for the manga if you like. I did indeed put an anchor in the prose above, but may be good to put a note in the documentation. Collectonian (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have them already, go for it. It'll be at least a couple weeks before I'm ready to get to this. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
re refs: If this looks good for a ref field, I'll add it in.
re images: That happens with any right-floating element; try removing the {{-}} above the episode list on Dokkoider, for example. —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One last mention: I've converted a one-lanuage table to the template in Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō. I think we've got (to order some last tweaks) a production model. I'll go add a mention of the template to WP:MOS-AM. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anime and Manga portal

Is anyone updating our portal anymore? It looks looks a little embarrassing to see those big red links where content should be. I checked the history, but it looks like the portal has been neglected since the start of 2008, or earlier. I'd be willing to volunteer to help keep it up to date. I was bold and set one of our recent GA's Tenjho Tenge, as this week's selected article and Sakura Haruno as this week's selected biography (also a recent GA). I used the 2007 entries as a guide for formatting both. Collectonian (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Never got any response here, so I got really bold and made some big changes over at the portal. Please see the talk page for a summary of stuff I've done so far, and offer your thoughts, feedback, etc. Collectonian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Several new proposals for Template:Japanese episode list and other notes

I've made a bunch of proposals for the episode templates {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}} (such as dedicated "Director" and "Writer" fields), as well as a method of translcuding season pages onto main LOE pages, plus other notes. Input from anyone interested would be greatly appreciated. See Template talk:Episode list#Revamp -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Remaining episode articles and season list categories

Well, with almost all of the anime episodes now merged or redirected into list articles, I like to know if there are any potential stragglers that need to be merged or redirected. I know that there are at least two Pokemon episodes left, and neither of them appear to be notable.

On a related note. What should the naming convention be for categories that contain multiple season episode lists? I've been using Category:Lists of X episodes since Category:X episodes is now a misnomer. --Farix (Talk) 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Mergings

Pokemon

In a nutshell all the characters in the Pokemon series have been tagged for merge. Unfortunately, all the character articles do fail requirements for maintaining their individual articles. Before things get out of hand, I've proposed on the Discussion page there that a major cleanup be performed before any mergings are done. Doing so would give those articles a shot at keeping independance as well as bringing up to par articles within our watch. If at the end of an agreed time period the articles do not meet requirements than a merging can be performed. This will save the head-and-heartache of arguing while being relatively fair for both parties. If this works out, it can be used as an example for possible future merging conflicts that may arise -or- spearhead motivating niches of editors that center around certain anime series articles into improving them. Fox816 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately? Why is it unfortunate that the articles are being cleaned up and merged? I took a quick look at all of them and they are in terrible shape violating most of Wikipedia's core policies along with WP:NOT and fails WP:FICT. They are simply extensive plot summaries with almost no real world context or cite a single third-party reference. S-merging them is probably the most appropriate cleanup method to take on them right now. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately in the sense that they were in terrible shape unworthy of being independant. I apologize if my wording came across in a different manner aside that which I intended. I've placed input regarding the cleanup alternative which keeps the articles for a short time on the discussion page link provided. Fox816 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some New Company Categories

In the style of Category:Viz Media and Category:Production I.G, I've created Category:Geneon, as well as Category:ADV Films and Category:ADV Manga (which are both under Category:A.D. Vision).

Anyone want to help add the relevant series articles to these new cats? :P

Collectonian (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Is magical boy a genre that should be placed in a genre box? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since magical girl is, I don't see why not.--十八 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I plan to add it to the anime/manga articles which are listed on the magical boy page. Perhaps someone can sort through the list just to check if it is correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have prodded the article due to looking like complete OR. I have never seen the term used, and I doubt it's a serious genre classification. Maybe passable as a subsection to magical girl, but a stand alone article seems right out. Unless someone can source it up to mantain its notability, I don't think it needs to stick around.--SeizureDog (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the titles are shonen shows and I also never heard the term before. (Based on the article, Naruto is a magical boy) It doesn't even have an article on the Japanese wiki. Rezumop (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Could I salvage something to put it under a sub-section of magical girl or does anyone have anything else in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends: can you you find any sources to prove that it's not just a fanboy neologism? I mean come on, FLCL being counted a "magical boy" anime? --SeizureDog (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the list and the examples. At best, they were original research unless anyone can find reliable sources using them as examples. At worst, the entire list was fanwank, and I don't usually throw that term around lightly. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It is an interesting question. I certainly would agree that the current article is not really using the term properly and just has a bunch of stuff thrown in. The only two I really recognized as being regularly referred to as "magical boy" are DNAngel and The Mythical Detective Loki Ragnarok. At first I was going to disagree with the PROD, but unfortunately I could not find any sources to provide any sourceable definition or list. Collectonian (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm inclined to PROD what's left even after the trimming, unless someone can find ANY reference to the term being used. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a google search and couldn't find anything that proved magical boy a sub-genre. Should we try asking for something at ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan feature picture progress

The new vector is almost done. Editor At Large has asked that if anyone has any suggestions to ask now. See WT:TAN#Vectorizing update. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Under attack

I've heard this, & I'm wondering if anybody can confirm it: a few years ago, a manga in Japan on the Attack on Pearl Harbor blamed the U.S. for pushing Japan into it. True? What title? Who wrote/pencilled it? Trekphiler (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too many fair use images on Ranma ½ character articles

So, I was recently knocking out non-English, non-Japanese VAs from anime articles, and I happened upon the Ranma ½ character articles, all of which that have way too many fair-use images. There's at least 5 fair use images on each individual Ranma character article, and it's clear to me that most of the images are being used for decorative purposes, which oversteps the bounds of fair-use allowed here. I really don't think it's necessary to illustrate each and every moment a character had during the series, or (to use a specific example) have an image on Ranma Saotome displaying all his rivals when you could just go to the article of that specific rival and view their picture there. Other egregrious offenders include Nabiki Tendo and Shampoo (Ranma ½), but as whole there's way too many images on all these character articles when you could use just two, maybe three images to illustrate each of those characters (For the sake of comparison, Sailor Mars, a Good Article, has only three fair-use images, while Sakura Haruno, another GA, has four FU images). There really should be a purging of all these Ranma images, as they're unnecessary and decorative on the articles they're on. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The place to bring this up, though, would probably be Talk:Ranma ½ so that editors who work there and don't read this don't get blindsided. When refer to that discussion in the edit summary when you remove the images. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From the looks of things, those articles also fail WP:NOT#PLOT, and I wouldn't doubt that there is a lot of original research hidden in there as well. --Farix (Talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Quasirandom, I've started a discussion over at Talk:Ranma_½#Too_many_images_in_character_articles. Feel free to join in if you choose. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, eleven is rather too many. --Masamage ♫ 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Convention article organization

I have proposed a general outline for convention articles over at WP:Anime/Cons. Comments are welcomed. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kodomo anime and manga in need of attention

