Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 27

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 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 →

Contents

Sailor Moon project and problem with Copyvio

It seems Wikipedia: WikiProject Sailor Moon has not only allowed, but actually been encouraging linking to site that blatantly violates Wikipedia policies regarding copyright, and using it as a reference. On noticing it, I attempted to remove the link from the first place I noticed it List of minor Sailor Moon characters, however another editor pretty much doesn't care that it violates Wikipedia policy and continues to readd it, claiming the project as a whole will not allow the links to be removed. This site offers the ENTIRE Sailor Moon series, including the movies and PGSM, for download, as well as MP3s from the soundtracks, and literally thousands of images from the show. This is completely inappropriate, and as the parent project of Sailor Moon, I think we need to step in and put a stop to this. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Project Copyvio Violations. Collectonian (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They're list of references. It's clear several editors have ignored Policy for convenience. Fox816 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't attribute the actions of User:Lego3400 to the project as a whole. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the list of references some, and I hope, as JuJube notes, the project as a whole will recognize that this is a series issue and will work to clean up that reference page and the articles. Collectonian (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Website review:

  • Hitoshi Doi: While I've known him for several years, there is no getting around it that his website is still a fansite and frankly, I think there are better sources for VA information and other credits.
  • The Manga of Takeuchi Naoko: A fansite dedicated to publishing unofficial translations of Takeuchi Naoko's works. This fails both WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHTS.
  • Manga Style: Yes another fansite with an image gallery that skirts the edges of WP:COPYRIGHTS. Surely we shouldn't use a fan's original research to back up information on Wikipedia.
  • SAILORMUSIC.NET: Surely we don't need a fansite to list songs, albums, and song credits, do we? It also violates WP:COPYRIGHTS since the music on the albums are available for download.


Farix (Talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While Doi's site is a fan site, it is well done, has a lot of information, and that information is rarely incorrect. I think discounting his site and removing links to it is doing a disservice to people reading the articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Nihonjoe. Doi's site maintains a very neutral tone throughout (even if English isn't his first language evidently), almost... encyclopedic. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And just how do you or we know it is accurate? Because if you can demonstrate that Doi's site is accurate, then you don't need Doi's site. But whether it is or not, it is still a fansite and can't be used as a reference under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to define a fansite that strictly, or at least as invalid, then a giganormous number of refs on WP would instantly become invalid. Just because Doi isn't paid for his work doesn't mean it's unusable to us. Similarly, SailorMusic.net -- which I'll grant at least used to offer stuff for DL if they don't any more (haven't check) -- what's wrong with using it for stuff like tracklists, etc? Those are verifiable by the media themselves, but it's not like someone doing an article on the music of SM is going to have every SM CD by default, so they have to get the info from SOMEWHERE, and that page is certainly has the info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is defined that strictly. We have WP:RS for a reason. There are a lot of bad references in WP that need cleaning out, and that are regularly done so when an article is hit by an editor cleaning it up for GA or FA. Tracklists are easily retrievable from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.jp, or CDJapan, so there is absolutely no legitimate reason to link off to some fansite, much less a site that has no respect for the copyrights of that material. The info can be found from legitimate sources, when people are willing to make the effort. Collectonian (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, see more people trying to ruin WP and being idiots. Ah well. Wake me up after you've purged the thousands of refs to good info that just happens to be on sites run by those who aren't payed for it. Since we're on the topic of Japanese CDs, start with Chudah's Corner, Soundtrackcentral, RPGFan, RPGamer...after all, even 15 year old ones OBVIOUSLY can be gotten from some RETAIL site. Of course a RETAIL site is just SOOOOOOOOOOO much better to link to than some HEINOUS so-called fan site. I'll just go replacing all the nice WP links with Amazon.com ones, since they are ALWAYS reliable, and it's not like we're PUSHING people to go buy from them, no, it's be such a HORRID GOATSONG to use good info from other places instead of them. Ah well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of linking to retailers (like Amazon), I don't know why editors do it since since WP:EL says links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services are to be avoided. Even worse, many of this project's featured lists use them as references.--Nohansen (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not reference the albums directly for the track lists? But really, if you have a problem with Doi's site failing WP:RS and SailorMusic.net failing both WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHTS, then you should take it up at WT:RS and WP:COPYRIGHTS. --Farix (Talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. A tracklist doesn't need referencing anyway, the source is the primary source, I.E. the CD, much like the plot/summary of episodes and volumes. If you want to list it and don't have the CD, though, turn to a reliable source not some fansite which may or may not even have accurate information. As for linking to Amazon, the preference is, of course, to use something better, preferably the official site. But yes, for some stuff, Amazon.co.jp might be the only place one can find the ISBNs and release dates of the Japanese releases because the official site is long dead (and even then, the note is really only informative and primarily for other editors, as technically, the Japanese volumes are the primary source). Of the two, yes, Amazon.co.jp is still better than a copyvio fansite. Also, while I'm one of the first to do an EL smackdown, keep in mind that it is still somewhat flexible (otherwise, we'd never have official links to product sites :P). Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those out. I've removed them from that ref page as well, with a note pointing here. Collectonian (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In terms of Amazon and notable retailers, would they not fall under exception? Quoted from WP:EL : Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article...-and not prohibited by restrictions on linking- .... Fox816 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the references taken out are used throughout the Sailor articles mainly the GA ones. This would most likely affect their status so the Sailor Project should focus on searching for reliable ones to replace them. How the articles passed GA with these references, if they were present at the time of the review, should atleast be looked into. Fox816 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that's part of the unfortunately aspect of the GA review...an article is basically looked at and passed by one person. I'd be curious as to whether the person who passed them was part of the SM project, or if they even checked them. Much as I'd hate for us to lose GAs, I'd be inclined to give the project X amount of time to fix the issues, or put all of them up for GA review (or be bold and just delist them as they badly fail the qualifications with such referencing). Collectonian (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of work to be done. Experts on the subject could first try replacing the references with reliable ones before the articles are delisted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure just how many SM articles there are, or the number of links, but perhaps the first start should be removing them, and where they were used as a ref, replace with a fact tag and point here in the edit summary? Collectonian (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned up Sailor Jupiter- always liked her- er...anyways. If anyone wants to recheck the refs and clean out anyones I might have missed and double check the ones I did remove that would be great. Fox816 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... Sailor Jupiter... hottest... uh, anyways... I'll check on the page for you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break: Doi site