I removed a PROD on Kodomo anime and manga because I'm pretty sure the subject is notable and as good an article can be written about it as, say, Children's literature. Needs hella work, and translating the Japanese Wikipedia article would be a good start. The prodder is right that there doesn't seem to be much about the subject in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Planetes

Planetes is at Good article reassessment in here. --Mika1h (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ANN link templates

Hello, Collectonian and I have been discussing the design of {{anime-links}} and couldn't as of yet agree upon the necessity of "(anime)" addition after the Anime News Network link. As Collectonian pointed out, it is used in {{ann anime}} to differentiate between animated series and manga (linked with {{ann manga}}) and he wanted both templates look consistently. However, I believe that such addition disrupts the overall layout of {{anime-links}} because neither {{imdb title}}, nor {{tv.com show}} have anything similar. Moreover, I think that such addition is, firstly, redundant in many cases such as when anime has an original screenplay (100+ listed so far) or was never adapted into manga. Secondly, in case of the TV series and, say, an OVA having the same name (Wolf's Rain, Elfen Lied, X, etc.), the addition fails its purpose altogether. While I acknowledge the need of visual separation between anime and manga links, I do not feel that the current way to do that is the best one. My immediate suggestion would be either to abandon the idea altogether in favor of fully customizable link titles (without mandatory italics, for example, like it was done in {{anime-links}} before Collectonian's edit) or to replace the "(anime)"/"(manga)" addition with "Anime Encyclopedia"/"Manga Encyclopedia" instead of just "Encyclopedia" in the end of the respective line. --Koveras ☭ 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that there's also ANN people. Doceirias (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
~cough~ she ~cough~ ;) As Doceiras mentioned, there are also {{ann name}} (people) and {{company}}, neither of which have a clarifier afterwards, but those probably don't need them. Collectonian (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, excuse me, princess, if you don't place any indication of your gender on your userpage (apart from a userbox buried under 20+ others), I have no way of telling it without extensive research. ;) And yes, {{ann name}} doesn't have a clarifier but since it is hard to place it into the same article as {{ann anime}} and {{ann manga}}, this may be not significant enough... --Koveras ☭ 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also seen editors remove links to the manga anytime there is both a manga and an anime. You rarely see both on a page at the same time. Doceirias (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The (anime) and (manga) tags are there to differentiate between the two types of links, and most anime have both. However, if an article is only going to have one ANN link, it should be to the manga entry unless the anime preceded the manga, though I think it is better to place both links. --Farix (Talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed...I can't think of many reasons where there shouldn't be links to both where they exist. One may be based on the other and ANN generally crosslinks, but it should still be included for both because they are different media and sometimes very different in content. Collectonian (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I do agree upon the necessity of both manga and anime links within appropriate articles, however, the question of how to differentiate between them visually remains open. In other words, is the current clarifier really fulfilling its purpose? --Koveras ☭ 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That question has already answered itself. --Farix (Talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still unclear what the supposed problem is. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, let me be frank, then: as the primary developer of {{anime-links}}, I am opposed to having the "(anime)" clarifier disrupt the layout of that template. Farix, apparently, is opposed to not having a clarifier. That is all. The rest of the above was just an attempt to put the conflict of interests in context. --Koveras ☭ 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The clarifier is there to be consistent with {{ann anime}} and because the reader wouldn't know if that link goes to ANN's manga entry or anime entry without clicking on the link. --Farix (Talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT against clarifiers per se. I am against unconditional addition of a clarifier to any link created by {{ann anime}}. Read my argumentation above for examples of where no clarifier is needed: if the article only covers an anime, the reader WILL know he is seeing an anime link and not manga's. And whenever extra clarification is needed, one can still add it to the title manually. It is my belief that there are more articles that only cover a single medium than both. Otherwise, we can always do the maths. If you are so persistent about having an unconditional clarifier I have already described an altered form I'd find acceptable. --Koveras ☭ 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Most articles cover both the anime and manga. But the clarifier is harmless even with it isn't necessary and frankly, I think you are making much ad about nothing. --Farix (Talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If the format of the link is nothing significant, as you say, then please allow me to change it back to the original form in {{anime-links}} (without a clarifier). Because in my opinion, it is harmful for this particular template. --Koveras ☭ 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that it was not significant. I said that it doesn't do any harm when it's there in the few instances when it probably isn't necessary. It's better to have the clarifier in place then to not have it. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine, do whatever. As of now, I'm discontinuing my technical support of the template. :) --Koveras ☭ 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Per some discussion in the talk pages, it was decided that using categories for noting which titles are licensed by which company, rather than trying to have a huge list of them, was a better way to handle the listings, such as we have with Category:Production I.G, Category:Tokyopop, Studio Ghibli, etc. So I created some new cats Category:Geneon, Category:ADV Films, and Category:ADV Manga, with the plan to use Pearle to get everything in the cats. Unfortunately, Pearle is offline for quite awhile, so I'm working on manually doing them, starting with the ones listed at Geneon. But I could really really use some help. It took me an hour to do 32. Anyone else want to hop in here? Collectonian (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added every Geneon title from Captain Herlock -to- Ergo Proxy. Fox816 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Add translation requests to the cleanup list?

Would it be appropriate to add a section to the Cleanup lists for articles tagged with a request to translate from the Japanese wikipedia article (or, indeed, other source, though that's by far the most common for this project)? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think translating content has to do with cleanup. Cleanup merely means make the current information formatted correctly and well organized; translation of new material means bringing in new information that would then have to be cleaned up, or would actually make the act of cleaning up an article harder if more info was pouring into it. So I think a translation request section apart from Cleanup would be fine. I'd be willing to participate as a translator as I've translated dozens of articles before.--十八 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good, if the Cleanup section were renamed (which might be a good idea anyway, since one clean up is clean up which is kinda odd looking). Maybe renamed to Articles Needing Work? Collectonian (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Translation requests should be listed at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/ja. That will get the articles much wider attention and possible get a faster translation. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See, every time I go over to the Translation Requests page, I get lost in the navigation and can never find that page. So I never list things there. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's linked directly from the WP:JA navbox. That's the way I always find it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Other cleanup issues

I don't want to go off-topic, but could we add also something like "articles lacking notability. Probably merged". For example there are some Inuyasha about weapons that is all fiction and also the Saint Seiya characters that makes me remember to the pokemon test of having an article for EVERY pokemon? Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been debating that too...as well as a section for ones tagged for non-free image violations. Only question is...with the huge clean up list (the main one), will it make the list to big to remain on the front page, or are people okay with that? Collectonian (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC
It seems they wouldnt be okay.Tintor2 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of things, we probably should move the cleanup list to the TODO page. --Farix (Talk) 01:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But then I'd never notice it.... —Quasirandom (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename the Kodomo category?

The article Kodomo was recently, and probably correctly, renamed Kodomo anime and manga. This brings up the question, should Category:Kodomo also be renamed? —Quasirandom (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I also happen to think that Shōnen and Shōjo should be renamed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The articles or the categories? What about Seinen? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The articles and the categories. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And Josei. Bikasuishin (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Forgot that one too. Though that should be just Josei manga, no? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's never been an anime adaptation of a josei manga? —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Honey and Clover has been made into an anime. I'm sure there are others, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly be consistent with WP:NC(P). Bikasuishin (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I support the various rename proposals. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So a) who wants to initiate the category rename proposals, and 2) who wants to do the article renamings? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to take up the task, but it occurred to me that there's a small problem with renaming, say, Seinen to Seinen anime and manga, and more so for the corresponding categories: we also have those demographic tags on works that are neither anime or manga, particularly light novels (and even games/visual novel franchises). Category:Seinen anime, manga, novels and games sounds a tad cumbersome, though... Bikasuishin (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We've just been talking about that somewhere else; maybe the project MOS. I believe we've pretty much agreed to move the demographic to the manga infobox and stop using the terms for anime and light novels. We could call it just Seinen manga, even. Either way, these two discussions should clearly make friends. Doceirias (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I just read the discussion at WT:MOS-AM#Demographics, and it would clear up many ambiguous issues to drop the demographic tags for works other than manga. Renaming the categories should probably be postponed until after consensus has been reached on this question. Bikasuishin (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic in these moves. If anything, Kodomo would be at Kodomo (demographic), but we currently have no other articles titled Kodomo so there's no point. Adding to the title simply narrows the articles' scope in an unneeded fashion.--SeizureDog (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's unneeded. "Kodomo" is just a word meaning "child(ren)", that an English-speaking person is liable to come accross in a number of totally unrelated contexts. That a Wikipedia search on this word should turn up a page with that precise title but covering such a narrow subject as children's anime is confusing (the talk page seems to indicate that several people were perplexed at the former title), and possibly fancrufty. At any rate, the fact that "kodomo" alone is widely (or at least commonly) used in English as a demographic label was unsourced.
Wouldn't it be strange for the Japanese Wikipedia to have an article on the English word "Children" that were solely concerned with characters in Evangelion? Bikasuishin (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Counterpoint: When you look up Douche do you expect to be redirected to Shower? (Sidenote: not an attack, simply the best example I could think of) Article spaces are for English uses of foreign terms, not their original meanings. A hatnote or link to Wiktionary:kodomo might be in order, but that's about the extent of it.--SeizureDog (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course article space is for English uses of foreign terms, provided that those uses are notable and unambiguous. The use of "kodomo" to refer to children's anime doesn't appear to fit the bill, however (whereas douche does, obviously). Shōnen is arguably a different matter, but we do have articles for terms like bishōnen which seem to indicate that, if we are to err on the side of caution, it may not be a bad idea to distinguish between the word "shōnen" and the subject of shōnen manga in article names. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we back to square one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we? I still agree with User:Nihonjoe that it would be appropriate to move the demographic articles to "<demographic> anime and manga", although it's admittedly not a pressing matter (the shōnen article could use a significant revamp and expansion; it's just that coming up with actual sourced encyclopedic content obviously takes more time than housekeeping).
Categories could be suitably (and I guess non-controversially) moved to "<demographic> manga" if the infobox change proposal in enacted. Bikasuishin (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like the plan of action is to, in order, 1) move the demographic in the infobox, b) rename the demographic artciles, and iii) rename the categories. Because that's the order of dependencies, and we need consensus at each step. Did I capture the sense of the meeting correctly? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. It'd be great if someone could get this done now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically talking about the categories. We need a bot to go through all of the entries using Template:Infobox animanga, remove the demographic field from that part, and place it in the Template:Infobox animanga/Manga section. If there is no manga section, then it should remove it and place a note on some page (say Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Demographics) so we can go through and determine if the articles need that or not. Once that is done, we need it to go through every use of Template:Infobox animanga/Manga and place a blank "demographic=" field so it will be there if needed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said on the MOS-AM talk page, I've drafted some specs and Perl code on User:Bikasuishin/DemographicBot, if it can be of some help. Bikasuishin (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yah bot. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a bot would be most needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kai Doh Maru

FYI, some concern over the above article was raised at the WP:No original research/noticeboard recently. The section in question is the one entitled "Telling the tale"... it could use some sources. I have persuaded the editor who raised the issue to wait a while before deleting the section, to give the folks at this project time to locate and add sources. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the section to the article's talk page until someone can find sources to back up the claims, thus removing the appearance of original research. If no one can find sources in a reasonable amount of time, then it should be deleted from the talk page as well. --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anime Detour‎ and staffer WP:OWNership

We have a con staffer who is apparently dissatisfied that they cannot WP:OWN the article by place "official" but unverifiable information about the convention's future attendance on the article and has now resorted to removing verifiable information about the 2008 convention. I'm requesting others to watchlist this for a few days. --Farix (Talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

the official website falls under verifiable info, and removing a future event from the past section is legit even if it can be verified on another website. either remove the future event or move it into its own section. page will be edited to comply with this since you are the one being strict on policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime detour (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A prediction is still a prediction and is not allowed under Wikipedia's policies under any circumstances. I am open to altering the name of the "Previous conventions" section because I think having one convention separated from the others is untidy, but your edits have so far been unconstructive and your comments indicate that you think that you, as a staffer of the convention, have a degree of ownership over the article's contents. You displayed a similar attitude last summer over including a notice in the lead and then history section telling readers to check the conventions website for "up-to-date and official information". --Farix (Talk) 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan almost done!

Editor at Large left the following message on my talk page, which I've also copied to WT:TAN#She's done! (I think). -- Ned Scott 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's 5:18am here and I finally finished her. I've gone over the image a few times and tried to ensure all mistakes were fixed, and I've cleaned it up a little more several dozen times over, so it should be almost-perfect! You can view a larger version than the previews in the sandbox here. I'd like some feedback, tell everyone to nitpick it and point out things that should be fixed; I've been working on it so long I'm going blind so you guys might be able to find things I missed ;)
Also, the characters on her puzzle pieces; I'd like to be sure they're correct, since I was merely tracing over Kasuga's hand-drawn characters - somewhere in there there's likely to be small mistakes or such. If I can have the actual text characters to copy I can put them in as text and then convert that to paths for greater accuracy, as well.
I'm off to sleep, but I should be around again in 8 hours or so and will be free to fix any mistakes after then. All the best, -- Editor at Large • talk 10:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh - a friend and I went over her again and found a few little things I want to fix. I'm making a list on the talk page at Image talk:Wikipe-tan full length.svg, so if you and others can leave comments there I'll work on them this evening. Thanks! -- Editor at Large • talk 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


So if anyone sees anything else to be fixed, leave a note on commons:Image talk:Wikipe-tan full length.svg. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Two new classes

I have added two new classes to the project banner. The first, and most important, is the FL-Class, or Featured List-Class. The second class is the complementary List-Class.