Hitoshi Doi's webpage has been used as a source by Mary Grigsby and Anne Allison, who are two academics (*the only* two academics, AFAIK) who have properly published on Sailor Moon. Surely this counts in the website's favour as a source?? I'd also like to clarify that none of the SM GAs have been passed by someone in WP:SM.-Malkinann (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also see my argument in favor of the Oracle as a source at WT:SM. Meanwhile, I feel that there's a lot of unnecessary jumping around going on here. Yes, some refs have been removed, but most of them were backup citations for facts that had already been referenced. Those that were totally removed can be replaced in short order, so no need to panic about that, either. Meanwhile, I am very offended by the suggestion that we upgraded ourselves to GA. Since we're busily invoking the names of policies we've all already read, try WP:AGF. --Masamage ♫ 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I brought the question up at WP:RS and several editors stated that the Oracle and SailorMusic clearly violates WP:COPYRIGHTS and are off-limits as sources. But no one has said anything about Doi's site. However, I must ask what is on Doi's site that couldn't be sourced elsewhere if not directly from the work? --Farix (Talk) 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. Because Doi publishes so much stuff (I forget the exact page count in his huge database, but it's very large), it's an excellent unrelated, third-party source for information which might otherwise require using the work itself as a source. He and his site are extremely well known, he's used as a source for academic research, and his content is almost always correct (with a site that large, it's inevitable that a few errors would creep in, but they are pretty rare). While it could technically be considered a fan site, I think this particular site is so incredibly useful that it's time to invoke WP:IAR if Collectonian—and you, it would seem—are insisting on such a strict interpretation of WP:RS. His site has been around since the dawn of the web, and it has consistently been a useful source of information the whole time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Farix, Collectonian has not said anything on talk pages about Doi's site, but it was removed from WP:SM/REF, our copy-paste resource anyway as a "violation of WP:RS". I specifically brought it up on WT:SM and then here, as I believe that it being used as a source by two academics has to count for something, as well as the points that Nihonjoe has brought up. -Malkinann (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Use, but don't site as a reference. That's the recommendation coming from editors at WP:RS --Farix (Talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You have to cite it as a reference if you use the information from the site. That's only common sense for anyone who's ever written any sort of sourced paper or essay or article. You MUST give credit to any source you use, so if the editors at WP:RS are telling you to not cite sources you are using to build the article, they are suggesting that you plagiarize material (use it without citing where you got it), and that's just absurd. Doi's site has been cited in multiple academic papers and books, so regardless of what anyone else may thing, I think that establishes the reliability of the information found there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think quite what Farix meant. I may have the Japanese volumes of a manga in my hand, but considering I can't type kanji, I'll find an online list that I can copy/paste the kanji of volume and chapter names from. The source is still the volume, though, rather than the site. I think Farix is saying the same thing...finding a tracklist or what have you on a website is not the source, the CD itself is. You're just saving typing time by finding it elsewhere. Now, for additional stuff beyond just chapter titles, then yes, you would have to add the source. Collectonian (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Has any attempts been made to find sources to replace Doi's? ...or sources been found that do such? Fox816 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Farix, could you please link me to this discussion you've started? In ways, it's difficult to replace Doi's site. I suspect it will also be difficult to replace other sites, but Doi's is in two papers, so it's probably got the most weight behind it. It's easy to replace "in issue X, y happened" with a reference to issue X - all we need to do is poke our people that own copies of the manga/DVDs of the show to verify. What's harder to replace from Doi's site are things like ratings, (over 10 years on) and for tidbits of development or merchandise information. When the academic sources say something we can use, we really really try and use it. It's just that there are only a few (academically) peer-reviewed resources out there, and they concentrate on certain areas. What should we be using? Apparently primary sources are (at least slightly) frowned upon for a subject which is fictional? -Malkinann (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Fansites, Fan translations, and WP:COPYRIGHTS though it has already died (not a ton of traffic there). The problem with Doi's site is that it does not meet WP:RS, even if it has been cited (Wikipiedia has been cited in a academic work, but we still can't self-reference ;) ). Does Doi give the sources for his information? If so, we need to look at those sources, and if not, then how can we claim that information is verifiable or reliable? If its both, it should exist in other non-fansite sources. Don't get me wrong, as a SM fan, Doi's site is fun and interesting, but for the criteria of Wikipedia, I don't feel it can be considered a reliable source, especially for making exceptional claims about things such as ratings and success. Collectonian (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
He did cite his sources and they are reliable. I back tracked them when I started on it. He cites fan books and various other sources. They aren't in-line by I found his sources to be from places that fans normally couldn't access, such as TV shows airing at the time, fan books which weren't translated. He also compounded the information and put it into his own words. He also managed to do an awful lot of cross referencing with fanbooks and Seiyuu books making comments like what the Seiyuu thought of the character. He also managed to make a lot of comments about arts, etc. The problem too, is that translations are also under copyright by Berne convention. Because it takes creativity and skill to be able to translate. Thus if you quote from a translation, then it's a copyright violation without citation. If you directly translate a title by yourself, then it's OR. I think it's safer to go with the citation of the translation that's validated as RS, than to go OR. So the idea that you can cite "Usagi/Sailor Moon/Act 1" won't work under Farix's pretense... because whoever translated that act 1, holds a copyright by Berne convention. (I was one of those crazy people that actually read and understood copyright.gov) This means you can't cite anything unless it's in Japanese, which then violates other WP policies, and thus you've dug yourself a nice little grave there. Hitoshi Doi did cite his sources, and they are reliable. And I did check with other people. And though you may not like it, translators hold copyrights too. So how would we translate all the Japanese SM titles into English and do the proper citations?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Translations are WP:NOTOR, actually. If you get the original sources, you absolutely can cite and reference them, with appropriate quotes. Doceirias (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if they aren't OR, you still have the problem of translating whatever volume manga and whatever episode anime. Without credit to the people who translated it according to the Berne convention it's still a violation of copyright, especially since the majority of people on AMP are not fluent in Japanese. As much as people don't want to admit it AMP is reliant in many capacities on fan translators. Those translations thus belong to the project/person that translated it unless a new translator comes in, which means that the project and those whose fandoms, etc are reliant on explaining foreign goods, would need a translator for the entire project. Hitoshi Doi translated many titles for the entirety of Sailor Moon and Alex Glover translated an 18 volume manga. Those translations belong to the people who translated them. Thus according to the copyright violation, those translations would have to have citations. Anyone willing to do complete translations for citations for the sake of the project and put it under a GFDL liscense? How many anime and manga does AMP cover? Doesn't this make it truly difficult to cite quotes, events and other happens? Or does this "not count" as "real" copyright violation to wikipedia even if the Berne convention and copyright.gov state that translations are under such protections? Last I checked, translations need citation too by MLA and APA standards. It also brings up questions to wikipedia at large if the translations are RS, if they are done in-house. Translation is not an easy straight-forward thing. (And I say this knowing linguistics, French, Korean, Japanese and working on Taiwanese Mandarin.) There are still arguments about translation on AMP.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The only translated titles we should be using are the OFFICIAL English ones. If there are no official English one, there is no translation to use, period. It should be noted with the Japanese kanji and romanji only. Those titles are then listed. A citation is not needed for the primary work (I.E. the individual volume or episode) when giving basic information about it. Now if you are using a Japanese source, then no, your translation is not copyright if you put it here because anything you put in Wikipedia is automatically GFDL. Citations are not copyrighted either. And FYI, titles of books are not copyrightable, not even translations of them. Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
re copyright: GFDL isn't a release of copyrights. Individual revisions are copyrighted to the individual contributors; this is why maintaining page history is very important, for example in page moves.
re use of translated titles: The use of fan-translated titles is acceptable where no officialy-licensed translation exists. Additionally, there is no absolute requirement to use officialy-licensed titles; the reason we do so is because these are also usually the most common title. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a BAKA! Have you seen DIC and Cloverway's Dubs of SM Collectonian? They dub Minako as haveing to read Neo-Queen Serenity's letter with her imagination becuase it was nothing but weird symbols. (The orginal Had it entirely lacking in Kanji, something a 1000+ year old should be able to use correctly). Sailor Stars also has no offical translation. You don't seem to be familer with the subject matter at hand desptie your instance. Go watch all 200 episodes of the anime (subed, not dubed), all 3 speicals, all 3 movies, all episodes of PGSM, all the PGSM speicals, and some of the stage musical Like I have, and then you can comment on useing "Offical sources". Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I know what BAKA means, so why don't you go read WP:CIVILITY and consider editing your remarks. I have seen many of the old dubs (its how I was first introduced to the series). Despite your insults, I will tell you have watched the ENTIRE anime series subbed via those legal, official English releases, except of course for Stars which I watched through other means. I have, in-fact, watched the entire series from start to finish, including the movies, more times than I can count. And, unless your age in your profile is incorrect, I actually watched the dubs when they first aired while old enough to remember them all. I've also read all of the manga, sans Stars, so many times my copies are falling apart and I'm going to have to shell out for new ones. I refuse to watch PGSM, having found it to be crap when I tried it. None of that, however, matters, as for all but Stars there ARE officially licensed titles which are also the most common in the English speaking world. Now I suggest you go cool off and read WP:CIVILITY a few more times, and remember to calm your temper before you post. Collectonian (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Gomen Nasai, sometimes my temper gets the better of me. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinion of a section of a fandom is not legit grounds for excluding it from wikipedia. Example. One person hates Emma by Jane Austen is not grounds from excluding it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia works on the idea of relevance, not popularity. From About Wikipedia: "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge;" Existing knowledge means things outside of the English-speaking sphere. It also means that as previously mentioned translations count. Otherwise referencing things like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, the Memoirs of Hyeongyong, Tale of Genji, etc are not considered in the sphere, yet they all are used in wikipedia to some extent or have articles about them. (The third one in the Prince Sado articles and those above and below him in his family line.) In addition, many of the officially licensed titles with subtitles made mistakes in the Japanese translations. I've been rewatching the old translations and I caught several mistakes in the ADV and Geneon translations. (less in the Pioneer/Geneon, but still noticeable). Because something is not liscensed is not grounds for exclusion from wikipedia articles either. As members of wikipedia we are to cover existing knowledge and there are numerous articles that are marked with the specific tag of being too US or in general, english-speaking specific. The anime article came under fire from me when it excluded other areas of the world besides Europe and the US for fan conventions. This is because of wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy merely states that things outside of the English speaking sphere be explained and translated using the most common titles for a given character/influence. On the days my Japanese is really, really good, I do translating bits and pieces of manga and anime. I have semi-fluency in Japanese (Upper intermediate level), so I do know that many of the licensed material that comes to the United States and the English-speaking world are inaccurate. (Manga included) Also many of them have lost their license, which causes problems in availability.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime of the 2000s

I've begun sorting Category:Anime of the 2000s into subcategories by year as the category has become very large. Anyone who can help by doing 10-20 (or any number, really) is welcome to help. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the categories be named "[year] anime"? It would be consistent with other art forms. --Mika1h (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to have a bot go through and change them all, sure. They've been this way for quite a while now, and there are thousands of articles categorized this way. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm updating a few of them right now Highwind888 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a question. What about series that have multiple anime adaptations released in different years like Kanon which had a series in 2002, an OVA in 2003, and another series in 2006. Should we be listing all three categories, or just the earliest one? I'm inclined to say all three, or at least 2002 and 2006 since those were done by two different animation studios. I see the rationale for only listing the earliest date for video game categories like Category:1999 video games since all the subsequent releases are relatively the same game, but these are very different anime we're talking about. Further, what about anime like Higurashi no Naku Koro ni which had it's first season in 2006, and it's second in 2007, but both were done by the same animation studio and were very similar aside from the animation quality.--十八 07:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
At first I was including the cats for each adaptation and season, but after this edit I think the answer might be just the first from each "type" (TV series/OVA/film). —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel we should get more consensus on this. I too have been adding them for each subsequent release, but after I saw you removing some of the double releases, I came here to ask.--十八 08:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say keep the multiple cats, but then you have long-running series like Doraemon and Sazae-san and even Bleach and Naruto etc... so to keep things simple we either need to cat only under the year of initial release, or work out what form of release qualifies for multiple release cats and make a guideline. Shiroi Hane (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea was to only add a series to multiple categories where there's a distinct break between the series; for example, Bleach would get just one for the TV run, Naruto would get two (for Shippūden), Shakugan no Shana would get two (for Second), and so on. —TangentCube, Dialogues 11:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly the idea. One thing to note (in the School Rumble case, for example): if the second season of a TV series has a subtitle, it doesn't count as a new series, so it should only be categorized under the year the first series began. While it's nice to categorize things as much as possible, it can also get out of hand. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You've contradicted yourself here - by the rational you state here, Shippuden is a subtitle and shouldn't get a category. I don't really see a need for more than one category, for the first series; if later series appear a year or so later, even with a Part II added to the title, we don't really need to add another category unless we're dividing the pages as well. For example, Ghost in the Shell - the main article should only get an Anime of the 1990s category, rather than four or five categories for each series; those tags can go on the page for each respective work, since each movie/TV series has a page of its own. But if all the TV series are covered on one page, like Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei, then we only include a category for the first anime. Make sense? Doceirias (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Ghost in the Shell doesn't need to be categorized as an "Anime of the 1990s" since it's about the franchise and the film has its own article. But anyway...
How about categorizing the redirects (e.g. Jubei-chan 2 as "Anime of 2004" or The Big O II as "Anime of 2003")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohansen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It's better than putting a single article in multiple categories, as at least this way the full name of the series would be in the category. I guess the question is "is this acceptable categorization?", to which I think "yes". —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So what category would go on a franchise page? Only the original work? I like the idea of categorizing the redirects; definitely better than including multiple year categories on a single page. Doceirias (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Franchise articles don't need year categories. --Mika1h (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to worry about Doraemon and Sazae-san; both of those have been around for ages. The only categories right now that apply to this categorization is anything from 2000 onwards. And I like the idea about adding one for each distinct series, especially if the title changes like Minami-ke and Minami-ke: Okawari or Higurashi and Higurashi Kai.--十八 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is mostly done; I've skipped several series, pending further discussion on the above question. —TangentCube, Dialogues 07:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
When there's a clear distinction between different releases, e.g. seasons or OVAs, I think there should be multiple cats. That's what everyone seems to think and have done anyway, so lets just have it that way. Highwind888 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what's in WP:MOS-AM#Content #5; the question is how to handle multiple TV series or OVAs. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I see about the multiple OVAs... Multiple TV series should be ok since they are usually span a period of time, so I would class each as different, but OVAs is usually short and can span a few years... Well, for the Anime still in the 2000s category, I would personally subcategorize into the following:
This is only what I would have as the category, so it's only a suggestion. Feel free to agree/disagree. Highwind888 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The alternative proposal in the other fork of the discussion (summarizing here for comparison) would have this a little different; only the year of the first anime adaption, with the categories added to redirect pages for the subsequent adaptions/seasons/oavs. No years at all on franchise pages. When browsing the category, all seasons are represented; when browsing the article, only the most relevant year exists and avoids cluttering the page with five different categories. I think this is vastly preferable. Doceirias (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that too, especially with no category for franchise pages. It's rather pointless since it's really a summary page. I'm rather new to Wiki, so I don't know the extent at which certain things can be done; if it can be done to only show relevant years, that would be preferrable over my suggestion. Highwind888 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust there's no objections to categorizing redirects, then? —TangentCube, Dialogues 13:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure seems that way. I'm going to categorize some redirects and see how it goes.--Nohansen (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Since not everyone in the project may have the MOS on their watchlist, it should probably be pointed out that there is an on-going discussion of the demographics fields in infobox that has resulted in some infobox changes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Demographics. Collectonian (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anime films" vs. "Japanese animated films"

Why are those two separate? Aren't Category:Anime films and Category:Japanese animated films basically the same thing?--Nohansen (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anime films," which is well-populated, seems to be a subcategory of "Japanese animated films". The only other things contained in the latter are a Hayao Miyazaki category (surely counts as anime?), a Cardcaptor Sakura article (definitely counts as anime), and The Old Man and the Sea (1999 film), which was actually made in Montreal (its only connection to Japan is part of the funding). So yeah, I'd say delete "Japanese animated films" as redundant and mostly improperly-populated. --Masamage ♫ 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, except its just occurred to me--"Anime films" can't really go in Category:Animated films by country, can it? So maybe everything in the anime films category should be moved over instead? I have no idea. --Masamage ♫ —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed that situation before and I arrived at the same conclusion. The two categories do seem redundant, but I agree it doesn't make much sense in having a "Anime films" category in the Category:Animated films by country, as many people aren't aware that anime refers to Japanese animation. So maybe we should indeed move everything to "Japanese animated films". On the other hand, we could just assume everyone knows what anime means and those that don't will click on the link and find out. In that case, we should just delete the Japanese animated films category. The way that it is now, makes it seem like there are almost no Japanese animated films at all.:) Cattus talk 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Whichever we choose as the "correct" one, we can make the other softly redirect to, so it's not a major issue, really. I'd weakly suggest favoring consistency by keeping Category:Japanese animated films as the main one. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'll fix the categorization on the Old Man and the Sea film. --Masamage ♫ 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with keeping consistency. After all, "Japanese animated film" is, by definition, "anime", no matter what some fans would have you believe (and to furthur it, all animation is anime, if you're speaking Japanese, but eh...). I'm not surprised to see the Miyazaki films seperated from the rest though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected Category:Japanese animated films to Category:Anime films. Now I know some might wonder why keep the other one at all? Well, listing Category:Anime films alone in Category:Animated films by country seemed a bit odd, so this way it displays as "Japan" and still goes to the Anime films cat. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also done this for Category:Japanese animation. There were a few pages in there that were given more appropriate categories. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anime/Manga Company Articles

In looking at the rather horrible state of most of our anime/manga company articles, and their all over the place formats, I think we, as a project, should come up with a set of guidelines for anime company articles to add to our MOS, using the Companies project MOS as a starting point. Either way, I think maybe we should make a taskforce for the company articles, for those interested and willing to work on them, get them better formatted, referenced, and monitored for grudge vandalism.

More importantly, though, I think we really need to address the issue of "lists of titles" that flood the articles, such as Madman Entertainment, Geneon, etc. We seemed to be on a start with the categories, but do we want to make that the standard, see about maybe getting some kind of bot addition of the cats to articles, and axing the lists all together, or do we want to keep them all and standardize them as Lists of, such as List of Tokyopop publications (which is also a mess with no lead, context, etc)?

Personally, I'd like to see the lists in articles go completely and be replaced by categories. Its easier to maintain, and has more eyes making sure stuff isn't miscategorized. If lists are kept, I think we need to seriously step up the game on monitoring them. Either way, I think we need to tackle this issue, and put our virtual feet down, one way or the other. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem of getting rid of lists altogether is that this reduces the number of links to an article, thereby reducing the odds of someone running across the article. The whole point of the wiki-style of doing articles is that there are a multitude of inter-article links which tie everything together. If you get rid of them, you defeat the purpose of using a wiki in the first place. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it really reduce the links that much? The company articles wouldn't lose any links at all, while the individual articles might lose one (unless its one of the company's top titles, which would probably still be mentioned in the text). I don't think that goes against the idea of wikis, otherwise we wouldn't have categories at all. For those companies with dozens if not hundreds of titles, a category is a more appropriate way of sorting, to me. That's the purpose of categories. Collectonian (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you plan on removing the lists of titles from the articles, the obvious solution is to make the category a see also link. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with creating categories in favor of lists since they're easier to maintain and it makes the article look nicer rather than just having a huge list. Same goes for TV stations that air anime like Chiba TV which has a large list that should be in a category like Category:Anime broadcast by Chiba TV.--十八 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that was my original thinking if we go with cats. This is already partially implemented on A.D. Vision. Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For a quick update, a new user has gone through and helped out by adding Category:ADV Films to all of the ADV Film licenses from List of ADV releases! Collectonian (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of light novels

Can we please get rid of this article. It's poorly formatted and Category:Light novels does the same thing.--十八 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A very pointless list. I'd support an AfD for that. At best, a few highlights in the rather short light novels article would suffice, perhaps to note some of the first licensed, or ones that have gained unexpected popularity (or in the case of DMP's first releases, infamy). Collectonian (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eponymous mangaka categories

Category:Rumiko Takahashi has been nominated for deletion or renaming to "Works of". Do we have any naming guidelines re. mangaka or other involved people in the industry who may have their own categories? --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Category:Osamu Tezuka? Only other one I can think of. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There's Category:Masamune Shirow, Category:Clamp (manga artists), Category:Mitsuru Adachi, Category:Hisaichi Ishii (those last three subcategories of Category:Manga artists), and possibly more. Seems a bit random. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, let's look outside the genre. Category:Jane Austen looks as good a prototype as any. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm wondering, do we want to keep said categories as named after the mangaka or rename to "Works of" said mangaka? --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer keeping them at just the author/artist name as that allows for inclusion of related articles which may not necessarily be works (like the article about the author/artist, for instance). It's just a broader range. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at the deletion entry if it's felt that it is worth keeping or renaming. BrokenSphereMsg me 18:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC on FMA issue

Over at List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, there is an issue over the use of Ishbal vs. Ishval that ended up resulting in the page being locked for awhile. User:Egan Loo (who claims to be a former Viz employee who worked on earlier volumes) insists that we should use Ishval because it is the "correct" spelling, however Ishbal is the official English name from the anime series, and from most of the manga (apparently Viz first had Ishval, then changed to Ishbal). Both I and User:TheFarix explained the various reasons why we should continue to use Ishbal, but he continues to argue the case. At this point, we're just going in circles, so I'm asking for other comments from the project (aka, next step in the dispute resolution process).