For the most part, both classes should be self-explanatory. To what extent we want to classify episode and character lists as List-Class should be debated. I would suggest only classifying articles that will only be lists, such as List of anime conventions, under this class while episode and character lists or have FL-Class potential are graded like other articles. --Farix (Talk) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant about the list-class, since it doesn't allow any form of grading. Maybe if we had List-Stub, List-Start, List-A, and List-B class. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I also dislike the list-class, as there are significant differences between what a start and B-class list would look like. I'm more ambivalent about the FL-class, but I do note that practically every other project I see still use "FA-class" for featured lists. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The FL distinction is probably good, since (and no offense to anyone who's worked on an FL) it's much easier to have an FL than it is an FA. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
By all means, I'm aware of that (having two FAs to my credit as versus over twenty FLs indicates as such). I'm simply noting the practices of other projects, especially seeing as it's odd for say the television WikiProject's banner still to have "FA-class" while the anime WikiProject's banner reads "FL-class" and the article is under the scope of both (Talk:List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1) for instance). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Gotta start somewhere :) -- Ned Scott 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The FL-class is fairly new, so that is why few other WikiProjects have added it to their assessment process. But it is a standard assessment scale from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. --Farix (Talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That is I suggested limiting the use of List-class to articles that are and will be nothing more then a list. We actually have a few of those floating around here. --Farix (Talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Imageless Portal

A bot has begun running through and removing most of the article/list highlight images from our portal. Even though its being used the same as it is on the front page for featured articles, it would appear this still goes against the non-free image policy. Considering our topic, this means that our featured articles, biographies, and lists will have a total of 1 image (for the one FA biography we have). I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non-Free Images in Portals to clarify this, and because I think its silly, but I suspect the answer will be that they must all go. If that is the case, does anyone have any suggestions for what we could use as alternative images, maybe some specialized Wikipe-tan images to act as defaults for each area? Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Takkou Ishimori

I would like every piece of info you Wikipedia users can find on Takkou Ishimori, such as a biography, which I am having a hard time finding.Kitty53 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"You Wikipedia users..."; ah, sure, even though you didn't even say please. :P There is a Japanese Wiki article on him, and here's his ANN profile with a link to a Japanese profile. --十八 05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I already have those, but I am looking for a biography, just in case I may have to worry about it having so poor nobility that it may be put up for deletion and get deleted either way.Kitty53 (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, I wouldn't be too worried about that. Seiyu articles rarely ever get deleted, at least from what I've seen. If one got deleted, then the seiyu was either very non-notable (was in only one or two works) or there was very little information and was poorly formatted. This guy is over 70 and has been in a ton of releases, so I don't think an article on him would get deleted. As for some biography, there might be something.--十八 08:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have recently been adding info on him and I'm testing on User:Kitty53/Test page. Juhachi, go ahead and take a look at it. You're obviously saying it's notable enough, yes? It sounds obvious that it may sound like it's notable enough. I'm starting to like this.:) Also, feel free to add to it if you like.Kitty53 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. If you had added the article in the state it was in before I just cleaned it up, the likelihood of it getting deleted would have increased, but now it looks decent at least. Good luck finding new info on the guy.--十八 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by decent? Is it looking more notable?Kitty53 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Takkou Ishimori part 2

I can't tell if the article I'm testing on User:Kitty53/Test page is notable enough. Juhachi said it looks decent, but I don't know if he is saying it's notable enough. Please check out the test page and leave a note here telling whether or not it's notable enough and/or what Juhachi meant by "decent."Kitty53 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to profess his notability, especially with no real bio information or in-line references, but (from my experience) seiyu articles rarely ever get deleted as long as they look like they are going somewhere and are formatted correctly. I've created a ton of seiyu articles in the past, and have had a few of them deleted, so as long as you know what you're doing, you shouldn't worry.--十八 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More project banner updates

In my sandbox, I have added several news tags to the project banner as well as updated some icons for existing tags. Part of the idea behind many of the tags is to remove much of the cleanup section on the project page, which is actually becoming a cluttered mess. The idea is that when the tag is set, it will categorize the article into one of the project's cleanup categories. There is still some tweaking to be done.

Of course, We could also move the cleanup section back to the ToDo list instead, which will be similar. --Farix (Talk) 12:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd be more inclined to see the section back in the ToDo list rather than the infobox. While I like the idea of the infobox, it would mean going through and finding all such articles and tagging...then again, it would be nice to have them categorized (at last). Any thoughts of also adding a checklist for moving from stub to start and start to B, similar to what some other projects have? Collectonian (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New category: Category:Lantis

I made this category for the purpose of categorizing the series that the company Lantis is involved with, and to also remove the short list on the company article since it would grow to very long if anyone added in all the series, so I thought a category was more efficient. Please help to populate the category whenever you come across a series with music albums released by Lantis, or a singer/band currently under Lantis, as I know there are a ton of them. Here's a list from the company which details which series they have been involved with, and another list for the artists under their label.--十八 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Seiyū role" lists

I think there should be a standardised format for the "Seiyū role" or performance lists that is under the articles on each seiyū.

Each article on a seiyū has a list of performances or roles that that seiyū has performed in, but they all seem to have different formats. Some list the anime with the character played along-side, others with the order reversed; some list the anime in alphabetical order, others in chronological order. Also, some lists include all performances (e.g. for games, commercials, drama CDs, etc) of that seiyū, while others have separate categories for it. It's ok if the articles are viewed separately, but after reading a few seiyū pages, it looks pretty disjointed. I know they're not supposed to have any particular connections, but I think it would look a lot better if there was a standard format. Highwind888 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First, you really should avoid the use of the term "seiyū" because it is not well know among the general public and using "Japanese voice actor" is much less ambiguous to the English reader. (see WP:MOSBETTER#Use other languages sparingly)
As for filmographies, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), they should be listed in chronological order from oldest to newest. The format for each entry should be:
* ''[[Title]]'' (year), role
Farix (Talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Ok, thanks. I'll try to reformat some pages when I have some free time. Highwind888 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I will also try to update the pages so it will say voice actor (male) and voice actress (female) as well as fixing up the mess on the pages as well as adding some things from the Japanese interwiki sites. Greg Jones II 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding use of the word seiyū, since there is an article about it, simply link the word and all will be fine. If they don't know what it means, they can click on the link. The same is true of words used in other specialized articles for science, mathematics, and so on. We can't expect everyone to know every word that appears in the encyclopedia, but we can link to the articles about the words so they can be enlightened if they choose. There are no requirements anywhere that we must always use words that everyone (or even most people) will know. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that the full explanation, Japanese voice actor/actress, and the shortened form, voice actor/actress, is simple and almost trivial, there is little reason to use the lesser known term seiyū unless you are talking about the term itself. It would be different if the term describe a complex or uniquely Japanese concept, but it doesn't and the term isn't in common English use either. I also don't see a need to make a distinction between Japanese VAs and VAs in other contraries and that making the distinction is a form of bias. The same can be said for the use of mangaka. --Farix (Talk) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm given to agree with using the word here, as there's a different stigma attached to it as compared to "voice actor". It's like using anime vs cartoon...or violin vs fiddle to use an unrelated example. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What an interesting argument we have here... Anyway, I also agree that there IS a difference between using "Seiyū" and "voice actor", which is why I initially used it. However, to the general public, this difference is pretty much non-existent, and so I believe that for this particular case, simplicity of the article should take priority. A compromise would be to have "Seiyū (voice actor)" for the first mention and Seiyū for the remainder (similar to how abreviations are treated). Highwind888 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no differences between "seiyū" and "voice actor". There is also no sigma attached to "voice actor". Usage of "seiyū" is, for the most part, is fans trying to pretend they are "cool" by using an unnecessary Japanese term when a perfectly good and better understood English equivalent already exists. You actually don't see "seiyū" used outside of fandom. Even as jargon, it is completely unnecessary. --Farix (Talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In Holywood, a voice actor is more declasse than a live-action actor, to a much greater extent than in Japan. That would count as a "stigma." —Quasirandom (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Farix, thanks for that link to the format for list of works -- we should probably add a link in the MOS, as I've failed to find such information in the past. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources for reception

User:Perlestellar has been adding reception sections to a number of articles; instead of chosing representative quotes, this user is simply adding a table with the scores given. I tend to prefer quotes, myself. But while ANN and AOD are good sources for this, I'm not familiar with the other two websites used; I removed one of the rows from the table because the review cited was credited to a fake name, which seemed like a fan site. But since I don't know the sites, I figured I should bring it here, and see if these are indeed legitimate sources, and if the project prefers a table with scores or selected quotes. Doceirias (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the reviews on Spectrum Nexus are considered reliable (probably not, due to the alias thing), the fact that the site prominently advertises scanlations and unauthorized anime feeds in the navigation sidebar should be reason enough to remove the link. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded on stripping out that Spectrum Nexus site. Copyright violations galore, so we don't want to link to them. For the broader question, prose is strongly preferred, with representative quotes peppered in as needed. Tables seem to be an "acceptable" last resort, but I personally find them to usually be misrepresentations as they only give scores/reviews for single volumes of a series as use them to represent the series as a whole. They also add little value, IMHO, as they give no indication of what was good about the series, and what problems are found. They also almost always completely ignore non-anime versions of the title, even for those when the manga version is the first version and should be the focus of the article. Collectonian (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I got all the Spectrum Nexus links, but this is clearly something we need to keep an eye out for. Doceirias (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it would qualify to be added to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, so as to prevent anymore from being added? Collectonian (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly make things easier...several of those links had been there for months. Doceirias (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a very high rate of addition, so I'd say it's unnecessary. Just remove them on sight. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If it doesn't get to bad, probably right. In either case, it would probably be good to search for the main URL, see if any other articles have it, and strip them out. Collectonian (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Mostly done, except for four instances in talk archives. Is it proper to edit an archive to remove unwanted ELs? —TangentCube, Dialogues 09:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In cases of Copyvio, I think it is it. I've edited them before to remove links to bootleg sites. Collectonian (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this user is trying to cause problems, but he does seem a little confused on policies; he went to my talk page and asked why I'd removed the links, but mysteriously signed his comments with some other account. Since he didn't actually use that account to post anything on my page, I can't figure out if he's used that account to edit other pages... Doceirias (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You can check that accounts contribs to see. If he seems willing to learn, explain to him about copyright laws and Wikipedia's strict policies against linking to such sites. If not, and he starts putting them back, give the usual progressive warnings. :) Collectonian (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment.. I've not looked at this spectrum nexus site, but animenfo provides information on fansub groups and releases and we even have templates for it. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do they provide links to that information? If they do, we need to strip that site out as well. But just acknowledging the fact that something is fansubbed...probably a gray area. I've generally found them to be useless and redundant, so can't imagine we'd be missing much... Doceirias (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledging that fansubs exist is not a problem, any more than acknowledging burglary. Only if they directly tell (especially by linking directly) how to get the fansubs is it a problem. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, they don't provide links, though they do provide enough info to make it fairly easy to find. I'd certainly be find with AnimeNFO being stripped from articles and would support a TfD of their remplate. The links aren't nearly as useful as ANN, and their fansub info pushes the line enough that they are borderline on appropriateness. I haven't included them in any articles I work on, that I can think of, and often remove them. Collectonian (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If someone's going to TfD the AnimeNFO templates, roll up {{AniDB-A}} and {{AniDB anime}} in the nom too, for the same reasons. See also Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 9#Linking to sites that list illegal files. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, yeah, those need to go for sure. AniDB shouldn't be linked to at all. I've TfDed them both. Collectonian (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Might as well put up the AnimeNFO one as well. Doceirias (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a template for AnimeNFO? I did remove it from {{Anime-links}} though. Looks like there are about 20 articles with links to AniDB not from the template (using as a source even), and 72 with links to AnimeNFO. *scrub scrub*Collectonian (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we were thinking of AniDB the whole time then? Anyway, Special:Linksearch returned 276 results for *.animenfo.com, so... —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I've scrubbed all the AnimeDB ones, and any AnimeNFO ones I found in the same articles. I also found a third template, {{AniDB-P}} which is now also at TfD. From the ones I saw using it...I think our clean up list is about to get a lot bigger *sigh* Anyway to bot remove the animenfo ones? Collectonian (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the middle of the above, when creating prose summaries of reviews, in addition to very brief quotes, you can also summarize even further and include slightly longer quotes for context using the quote= parameter of the citation templates. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think you guys are going a bit to far with this sites removal. The policy (WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works)is specific about it and we shouldn't go beyond that even if we think some links are "borderline on appropriateness"; such a thing is irrelevant. The guideline says "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". This subject has been discussed here. AnimeNFO, for example, is not carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, and whatever info on fansub they have doesn't change the fact that their site is not carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. The guideline also says "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1])." Even this is just a warning to contributors, to not link to a site that you know is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Again, sites like AnimeNFO don't carry any work in violation of the creator's copyright. I would even say that if a site shows a link to a site that carries a work in violation of the creator's copyright, the former site is still suitable for wikipedia; the policy is very explicit in that what we have to avoid is directly linking to the work in violation of the creator's copyright ("do not link to that copy of the work"). Yeah, I really want to stress that point, because people are way too paranoid regarding this issue. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
AnimeNFO gets close enough. There is the spirit of the policy to think of too. Trying to get around it by saying "well, they don't link to it directly, they just link to every site you can get it at" is really just making an excuse to skirt around it. AnimeNFO does everything but provide the direct links to torrents on their pages, and I would argue that linking to the download pages is no different than direct linking as it is down knowingly. In the forums, those direct links are allowed. Also there really is no need to link to the site to begin with. It often contains incorrect info provided by fansubbers and scanslators, so they should not be used as a reliable source, and what little info they provide on titles is better covered by other places, like ANN. Collectonian (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not about "Trying to get around it"; the policy is that clear so to avoid people going around doing extreme removals. What you call "spirit of the policy" I see it more as your interpretation of a policy that doesn't really leave too much room for interpretation. And about reliability - well, I often edit on ANN myself, and I can tell you they're not really much better than animenfo. animenfo also lists genres which ANN does not: categorizations specific to manga-anime (ANN only list general genres such as romance, comedy, etc). But that's besides the point; animenfo doesn't carry any work in violation of the creator's copyright, therefore is not violating the policy. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither AnimeNfo or AniDB appear to carry or distribute any works in violation of the creators' copyright. Both lists fansub groups and AniDB does include a link to some of the fansubers' websites, but that is not a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. In fact, WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works appears to be limited to direct links to material that violate the creator's copyright. AniDB does appear to have a system to keep track of fansub downloads through checksums, but that is a tracking system and not an actual distribution method. --Farix (Talk) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for clarification on this at the Copyright talk page. Doceirias (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just for convenience, here is a link to that discussion Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Clarifying linking to copyright variations if anyone else wants to weigh in. Collectonian (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Found another blatant one - manganews.net, which I'd seen before, and was always news articles; I just found it linked from Karakuri Circus and the page linked directly to scanlations. Did a quick and dirty search and yanked links wherever found (mostly as ref in article, hopefully I didn't leave any trailing bits of code.) A few of these pages have rather passionate editors, particularly Yuri (term) so we may need to keep an eye out for people readding the links. Doceirias (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC regarding seiyū role lists