This could potentially have wider sweeping implications within the FMA articles, which are currently all over the place with which they are using, and if it is consensus that we stick to Ishbal, then the other articles need correcting, especially Ishval. For the discussion thus far and to offer comments either way head to Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes#Ishval vs. "Ishbal". I also made a subsection under that discussion to make it easier for commenting, since the first part is rather long as it is. Collectonian (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify some points, Ishval is also an official English spelling, and it happens to be the one that the creator (Hiromu Arakawa) created and used herself. Consistency does not take precedence over accuracy, which is what imposing one spelling, as opposed to including both, would do. There are articles that include more than one spelling, as per guidelines. Egan Loo (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because it is the way that the author romanizes the name doesn't mean that it is the name that is best known among English readers. Wikipedias MOS is pretty clear on this, especially since both translations use "Ishbal" instead of "Ishval". Use the term that English readers will be most failure with. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that "Ishbal" is the spelling most familiar among English speakers now, but my suggestion was to include both "Ishbal" and Arakawa's Ishval, which is also per guidelines. Egan Loo (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The only time an alternate romanization/spelling should be given is on the Ishbal article itself. Just the same as with Brazil and Brasil. It, however, should not be given at every occurrence. We do the same thing for people's names whose romanization also varies. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what needs to happen is a discussion on how to treat all proper names in the series, perhaps on Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist — the current discussion is sure to have ramifications for all the FMA articles, including the highly-fractured character pages, and we should probably hash out the spellings we're going to use across all of them. —TangentCube, Dialogues 13:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. That probably would be wise as well, so done Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist#Proper Names in FMA Collectonian (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to

Help me categorize articles that belong in Category:Funimation Entertainment. I'm about to start in a jiff, just gotta look over a couple things in my watchlist. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a few, and think that's all I'll be doing tonight. Exhausted... of... editing. Well, Properties licensed by FUNimation should help (didn't even think about it at first, goes to show how tired I am). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I know the feeling. I wish Pearl were back up so we could with all of these quick fast and in an hurry. To bad we don't (seem) have anyone who could right a bot to deal with it as a one time thing. Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Argh. Done most of them. Out of time, so someone else'll have to finish! Highwind888 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I finished the rest I think. Rezumop (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Inukami!

I have pretty much finished cleaning up this article, but there still remains the inclusion of a plot section. Seeing as I have never watched the anime, I cannot do this myself. If there is anyone in the project who has seen this anime and is willing to write up a paragraph or two for the plot section, it would be greatly appreciated.--十八 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some of it but not enough for writing paragraphs. However, I'll discuss the genres on the talk page if needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Any help would be great. I was planning on translating the plots found on the Japanese wiki, and the anime's official website if I had to, but I believe it would turn out better if someone who has actually seen the series wrote up a description. It doesn't help that my translation skills aren't 100% either.--十八 10:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job on the cleaning up! Looks excellent. I've watched the whole series, so I can put up some kind of plot summary soon. Have to rewatch some of it though. Highwind888 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lupin III (anime)

I've done a few updates here and there. If there is anyone bold enough to make the page look [somewhat] as good as its manga counterpart, by all means, feel free. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I never watched Lupin before, but "it's manga counterpart" article has a large section about the anime and most of the reception section is not about the manga. Is it not possible to merge them? Rezumop (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes...unless they are significantly different, the two should be merged per the MOS. Collectonian (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The main article actually seems to deal with the franchise as a whole. There were 3 TV series which ran for more than 200 eps and an uncompleted series, Lupin VIII. Something that ran for that long I think has the potential for expansion, however not many editors appear to have seen it. However the 3 TV series articles, especially for Shin Lupin III and Lupin III Part III, are all short. How about merging all the info currently in the 3 separate TV series articles into one article [e.g., Lupin III (TV anime series)] and migrating the relevant info out of the main Lupin III article into that? --BrokenSphereMsg me 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The guideline gives us set titles so [[Lupin III (TV anime series)]] won't cut it. If it hasn't already been done, merge the anime-related content to Lupin III (anime) before any page moves are made. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
More like migrate the info re. each series into its respective page. BrokenSphereMsg me 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. But who'll do it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Magazine subject archive

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines, in general the magazines listed there are those that cover anime and manga rather than those that simply contain anime and manga. Does Shojo Beat contain anything that could be considered coverage? I only picked up the first issue, and never got another, and I don't remember if there was anything that could be considered coverage. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

While the bulk are the manga chapters, it does also have articles and interviews with manga-ka and discussing anime and manga, as well as some Japanese cultural articles. It also often has some background/production info on the titles serialized, particularly when they are first introduced. Collectonian (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then I'm fine with it being listed there. I just didn't remember what was in it, since it first came out almost three years ago and I wasn't terribly impressed with it then. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I think the earlier issues were pretty short on extra content, but they've been expanding to add in more content around the manga. :) Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the thing that impressed me the least was their choice in manga. If I was the editor, I would have picked far different series, ones that actually had some depth to them rather than the shallow dreck found in that first issue. Oh well... ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew

I've begun some of the much needed clean up efforts with the various Tokyo Mew Mew projects. To that end, I've fixed the main article (which was anime focused) to focus on the manga, merged back in the two manga articles (first versions and no need to be separate) and the article on a side chapter from one manga volume. I also did some massive clean up of the Tokyo Mew Mew article, including fixing the infoboxes, doing a complete rewrite of the lead, MOS fixes, and removing a bunch of OR/NPOV stuff. To continue the efforts, I've started two discussions on the main page regarding the character articles and the lists of episodes. I'd love to get some input on both of those ideas.

I've also AfDed two articles. Tokyo Mew Mew Spinoffs, which is fairly false, and lists two manga extra stories, and two video games as being "spin-offs". The games and a La Mode are already covered in the main article, and the side stories should be covered in the coming chapter list. The second article, List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew, I felt was far too lacking in notability for inclusion. The bulk of the list contains one-episode characters and basically just regurgitates the plot from individual episodes. That's what the episode list is for. I've already listed those in the del sort page, but agree or disagree, project input would be good here as well.

And, of course, help is always appreciated if anyone wants to join in the effort :P Collectonian (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I speedily closed the character list per the ArbCom injunction (see the notice at the top of this page). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who put the notice there, and I do not think the AfD should not have been speedily kept. The injunction does NOT block the creation or discussion of AfDs, nor the closing of an AfD as delete. The article just can't actually be physically deleted until the injunction is lifted, which should be soon as its only missing one vote to close and that person is supposed to do today. Either way, the injunction is not a reason to close the AfD. Collectonian (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian is correct, the AFD was improperly closed as there was NO legit reason for the AFD to be speedy kept (the injunction just means the AFD would have to staty open and be re-listed every 5 days). TJ Spyke 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we are not going to keep relisting and relisting an AfD discussion. It's better to just close it for now and wait for the injunction to be lifted, then list it again. If we keep relisting articles like this, the number of articles would balloon to an insane amount. And yelling abbout it isn't going to change that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, the List of Minor characters is now back in AfD since the injunction has closed, as I knew it was about to when I did the original AfD.... Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As another note, the new List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes is done, however there is some mild disagreement over the issues of the titles. 4Kids renamed the episodes, but those are still the "Official" English titles (all hatred for the company aside). As they only acquired 26 of the episodes, the new list has the Mew Mew Power episodes in the season 1, and no English titles in the second season. As the show never aired and no one else has acquired an English license for it, to me there are no English titles unless we just randomly pick our favorite fansub group's choice, or do our own translations (which seems too OR to me). Another editor feels we should provide translated English titles as well. Additional thoughts would be appreciated. For this specific situation, please post here Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes#Translated Japanese Titles, though I think a more whole discussion on dealing with English titles for unlicensed series might not be a bad thing, as it seems like it isn't really addressed anywhere. Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Do your own translations. Translations are not OR. Doceirias (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree - a simple translation of an episode title doesn't seem like OR to me. --Eruhildo (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed -- translations are not OR. See WP:NOTOR. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There has been a handful of editors who argued that translations are a form of original research, but the idea has never been adopted by the larger community. Instead, the larger community has more or less adopted the position that translations are not original research. --Farix (Talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess my question then is whose translation is correct? What comes out of Babelfish (hideous), whatever someone's favorite fansubbing group says it is, or whichever editor can proclaim the highest Japanese reading capability? Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Like all Wikipedia editing where you are summarizing what someone else said, it's a collaborative effort. :-) I'd avoid Babelfish though, except as a very last resort. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider say, the case of British vs American English, usually what's chosen is what fits best , depending on the topic. If nothing is particularly right, it defaults to whatever was first. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't trust the source, then don't trust the translation unless you can verify it yourself and where possible (in particular names or terms) included the Japanese text and direct romanization. I wince when I see something like the first line of Lena Sayers. As a translation neither Lena not Rena is techncially incorrect and both are real names, but back when she had just a small paragraph on the main article page I corrected her name multiple times based on the spelling in an official artbook/mook before giving up. I believe it remained incorrect until the English release confirmed it yet the scar is still there. I prefer not to remember the fighting with Doremi-fansubs fans over terms like "meister"/"my star" etc. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The clean up of the Tokyo Mew Mew articles is proceeding nicely. The main article is in much better shape, though needs expansion. The episode list has been significantly improved and a chapter list created that is just missing three summaries before being ready for peer review. The list of minor characters survived the AfD, but through discussion on the main article page, consensus agreed to renaming it to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and making it a real character list. As such, a discussion has now been started at Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Merge Discussion regarding merging in of the character articles. A specific few are proposed, though I personally feel they all need to be merged as none meet WP:FICT. There are currently only two of us really discussing things, though, so some additional views would be appreciated. Collectonian (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

End of the temporary injunction

The arbitration committee has reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you all for your cooperation. --Pixelface (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. TTN is "is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." --BrokenSphereMsg me 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is bad merging non-notable character articles? Does somebody benefit with that? Im more than confused. --Tintor2 (talk) 17:,06 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your persopective. If you spent a long time creating the "non-notable" article then yes, you would see it as a bad thing. The real "bad thing", however, is warring over it. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I see, thanks. But is also bad for articles that are in the middle of the merge, like the ones of Pokemon of Yugioh GX. Here and here are.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:,47 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Merging non-notable character articles isn't a bad thing in the broader scope of Wikipedia as a whole. The problem with TTN is he kept nominating notable (not to mention large) articles for merging. It was really annoying since almost all the other editors agreed that the articles didn't need to be merged but he wouldn't drop the issue. Well that's how it was on the two articles I was involved with where that happened. As for the injunction: I never really knew quite what it was and still don't, but it doesn't really affect me as I don't delete or redirect articles very often anyway. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some gaming categories

Currently we have Category:Video games based on anime and manga. It is obvious we need Category:Games based on anime and manga, but what about a category for games that either originated as anime or manga (so which are not really 'based' on it) or (what prompted me to post here) ones that simply use related art and are commonly associated with 'anime&manga'? Some examples of anime/manga related articles that have no corresponding category: role-playing games Big Eyes, Small Mouth; Anima: Beyond Fantasy; Sword World RPG (somewhat linked via the inclusion on Records of Lodoss War category); Tokyo NOVA; Jovian Chronicles; Crystalicum; Night Wizard! (this one, as an exception, is stuffed with many anime and manga cats, probably because nothing 'fit' right...) ;minature game Super Robot Wars; card game Ani-Mayhem, Gundam War Collectible Card Game (again this one is linked via Gundam category), .hack//Enemy (again, linked via hack category), Fullmetal Alchemist Trading Card Game (again...) and so on. I wonder if Category:Games with anime and manga art would be the best choice? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have Category:Video games based on anime and manga, where Super Robot Wars is categorized. Others, like Ani-Mayhem and Big Eyes, Small Mouth, I don't think have much to do with this project since they aren't based on a particular anime or manga series.
Category:Games with anime and manga art wouldn't work because practically every game based on anime and manga would be included, also most videogames (created in Japan) since they are drawn in an "animanga-style". For those "works produced for consumption outside of Japan that nevertheless draw on Japanese media in terms of content or form", something like Category:Anime-influenced games (similar to Category:Anime-influenced animation) would be better. Of course, they wouldn't fall within this project's scope.--Nohansen (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but is not talking about video games, is he? Doceirias (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I am not - I thought Super Robot Wars was a miniature game. Category:Anime-influenced games is a possible name, but in any case shouldn't it be Category:Anime- and manga-influenced animation? And why wouldn't this fall into the project scope? Correct me if I am wrong, but this project supports not only articles on articular series but on broader concepts (ex. entries on anime and manga).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of gaming categories.. this isn't really in scope of the project but some of the articles involved are and I'm not a member of the gaming projects. I recently noticed that Utawarerumono was in category Category:English-translated H games and removed it. I went through the category and removed a few others as well. I am running under the assumption that this category is for the few H-games that have been released in English by and English company. Other people seem to believe have a fan-made patch or translated script etc. is sufficient and my edit has been reverted on a number of these articles. What say you? Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well in general, video games do not have a separate category for translated/non-translated. They are simply listed as Japanese exclusive or not if they've been officially translated. However for anime-related games we've taken a slightly different route and put translated or not. It may seem small, but it is quite big. The term Japanese exclusive implies it was only released in Japan. The term translated does not imply official or unofficial. Either we should standardize this with what general video-game category does, say Category:English-translated H games applies to all officially and unofficially translated games or change the category to Category:Officially English-translated H games and consider making a separate category Category:Unoffically English-translated H games. As it stands right now the term is too ambiguous.Jinnai (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think just a rename and clarification of the existing is fine. Why even have a category for "unofficially" when that would basically be saying "there is a copyvio fan-translation of it." Yeah, fansubs etc exist, but we shouldn't be promoting them, even subtly. Also, see my post below about more issues with this. Collectonian (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gundam Mess