Please come participate over here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANIME and WP:JAPAN tagging correlations

One of the things that has been bugging me has been the double or redundant tagging between this WikiProject and WP:JAPAN. A Cat Scan shows at least 200 articles tagged with both banners. Now most of these correlations are with biographies and anime and manga companies, so who's tag should take precedence here? I would assume that anything else related directly to an anime or manga should just have the WP:ANIME project tag except for the two general articles. Ideally, we should avoid as much clutter as possible by avoiding double or redundant tagging as much as possible.

And what about our banner tag and WP:COMICS? I have the same problems as with WP: JAPAN. --Farix (Talk) 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with multiple banners on pages, but I do agree that sometimes it gets overboard. I don't see any need for the Comics banner on most anime or manga pages, except in very rare cases (like Batman: Child of Dreams). Otherwise, it doesn't really need to be on both unless its a manga-ka or company that also deals with comics (Dark Horse Comics, for example). For the WP:JAPAN, I think the only time that needs to be on both articles is in the case of biographies and companies in Japan. Then, it is no different from what is done with American biographies and companies, which are tagged as Bio/company and with the appropriate state of origin/location. Collectonian (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Same thing applies to {{Talkpage}}. According the the template's instructions, it should not be added to talk pages that are otherwise empty. It should only be added to talk pages where there are problems with editors being "chatty" or don't sign there comments. However, if this problem is limited to just one editor, it is better to notify the editor about the problem then to add {{Talkpage}}. --Farix (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
On that I agree. I'll admit, though, I've added it to quite a few pages before actually learning that, so I suspect others have done the same, made a new article, the copy-pasted the talk templates from one article to another to put it in the right projects because they are similar. Collectonian (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the video game banner? It always struck me as odd to have a whole extra banner for a one sentence mention of a Japanese only shovelware licensed game based on the main property. Doceirias (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed...I don't see the need for the VG banner on a main article, when the video game is even a paragraph mention (or in the case of some with multiple games, multiple paragraphs). None of the VG formats apply, and the video game rating is worthless as it really only applies to a single section. Collectonian (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That would apply the other way around also. For example: Mana (series), one paragraph on a manga. --Mika1h (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Also agreed. We don't need our banner on articles where our scope is a few sentence mention part way on the page. If the Mana manga had its own article, then the banner should be there but I don't think it needs to be that one. Collectonian (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Scope discipline has always been one of our good points. I've see several editors, almost always non-members, add our banner to articles where there is little to no connection with our scope. The one time I challenged such an editor, he stated that hee tagged the article because he though our project would be interested in editing it. That's not how the banner actually works, but he would accept that explanation. --Farix (Talk) 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looking at crossovers with WP:FILM isn't that much, but I think it should be limited to just articles about films. If there was a WP:FILM banner on a character article or an article where the film was only one part of an overall franchise, the WP:FILM banner probably should be removed. --Farix (Talk) 01:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of transliterated titles in episode lists

I've always treated transliterated titles (JapaneseTitle) the same way as I've seen people treat English titles; that is, everything but articles and very common words gets capitalized in English, so I've capitalized everything but particles in the transliterations. Recently, I've run into a number of lists that only capitalize the first word and proper names after that. Is there a preference here, or should we treat it the same way as date formats and variant English spelling? —TangentCube, Dialogues 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You should use standard English title capitalization for titles, meaning "The Prince of Tennis", not "The prince of tennis". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I should note that I meant this to apply to the romanized titles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, but what about the romanji? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
So, to take an example from one list I was working on recently: "Akuma o Karu Shōnen", not "Akuma o karu shōnen"? —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always felt that since we're transliterating Japanese titles into roman script, that the romanized words should obey English-rules, so I capitalize the romanized title except for particles, such as in List of Clannad episodes.--十八 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

__HIDDENCAT__

Wikipedia has added a new feature that allows to hide certain categories from articles. This is done by including __HIDDENCAT__ to the category. Overall, I don't know of any categories we would want to make hidden except for the in-universe category and expert category. Any other ideas?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)

Huh? Can you explain more what its supposed to do? I don't get it *scratching head* Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If you added __HIDDENCAT__ to, say, Category:Manga series, all of the articles in that category would no longer show it in the list at the bottom. There's a section on it at the village pump currently here. —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes more sense, though I can't see where we'd want to use it either. Collectonian (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like it could be abused to list certain article people want to delete without letting anyone know about it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There's only a few routes to deletion, and to abuse this feature for sneaky deletion you'd have to modify a category like Articles for deletion. There's little chance of anybody getting away with tampering with those sorts of high profile pages. From what I understand anyway, it only messes with the display of the category on the page and not inclusion in that category; that hardly changes a thing in the deletion process — TheBilly(Talk) 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: Anime Expo → Anime Expo (event)

An editor has requested that Anime Expo be moved to Anime Expo (event). You can join the discussion on the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Article assessments