In a recent AfD for a duplicated article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gundam 00 Characters, the consensus was that List of Anno Domini characters (a seemingly unexplained time line name) needed to be renamed more properly to List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters (the actual series name). I did the renames and left a note on the list. Another editor asked "Then what about Universal Century, After War or After Colony characters.... why don't you fix?" Confused, I took a look at Template:Gundam and seems like rather than going by series, much of the Gundam stuff is going by time line and the like. Such as List of After Colony characters, which from my very limited knowledge of Gundam and a quick check, seems to need to be List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing characters and List of After War characters which I'm guessing should be List of After War Gundam X character. With these out of wack names, its no wonder we're getting duplicates. There also seem to be whole articles for each timeline, such as After War and After Colony. This seems like some serious overload of Gundam stuff to me, and I suspect we need to do some cleaning. What do y'all think? Should the project start a, likely, massive effort and get all this stuff cleaned up? Collectonian (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an utterly massive amount of cruft to sift through. 95% percent of it needs to be deleted, merged, or otherwise cleaned up. Given the nature of the editors that commonly go around such articles, any efforts, however, would need to carry the weight of consensus here (project-centric) in order for cleanup. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:WikiProject Gundam should be informed of this discussion. --Silver Edge (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem lies with WP:GUNDAM; they advocate this "in-universe" format. One of my "favorite" Gundam articles is One Year War. It's written as if it were a real war (it even uses {{Infobox Military Conflict}}).--Nohansen (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Practices like that simply need to stop. The standards at WP:ANIME supersede anything a child WikiProject or task force tries to implement. If it's not going to occur at WP:GUNDAM, then it should occur here. Standards shouldn't be disregarded simply because there's a child WikiProject doing something different. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in-universe writing is against policy, not just against convention. In indeed needs to be fixed, because this is Wikipedia, not something akin to Memory Alpha. Doesn't matter at all what the Gundam project thinks in this situation. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are an awful lot of Gundam books out there, including unofficial books discussing the various series, magazine articles on them, and so on. It's very likely that a lot of the material (obviously not all) could be sourced. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, none of us here are opposed to sourcing, but I believe practically all of the unofficial books don't qualify as tertiary sources that would qualify them for articles under WP:FICT. Also, if these books are written from an in-universe perspective, then they're not establishing any kind of real-world notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. Many Gundam fans in Japan are very meticulous in their research. I've seen some that discuss how much of the science in Gundam is based on real science, the practicalities of the mecha, and so on. There's a surprising amount of real world discussion, though perhaps not where you've seen it yourself. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed all of the Mobile Suit Gundam 00 sub-articles, moving from Anno Domini to Mobile Suit Gundam 00. The associated cats however, will have to go through WP:CSD/ Hopefully, this will start the initiative to rename all of the other Gundam articles from the timelines' name to the series' name. --Farix (Talk) 21:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gundam articles are in really poor shape. Many of them need to be merged, rewritten, sourced, and generally cleaned up. The infobox they use is huge next to other infoboxes and is also one of the most hideous I've ever seen with very little contextual information. There is absolutely no balance between in-universe information and out-of-universe information. The individual articles on the mecha themselves are often mostly in-universe statistics, which has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Unfortunately, Gundam is an example of a walled garden, more so then the Pokemon articles were. Previous attempts to clean up these articles are met with stiff resistance. In many ways, they are trying to compete with mahq.net. --Farix (Talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the articles shouldn't be much of a problem as compared to knowing where to start. I'll be trying to clean up the SEED articles over the course of next week since it's the series that's most recent for me and I'm familiar with. A significant amount of Newtype USA issues featured that particular series so I can pull out a ton of references and out-of-universe info for them. My stock isn't complete unfortunately, mainly with issues featuring DESTINY, so if anyone has such issues -I'll check the archives- and is interested in helping then just contact me via Talk Page. For me atleast I'll be starting there. Fox816 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In the past, I've found Newtype USA to be only slightly useful. Most of their articles are just regurgitation of plot with almost no real commentary or production background. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you need them, I have all issues of Newtype USA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's dependant on which issue and the dedication of coverage behind the series. For most one-shot articles it's a plot softener but for the extensive ones they have indepth interviews with Staff and VAs. Especially for the Seed series this is very true. Thanks Nihonjoe. I'll try to get the ball rolling this weekend hopefully and see how much I can cover. Fox816 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering how notable Gunota Headlines is? Although it's hosted on blogger, it's used as a source for Anime News Network and ICv2. There's an interview on it that I can't find anywhere else that would really help with the production section for Gundam Seed. Rezumop (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see more people over at WP:Gundam. There are mabye 5 of us who do things on a regular basis. Jtrainor (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help archive the talk pages for the following: List of Gundam SEED characters, Gundam SEED, and Gundam SEED Destiny?. I was able to archive my own talk page but it took a while and I'm still unsure of how to do it properly and efficiently. I'm aware of a BOT that does it which was placed on some articles. That would help as I try to clean up the articles. Much appreciated. Thank you.Fox816 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the bot to all the list and Gundam Seed. Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny already has one :)Collectonian (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If anyone has any ideas on how the character list should be sorted, I've basically separated the anime from manga characters (more specifically the Astray from Seed) into separate lists. Detailing the list will be on standby while I handle the rest. Any input on the talk page is welcome. Fox816 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the big issues with WP:GUNDAM is that there are not very many people who know anything about series/OAVs not released in English, and thus those areas tend to go neglected and attract deletionists/tag-and-run types. Jtrainor (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is just impossible to make anything possible for the metaseries if one wants to do the same thing for every seperate series of Gundam. As mentioned above, there are simply not enough regular editors and way too many anon editors. For example, the stupid(sorry for the incivil wording, but I am mad about this) Striker pack article was created and recreated and remerge so many times, and the more anon just pop up to finally create an article called Striker packs. It is a problem of popularity(In which, a Gundam monument has just been set up in a train/tram station in Japan and the opening theme melody of the original Gundam became the departure signal of the station BTW) Each series got their own fans while most are simply not wikipedia's regular editors.
That aside, using timeline as the name of the lists simply do not work, it might be simple for the single TV series like G, W, X and 00(Future Century, After Colony, After War and Anno Domini) Yet it would be way too impractical for the Cosmic Era(2 TV and 1 OVA) and Universal Century(First Gundam and 3 TV series, 2 animated films, 1 live action film, tons of OVA). Thus the series should all be sepearted by titles, not timelines.
Yes, it is a walled garden, and the problem about this is that everytime deletionist tried to do anything, they simply stepped on the trap of some of the articles actually have notability. The problem of this issue is that the popularity in and out of Japan(or I should say Asia) is totally different. Gundam is basically a cultural icon of Japan, and sources are just way too much for a single person to handle.(The Gundam Officials weights 3.5kg and only talks about UC0079~UC0083 and UC goes all the way to 0223 for an interesting joke reference)
If, I am only implying If anyone wants to clean up the mess, the effort would probably too overwhelming even with a 20-editor task force trying to locate the actual notable articles. And yes, it would be way easier to start from scratch than fixing the current mess. The problem is that "How long will it take before the anon make the mess again?"
I suck at writing articles, yet I probably got all the source you want for UC, AC and CE.(All in Japanese or Chinese, though) If anyone is bold enough to merge all of the articles to their original series article(I mean, redirect them to the anime page and forget about the contents for now) and it would be easier to start some real work from that onwards. MythSearchertalk 03:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was only able to go ahead and split off and clean out the character list for the SEED. Time is not a luxury I have right now to go ahead and full-scale rework through the articles like I had initially planned. I'll try and fix them step-by-step when I can. I agree with Myth on the point of IP users basically doing a hit-and-run control of the Gundam articles which is due to the sheer massive size of the franchise and popularity. Bit by bit we can recover the articles. True enough, it'll take an army to revamp everything. Fox816 (talk)
As I recall the AfD that got the WP:GUNDAM set up (mass AfD of Gundam SEED mecha pages), I only argued for the most dominant units(namely 2, Strike and Freedom) and supported the merge or delete or whatsoever. I face real resistance from the noms, and that was called the AfD from hell, but little does those noms know, that I carried most of the merge and deletion and face even greater resistance from the anon users. I got so many messages saying I do not have the right to delete the article and current as I recall, at least 20% of the articles was once again recreated for at least one time. This is why I do not like some of the Deletionist, yes, they come and tag dozens of articles, say whatever they like, but most of them do not do real work in the background and try to twist the wikipedia policies to suit their own arguement(Like you need 6 third party sources before you can have an article and no, any anime related books or magazines are not reliable sources to them) I suck at writting stuff in an out-of-universe style and no matter how hard I tried, they keep tagging it as in-universe, I give up on the writting, and let the expert writers do the work, I only provide sources now. MythSearchertalk 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest focusing on one series, starting with the most recent, and working from there. I've proposed merging the G00 characters into the main character list, but met some stiff resistance from some editors who felt that because the characters were the primary characters, they could IAR—specificly WP:FICT—and let the characters have their own articles. Then it snowballs form there.
I also think it may be time to absorb WP:GUNDAM as a work group of WP:ANIME. That would be one less banner on the talk page to deal with and WP:GUNDAM doesn't do any article assessments either. --Farix (Talk) 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This should be the easiest, since it is so new, there are almost no sources claiming its notability. And yes, it at most could have its own article(Well, sources I see says that it is a rather hopful series since the bad image created by Seed Destiny and 2 years have passed without a Gundam TV series on air. ref:Otona no Gundam, Perfect) Characters? most of them have a short paragraph on anime magazines and the above ref, that's it. I can almost source it to have no source for now... And the resistance is, simply put, lets just ignore them if real work has to be done.
On the other hand, I would suggest start working on the oldest and move towards the present, since those are the most well sourced and should have least anon fans, especially most of them did not even aired in America.
The problem of WP:GUNDAM is lack of man power, it is not as popular in English speaking countries but it got its significance(see the Gundam article for how significant it is in Japan, and those are only a small corner that are more recent and thus easier to have sources.) absorb or not, it is a sub-project of WP:ANIME in my opinion. MythSearchertalk 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Rumic World cast members

I came across this page just now and thought it was kind of pointless. If anything it should be a category, right? However, do we even need categories that are of seiyū that acted in certain series? I don't know quite what to do with the page. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The list (I'm guessing) is a byproduct of this CFD from January 2007. Some people didn't want to lose the info and converted it to lists. However, it seems these lists are being deleted, little by little, since Category:Lists of voice actors looks kinda empty. I think these lists are pointless, too.--Nohansen (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Since all the voice actors should be listed next to the character name on the corresponding list of characters, they are pretty much redundant. Doceirias (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I also notice Hispanic names in there, and it's my understanding that the project has decided to focus only on seiyu and English VAs. This has the potential to go overboard if people start adding other language VAs to it. Personally I really don't see the utility of such a list other than for trivial purposes. BrokenSphereMsg me 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
So what do I do with it? Speedy it? It seems to have been created by a bot and its only edit was made by the bot's owner. --Eruhildo (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would qualify for speedy. PROD and if someone removes the prod, AfD. Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me like a completely pointless classification, and it doesn't even give titles and roles. It's like creating a list of every actor who has starred in a film or series based on a book by, say, Agatha Christie - who would this benefit? Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would have deleted the category before it became a list but the CFD consensus was to convert to a list which my bot did. I don't see much point of keeping this list as it stands now. RedWolf (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Medabots

Hey, you guys should really clen this up. Kimu 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the cleanup list. --Mika1h (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Kimu 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ID this possible old school anime

I am reasonably sure that this is an anime, but since I saw it when I was quite young in the early 1980s I may be wrong about the animation style and possibly story. The basic story that I can remember is that there's a woman in love with two men, each of whom is represented by a white rose and a red rose, respectively. Any ideas? --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. That rings bells, but I can't think of the title. I'm pretty sure it's anime, too. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Could it be The Rose of Versailles? But questions like these should really go to the reference desk. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm checking with some people who may know. I'll post here when i hear back from them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you remember any other details? The description is pretty generic for an older shōjo series. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, so far people are suggesting The Rose of Versailles and Candy Candy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted here vs. the ref desk as sometimes questions like these get a better response from the relevant projects.
From what I can recall, this may have been a movie and the lead female character is a young woman, not a girl. The Candy Candy movie wasn't released until 1992, so this eliminates that possibility. Rose of Versailles was adapted into a movie form. However I'm not sure if this is it. Are different colored roses used to represent the two male characters Andre and Hans? BrokenSphereMsg me 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There were three other films released in the 1970s. I just added them to the infobox in the Candy Candy article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I watched Rose of Versailles a year or two back, and offhand, I don't remember any strong motif of the 'men' being associated with roses - it was always the women who were being symbolized by red or white roses. On the other hand, I really can't think of any other late '70s/early '80s series which could fit. --Gwern (contribs) 16:25 17 March 2008 (GMT)
Just to mention it, Revolutionary Girl Utena has a roses theme, though again the gender scheme doesn't quite (always) match what you're looking for. --Masamage ♫ 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Utena is more than 10 years too late to be a possibility. Seems like a genuine mystery. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Might be one of these. :) Cattus talk 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue with H-Games

Something that seems to be becoming a problem is a few editors wanting to add the Category:English-translated H games to H games that have only been fan-translated. Other editors are, of course, removing said cats and its causing some edit warring. A discussion has been started on the talk page Category talk:English-translated H games on ways to deal with the issue, such as renaming the category. I also edited the description on the cat to make it clearer but someone may revert.

Also, one place its getting bad is on Tsukihime's article, so if some folks for the project would like to weigh in there its at Talk:Tsukihime#Translated H-game category, though fair warning the guy warring over this doesn't have any regard for WP:CIVILITY. Collectonian (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did bring this up a few days ago under #Some gaming categories. Shiroi Hane (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, missed it because I wasn't following that thread much. Still, some comments in the cat would also help. Collectonian (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely suggest renaming the category to Category:Hentai games published in English, or use released or licensed. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best to keep it constant with video game category and use Category:Japanese exclusive hentai games.Jinnai (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The category in question mostly contains video games that aren't exclusive in that they have been released in English legally by a US licensor. The problem is people are adding ones that are Japanese exclusive, but which have some sort of fan-made translation or patch available. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And because no one bothers to explain this to me, why is this a problem? --SABEREXCALIBUR! 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's being done by fans, they don't have a license to do it (that is, they are doing it illegally); can such things really be said to be 'published'? Where I come from, published always implies some sort of officialness. --Gwern (contribs) 15:38 17 March 2008 (GMT)
Collectionan edited the category description to have it suit her cause. Before this it merely read "translated", which made Tsukihime a valid candidate and gave me a reason to add it. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I edited to reflect comments on the category talk page and the seemingly common-sense that we do not acknowledge fan-translated stuff as being a "English language" release of anything. Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You edited it to reflect one comment which you happened to agree with, a comment that referred to "edit warring" in which you were involved. Hardly the right situation to be WP:BOLD. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My comment? I don't agree with Collectonian. I think so far as the category is named "English-translated H games," it ought to include all English-translated H games regardless of whether those translations were authorized. But since that's perceived as violating Wikipedia policy by some people, I want to negotiate a compromise by renaming the category to a description that can exclude unauthorized fan-translations and remain accurate (I'm still not certain of the best verb to use, though.) -Seventh Holy Scripture (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Gwern's right as I understand Wikipedia policy; any translation that isn't from an official source is technically a copyright violation and therefore can't be included here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning its technical illegality. The removal of the category denies the translation's existance, which is counterproductive to our goal (providing information). But let's go berserker on Category:Murder victims too because it's illegal, yes? --SABEREXCALIBUR! 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Throwing out that kind of argument doesn't help the discussion at all. Forget apples and oranges, that's like comparing apples and elephants. Collectonian (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Both grow in Africa. Do you feel like arguing against the serious part of my statement? --SABEREXCALIBUR! 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, that is the point. We basically do not acknowledge the existence of fan-translations of games anymore than we go around saying any particular anime or manga that isn't licensed is available via fansub/fandub/scanslation/bootleg/any other illegal means. Beyond the encyclopedic articles discussing fansubs and the like, that's all the coverage they get. Saying it is English translated when it is not really leaves the article with a category that doesn't match its content and will confuse most reads, except for the handful of people have the knowledge or willingness to break laws to obtain an illegal copy. Unless it is an official English translation legally licensed and published, we don't ask, we don't tell, and we don't categorized. Collectonian (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"it is English translated when it is not" -> as best as I can tell, all of the games added to the category were english translated. Licensing status doesn't change this. Should we not cover works that are no longer licensed, like May Club? — PyTom (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
there is a difference between "once licensed and no longer licensed" and "never licensed and never given a legal release." We cover ALL, whether licensed or not. That isn't the issue. Its whether or not we call something English translated when the only "translation" is fan-translation. Collectonian (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself from the category talk page: "For what it's worth, my original intent in creating this category was to include all games with English translations, official or not. The idea was that articles listed in this category are ones which an English speaker who does not know Japanese could contribute to." I'll also point out that Wikipedia often includes information about works that infringe on copyright, like Category:Bootleg albums, although that's off the point somewhat. — PyTom (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether it's copyright infringement or not is a misinterpretation of policy. Sure, we don't link to infringements, and we don't publish infringements, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss infringements - like PyTom says, we have a whole bunch of bootleg albums mentioned. Instead, we need to look at verifiability - who says there's a fan translation out there? Newtype? Some random otaku blog? Or is it just "obvious"? That's what should inform any decision on whether or not to mention it, not any issues with copyright. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and note they are not called "valid releases" nor considered official releases. They are called bootlegs. Whether they should exist at all is another whole issue for discussion elsewhere. So let's stick to this specific issue about this category. Now, we have articles on fansub and fandubs, but no unlicensed anime/manga series articles says "This series is available in English via fansub" (or at least none should and any that did would be fixed upon discovery). None of those have a category that says "English translated anime series" or even "Anime series available via fansub." We don't do it, period. As for V and RS, it would be nearly impossible to establish as few legitimate news sources would mention specific ones unless there was litigation or the like involved. We could never use the group's page as a source (that WP:COPYVIO thing), blogs are not RS, and obvious very obviously doesn't cut it in any decent article. Collectonian (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point. That they're copyright infringements in themselves is beside the point, it's whether any reliable sources anywhere have ever mentioned them. And the answer is no. Hence I don't see any way the category would survive CfD. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The copyright infringement is not clear in all jurisdictions. Just because something is assumed, does not make it law. Today the US Supreme court heard arguments on the constitutionality of private citizens to bear arms. This has long to many people meant to be a personal liberty. It has been assumed that way, but it had never been really challenged. That is the same with fan-translations. Their status is even less clear almost no courts have heard any appeal. Outside the US, such laws are more clear, and some are less so. However, for the sake of tryping not to promote h-game translations I would change the category to the afore-mentioned published. Articles themselves could mention a fan-translation patch, but no relevent category would be made, nor would links be posted to it. The fan translations are relevant as they themselves have made series otherwise unknown popular to many. They also help spread the knowledge of the sub-genre. Whether this is done by legal or illegal means, wikipedia should stay as neutral as possible about. Neutrality should also apply to laws here otherwise we are slipping down the slope of saying it's okay to talk about this illegal thing, but not that.Jinnai (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning it without a source = violation of WP:V and as the only links that would support 99% of such fan translations violate WP:COPYVIO (which is more than clear enough for me irregardless of whether others feel it should be legal or not), they should not be mentioned at all. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No it does not violate that. The files distributed are generally not by these sites containing the actual game, but merely the patch. That does not constitute a violation. That is specifically what has never been tried in court and thus it cannot be said to be illegal. Even if it does, you can cite such sources without a link to the file itself.Jinnai (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It violates the game makers intellectual property right. It can be said to be illegal to hack someone's program, otherwise people wouldn't get smacked around by companies for doing so. And no, you can not source the site that distributes it as it has links to that violations. Either way, the fact is there is no need to mention it. It isn't part of being neutral at all. Again, we don't mention fansubs and fandubs in anime articles and we don't mentioned fan scanslations and the various online distribution methods in manga articles. It is not necessary or relevant at all. If people want to ride the slippery slop of downloading hacks, that is their personal choice and they are welcome to Google it, same as they would any other software crack or hack. We don't link to the rest either. Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No it's not necessarily. For further clarification read [Game Fan Translation Legality]. I am not claiming it is legal, but to claim it's illegal is also just as bad as what those who claim it is do. Specifically the last paragraph. The status is thus unclear. Just because companies issue cease & desist letters does not make it illegal. I can issue a cease and desist letter to you telling you not to post here. Perfectly legal for me to send that letter. However, that doesn't make your right to post here illegal.
If however they link to a copy of the game, or distribute the whole game patched, then that is another story. That is clearly covered by copyright law. That's why we don't link fansubs. They distribute the original animation with it.Jinnai (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of Fan translation of video games#Legal issues reads "While unauthorized fan translations are indisputably illegal..." How is this unclear? Just because something has never gone to court does not change its status. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Because that applies to the distribution of the edited reproductions. It has to do with context because such a statement could also be applied to my own personal use, which is commonly held to bot be illegal. You can't seperate one sentance out just because you like it. You have to take things in their entirety. The right could also be viewed by meaning 'for commerical use'.
"The reasoning [for not beling illegal] is that the patch only contains the new data and directives for where it is to be placed, and does not have the original copyrighted material included in any form, and therefore it is useless unless the user applies it to a (copyrighted) [game].... This belief, while untested in court, is probably not supported by international copyright law,..."
Last time I checked probably =/= definably.Jinnai (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In your mentioning of the cease & desist, the companies have that right since fan-based translations are copyright infringement and take away potential incoming by distributing the product free or without paying due to the title holders. That by itself is on a different scale that your example of issuing a cease & desist against anyone posting since there you have no legal grounds for issuing such an order. In terms of dealing with the categories, Manifestation, brings up one of the best points aside the legality. Despite being english translated by fans, there wouldn't be any, if at all, reliable sources to confirm that the game has been translated. While it's easy enough to just Google it to possibly see, the only abundant type of source to verify the translation would be forums, blogs, and/or sites that fail WP:SOURCE. The information -could- be placed but without a citation to confirm, it would be taken out. I can see consistency as also a problem which relates to citation. Parameters would need to be set as to confirm, if any, that the game was translated in english. Because a post on a forum or footnote on a site says so constitutes inclusion into the category? That hardly is reasonable cause. Or does someone have had to play/download the game in order to confirm it? Atleast with officially licensed games, there is official record, notable sources, a centralization of parties involved in working on the game instead of noting various on and off game groups/individuals doing so, and if the production didn't push through then it could be noted. Fox816 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading the WP:COPYVIO I did not see anything that should preclude siting an fan-translation site as a source, esepcially as such patches would not necessarily be illegal (see above). Only posting a link to the patch itself would be a violation from the way the policy reads.Jinnai (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You're reading the wrong article for the most. See WP:SOURCE and WP:RS. Fan-translation sites wouldn't be reliable third-party sources. Fox816 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The several third-party news sites covering the fan-translation scene would probably count as reliable sources. These include the late visualnews, its replacement novelnews [1], and visual-novels.net [2]. I would argue that these sources, while perhaps too specialized for WP:N purposes, count as "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for the purpose of WP:V. (To be fair, it's tough to tell where a blog ends and an online news site begins. I think these sites go on the news site side of things, especially when we're talking about verifying things that are easily shown true.) — PyTom (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You can always try discussing things on the reliable sources noticeboard. State your case, see what the consensus is on their use as a source. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and posted on the reliable sources noticeboard to see if 3rd party listing would suffice.Jinnai (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Images needed