I've been going through some of the B-class articles while adding the listas parameter to the project template and noticed that many of these articles really should be labeled as Start-class. These articles are nowhere near complete, contain almost no third-party references, missing several vital sections, and/or mostly a plot description. The basic description of a B-class article is that it contains the majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. That is not to say that the article must be complete, but that there shouldn't be any huge gaps in its coverage. An article that is still mostly a plot summary has huge gaps. An article missing a reception section has a huge gap. A character article that simply describes the character within the context of the work of fiction has huge gaps. I think all too often many of these articles were labeled as B-class based on their length instead of on their completeness. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to reassess them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As Nihonjoe said. I think we can all agree that, say, a series article that doesn't have either media/release and reception/reviews sections isn't a B article. (My rule of thumb: having one of those makes a B, both potential GA, and both plus development potential FA.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Because right now, I'm too busy adding the listas parameter to the banners of list articles to really mess with reassessing them. I'm also trying to catch articles that has been merged/redirected and removing the banners altogether. But I figured that there are those who like to discuss what should make a B-class article. That is why my OP started off by establishing what I consider to be a B-class article compared to a Start-class article. --Farix (Talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed those as well, and reassess as needed. I'd debated suggesting we take some time to check all of our Bs to clean them out. Usually they are set as B from the start (people copy/pasting from another article), or set as B by someone by a fan who doesn't quite understand the assessment system. I agree that an article should have all of the major MOS sections before even being considered B. I also think it should have at least some third-party references and be properly formatted per the MOS. Collectonian (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I just had someone attempt to revert my reassessment on the Madlax characters. But when you look at the articles every single one of them is missing information about the characters reception, development, and third-party references. Also the articles are entirely in-universe information. --Farix (Talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Robotech articles

Just how much is the Robotech franchises within our scope. While the original series is clearly within the project's scope, spin offs and sequels — such as Robotech 3000, Robotech II: The Sentinels, Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles, and related material — are less clear. --Farix (Talk) 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Templates

I've noticed our project page has no listing of common templates used in our articles, such as {{Japanese episode list}}, {{Graphic novel list}}, and {{nihongo}}. None of them seem to be mentioned in the MOS either. I think it would be good to have them in one place or the other to help our newer editors find them and encourage their use. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think having a list of them is a good idea. {{Nihongo}} is mentioned at WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup section

Personally, I do not like it one bit. It's just a huge list of articles that fit between the former recognized articles and the guidelines at the bottom. Having to go through that every time doesn't make sense and it's a waste of time and space to constantly be manually updating it. I propose we create several categories like Category:Anime and manga articles needing expert attention which serve to direct those coming here to problem articles and at the same time making this page easier to navigate.--十八 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the huge effort involved in scrolling down an extra screen is worth sacrificing how effective the cleanup section has been; a lot of pages that have been languishing with tags have already been improved, a page I tagged yesterday got immediate attention, etc. This is exactly the sort of thing the project should be doing. I hear you on the more automated method, but the truth is, I might notice a page being added here manually and go help fix it, but I would never bother clicking on a link to a category. Doceirias (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What Doreirias Said. Seeing it up front and personal like that has made me pledge to work on removing one a week, in a way that hiding it away in a category would not. Also, to be fair, not many that have been added merely need additional information in the usual life-cycle of an article, but really do need cleaning up and straightening out. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
But just think about it in the long run. In another year, let's say, there will probably be 3 times as many problem articles in that entire section. Do you really want that many articles listed on the project page which is meant to be well-organized and easy to navigate in order to help those who come here for answers? And you may be removing some, but I don't think it'll ever be fast enough because there will always be new articles being created and 90% will need cleanup in some regard. Eventually the back log will get so large that no one will want to touch it because it'll be like removing a pebble from a mountain. Which is why, seeing as how things are going, a category would make more sense.--十八 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I recommend creating a category or a subpage to list all these articles. The front page should be nice, compact and clean. See video game project's front page for a good example. --Mika1h (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno - which is more important, appearances or function? I think the current arrangement will result in much more work getting done, and that should be the only thing that matters. It could probably be reorganized a bit, however. Given the quantity, they should at least be organized by date of tags... Doceirias (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I reformatted it so that it wouldn't be so long. However, I still think using cleanup categories and using switches in the project template would be a better option, as demonstrated by my prototype. For one, you don't have to come back to the project page, find the item on the list, and then remove it. Instead, you can simply turn the switch off. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea and think we should go with it. Looking at how it's formatted now somehow makes it look even more daunting with the first section filled to the brim with articles for cleanup.--十八 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You should see this list. It's a bot generated list of articles within these categories that doesn't have the project's banner applied to them yet. Though there are a few that false positives on there as well, and I'm still not sure if we should apply our banner to any of the Super Robot Wars articles. --Farix (Talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiyotaka Furushima

Hello. I would like you to check on User:Kitty53/Test page 2, where I am testing the future article Kiyotaka Furushima. You may contribute. I don't find it notable enough yet, but I will with your help. You are very welcome to help me out. I am trying to find info on him.Kitty53 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for guidance on how to format a biography, and on the sorts of information to include. "He is 168cm tall, has a skill at calligraphy, and his blood type is AB." isn't very relevant information. For finding information, Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan might be a better place to search, however you will probably find it difficult to find much information, as most will be in Japanese. It is usually hard to find information on notable seiyuu, and, from his list of credits, he he seems to be a minor seiyuu and unlikely to get much coverage. Collectonian (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of character articles

I'm half tempted to renaming the remaining articles to the List of (X) character format. --Farix (Talk) 04:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Collectonian (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Mostly those in the Start-class group. That group has been the last to go through listas sorting since it is the largest group of list articles. But there are a number of them that use the old List of characters in (series) format and some that are just Character in (series) or Minor characters in (series). --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I agree, however from the arguments currently going on in the FA talk page, it seems like there is some argument over the line between list and article, so those in Character in (series) are often seen as articles instead of lists (rather dumb to me, they are still lists, but oh well). Collectonian (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion that Collectonian mentioned resulted in the List of Halo characters being renamed Characters of Halo and nominated for GA-status on the grounds it is "more article than list" (or something to that effect). It'll be interesting to see how this move turns out.--Nohansen (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I thing it is silly because at its core, it is still a list. It just happens to have elements of an article. --Farix (Talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Characters of Halo just passed the GA nomination and the reviewer recommended the article be nominated for FA. So, any opinion on where does that leave the other lists of characters?--Nohansen (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why bother? It's often an arbitrary line between an article, a list, and an article in list format. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for one. And we should have a consistent naming convention across most of the articles within our scope. --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that some of these aren't really lists because they contain a high amount of actual content. We often think of them as lists because of the shared-topic format. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:STAND says stand-alone lists are "lists of links" or "usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area". But most of the lists of fictional characters aren't really lists of links, but character profiles organized in a list-like format. There might be something to what the editors at Characters of Halo did.
Should we rename all the Lists of anime and manga characters to "Characters of..." and treat them as articles rather than lists? After all, I remember a time when this project called for lists of characters be named "List of characters in (series)" if it is just a list, or "Characters in (series)" if it contains actual information on the characters.--Nohansen (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manga/light novel anthologies