List articles here that need images:

For one thing, the List of Cowboy Bebop characters needs an image for each character and currently has none. No one seems to be paying attention to the discussion page, so I thought that I'd bring it up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestAngel (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
An image for each character would violate WP:NONFREE which is why there isn't one. 1-3 group images is all the list should have. Collectonian (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian's right on the money. See this page and the links at the bottom of that page for a detailed summary of why mass use of non-free images isn't permitted anymore. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia friendly to culture articles

Hi. Does anyone know about an online encyclopedia that's friendly to articles about popular culture, Japanese history and stuff? --FriendsOfCasey (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bite Me - Chameleon

Is Bite Me - Chameleon an anime OVA or no? It says it was produced by ADV Films, and the ANN page seems to indicate it was done in Japan, however a talk page comment says it was not and the Anime project template removed. I'm not familiar enough with the title to say one way or the other. Collectonian (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject, but you might like to check the history of Bite Me (film) if you haven't as I demerged the two articles previously. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...so far its the same editor saying it isn't an anime on both. It was originally created as an anime article, though, until that editor stripped out all anime stuff and changed to say it was an American creation. My Googling so far seems to indicate that it is an actual anime title (and a horrendously bad one at that LOL) so for now, I'm putting it back as anime..and fixing the title. Collectonian (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The ANN article is quite unclear: there are no Japanese companies named but the cast are all Japanese. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found a Japanese article on a Chameleon manga with the same lead character name. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Japanese wiki article says it was originally a manga serialized in Weekly Shonen Magazine, and an OVA was produced, but I don't know which Japanese company made it.--十八 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like the problem stemmed from that initial article being a blend of the OVA and the movie. I'm trying to cleanup the article now to put in the manga and OVA info. Collectonian (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty and did what I could for the article, along with moving it to Chameleon (manga) since the original manga did not have the "Bite Me!" in the title.--十八 02:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, we edit conflicted :P Much appreciated and glad I stumbled across it so it could get some much needed attention. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found a listing on Amazon.co.jp which said it was produced by Victor Entertainment. The pictures I found of the ADV release of the VHS weren't closeup enough for me to read any of the writing on the tape or cover. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: the copyright info on the ADV-released video tape says the following: ©1996 Kodansha/Atsushi Kase/JVC, distributed in North America by ADV Films. So, looks like Victor is the anime producer. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some titles problems

I have looking for the japanese kanji of Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas and seen in its animenews network website that its written "Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas - Meiō Shinwa" (聖闘士星矢 THE LOST CANVAS 冥王神話). Also, a similar manga called Saint Seiya: Next Dimension is written "Saint Seiya: Next Dimension - The Myth of Hades (Saint Seiya: Next Dimension - Meiō Shinwa/聖闘士星矢 Next Dimension 冥王神話)" on its Animenewsnetwork page. Im a bit confused about how the title should be (especially with "Meiō Shinwa") so I would like advice. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New category, need articles

I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Anime and manga: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 46 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

List of issues

While sorting through Category:Unassessed anime and manga articles I came across List of U.S. Shonen Jump issues. Should we really have a list of magazine issues in article space? This is actually different from WP:ANIME/M which is meant to find potential sources and editors who may have access to them. --Farix (Talk) 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should. Its just duplicating what is already on the Shonen Jump site (and probably in a better form). There are a very small number of similar type articles, but none appear to have been challenged in AfD yet. I would say it falls squarely in with what Wikipedia is not on several levels and has absolutely on value or purpose at all. Collectonian (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and sent it to AFD then. We will see what the results will be. --Farix (Talk) 01:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic Research on WikiProjects

I apologize in advance if this posting is disruptive or misplaced.

Hi Anime and Manga WikiProject members,
I'm an academic researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology who is conducting a study on the social organization of Wikipedia, or more precisely, WikiProjects (how they work as a community, what its members do on it, etc.) I am currently studying the Avatar: The Last Airbender WikProject because I'm also a fan of the show. I would also like to expand my study to include the American Animation WikiProject and Anime and Manga WikiProject because of their relationship to my original WikiProject.
I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in participating in my study. I would pretty much have an interview session with you where we talk about your experiences on this WikiProject. Your perspectives and experiences would be valuable to my study and I hope you would consider it. The interviews are usually pretty fun, I think.
Here's the official information:
Participation is voluntary and can be discontinued at any time with no reason given by the you, the interviewee. The interview can be as long or as short as you like depending on how much you would like to share, but we will aim to keep it shorter than one hour.
If you are willing to be interviewed, please consent to participate in the study at:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Amy.Bruckman/teaching/4803doc/spring08/research08/webconsent_wikipedia.html (This is a requirement of all academic research in the United States that involves human beings). Also send me email at gtg120q@mail.gatech.edu
If you consent, we can arrange a time that's most convenient for you via email. For the actual interview, it would need to be through some medium that supports spoken speech (telephone or Skype, Google Talk, etc, those kinds of VoIP or voice chat clients). The choice of medium is also up to the interviewee.
Thank you everyone for your time! I hope to hear from you soon. Please contact me directly if you have any questions about participating at gtg120q@mail.gatech.edu
Yi Wu
GT_YiWu15:06 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds interesting :) -- Ned Scott 05:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves - 666 Satan to O-Parts Hunter

I put a move request for 666 Satan to be moved to O-Parts Hunter. Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:666_Satan#March_2008_Move_request! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we just move the thing FROM O-Parts Hunter TO 666 Satan a couple months ago? --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it was moved in August. Collectonian (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Well, I guess WhisperToMe earns points for persistence, but that's about it. Since I don't see any new evidence presented, and there was a pretty strong consensus on the previous move, I think this request is pretty much frivolous. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
From the intense discussion on the talk page, I don't know that I'd call it frivolous. It seems to have been an issue for awhile, though. Collectonian (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as it turns out, what I was considering a trivial matter of which name is the more popular has instead now become a serious matter of whether we consider scanlation readers to be part of the English readership or not. --erachima formerly tjstrf 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I remember seeing a copy of this in a bookstore and being annoyed at them seemingly having no concept of the term OOPArt. Personally I had no idea it had another name. Shiroi Hane (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)