I want to start a discussion on the notability of manga anthologies, and also light novel anthologies. Should these manga and light novels, which are often drawn/written by well over a dozen different authors (notable and non-notable alike) be included in anime/manga articles? These anthologies aren't serialized in magazines, so only come out in tankōbon or bunkobon format too. I've seen some articles that include them, but the majority of articles I've seen do not, so I was wondering what everyone here thought about them. I myself don't actively attempt to include the anthologies since I don't think they're as notable as serialized manga/light novels, and the fact that they're created by a ton of different authors which would make listing all the separate authors in the article kind of a waste of space IMO. Are there any examples of GA/FA articles that include this info, or should we just leave them out unless they are really notable (as in published in English or have gotten positive reviews on them by third-party sources)?--十八 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe they should be included in the articles, as they are part of the media for that article. Just because they aren't serialized, doesn't mean we shouldn't be included so long as they are official works (i.e. no Dōjinshi/fan stuff). It doesn't have to be a huge mention, but I think, if we are going to include art books and the like in media, to be fair, such anthologies should be mentioned. They are rarely licensed, though, which might explain why many of them are not included. For an example where I have noted it (not quite GA yet, but working on it) is The Vision of Escaflowne, which has two manga adaptations and an anthology. The anthology is given a two sentence mention as part of the manga section, and I'll note it in the list of chapters I'm planning to add later. Collectonian (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific? Something like the Bokusatsu Tenshi Dokuro-chan volume with stories by a bunch of other light novels? I'd say worth a mention, listing the contents on the series article. On the author's pages, mention the story they did, and the anthology title. Doceirias (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
More specific, like series wise? What got me thinking was a discussion at Talk:Little Busters!#Adaptations: Books and Publications where we were discussing if we should include the manga/light novel anthologies for the series, and the last comment in the section by User:DarkS Umbreon states about including them in order to be comprehensive and give the readers a broader idea of the different media types. Also, I saw on Key's official website that they are promoting the first Clannad manga anthology volume, and I was thinking that if Key is promoting info on even comic anthologies, then I suppose they are notable enough, though it might just be a tie-in to their upcoming release of Clannad on February 29.
Regarding Escaflowne, I see that seven of the artists were listed, but were there only these seven, or were there more? And what do I do in the case of Clannad's anthology which has 19 (?!) artists?--十八 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
All together, I think there were 15. Those were seven I could find names for and that were the most notable for mentioning in references. With nineteen, unless any art particularly notable, for the paragraph mention, just note that it features stories from nineteen different creators. If the anthology is included in the chapter list, the author names can be noted there. I'll probably remove that list from Escaflowne if I can find a chapter list for that anthology. Collectonian (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've written a short description of the four manga anthologies attributed to Little Busters! on my sandbox; is this how I should be doing it?--十八 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good start, but I'd mention them in order and don't forget the titles :P You may also want to put them in a basic graphic novel list with the ISBNs and release dates. Collectonian (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Putting them into the graphic novel list template would be pointless I think. The series is based off of a visual novel, so why should there be so much information on 4 manga anthology series? If I did that, I'd have to split it off onto another article, but that seems just a waste of time when the original media is the game. And I did mention them in order, or tried. Some of them overlapped, but I listed them in order of first-volume appearance, just as I do on regular manga serializations in determining which should be noted first; Clannad has four manga adaptations btw. And as for titles, except for the one noted, they're all self explanatory. The Enterbrain ones are called Magi-Cu 4-koma Little Busters!, the Ichijinsha ones are called Little Busters! Comic Anthology and the Ohzora ones are just called Little Busters!. It seems superfluous to note this when it's like this.--十八 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It may seem superfluous because you are familiar with it, but I wouldn't have been able to tell anyone the titles from looking at it because I'm not familiar with it. Remember, we need to look at it from the perspective of someone who has no clue. Collectonian (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how about now?--十八 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Better :) Collectonian (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm just worried about the others. Ichijinsha released 17 Kanon manga anthologies if you can believe it. There's 4 others by 3 other companies too. Anyway, thanks for the help.--十八 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime episodes

While clearing through some of the articles beginning with "The" I came across a few random episodes that hasn't be merged or redirected. I have created Category:Anime episodes and place them in there for the time being. Once the ArbCom injunction has been lifted, we can figure out what to do with them. --Farix (Talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin manga

Today I began writing in User:Tintor2/This is my writing section the list of manga of Rurouni Kenshin. There is a little problem with the Viz Media version: the website [2] does not give the release date of the first volumes and another problem is that the volumes I have are in spanish, should I translate or ask for help? If anybody wants to help is welcome.Tintor2 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the latter, I can't speak for others, but for the VIZBIG releases, I've mentioned it in prose and then added a second table. I've done the same with kanzenban re-releases. It generally works well, though of course the chapters go to a stand alone list there. For the release dates, AnimeOnDVD might have some, otherwise they can be looked up at Amazon. As the month/year are printed in each volume, you wouldn't need to cite Amazon as a source for that. For question three, ask for help :) I have the first 13 volumes, with the rest on order now, so I can offer some assistance if you'd like. Collectonian (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My volumes are spanish, and they are not from Viz, they are from Ivrea. About the chapters, I would be grateful if you help me with it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have volumes 1-8 and 19, 21-28 of Viz' Rurouni Kenshin manga. What do you guys need? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob, I've put in the chapters, ISBNs and release dates for volumes 1-13. It will probably be a week or so before I received 14-28, so Sesshomaru, you want to fill in the same for 19 and 21-28? Collectonian (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Comics

Hi,

I've encountered a possible conflict between this project and the Comics Project. User:TheFarix recently removed a whole host of Manga related articles from the Comics Project. I'm wondering if this is something that this project has come to a consensus on. If not would it be polite of me to begin the process of readding these articles to the Comics Project. Stephen Day (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This was also posted on the WP Comics talk page here. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense to your project intended in any way, but since manga is a subcategorization of comics, what you're doing is adding a redundant category to the articles that's less specialized, ala tagging everyone in Category:Living people to also be in the root, Category:Humans. Unless there's a compelling reason that a specific series is especially relevant to the comics project (for example, a mangaka who also had published titles that were for western comics companies), I see no need to clutter the talk pages with both banners. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Stephen, you will also find the extensive discussion above at #WP:ANIME and WP:JAPAN tagging correlations. We first started discussion the double tagging between WP:ANIME and WP:JAPAN and the discussion snowballed from there. But also WP:COMICS did previously decided to avoid adding their banners to articles about manga so as to avoid clutter on the talk pages. After all, the WP:COMICS's template is a behemoth compared to WP:MANGA's template. --Farix (Talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, as I've stated, I wasn't aware of this. Stephen Day (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the edits I did to to restore the Comic Project Tag with one exception. I left the tag in place on the discussion page of Manga outside Japan. The focus of that article seems to go beyond the narrow scope of this project and I feel the article is best served with both tags on its discussion page. Stephen Day (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely a fair enough double-tagging. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)