Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 29

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 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 →

Contents

Rurouni Kenshin, japanese help!

Can somebody who knows Japanese add the kanji of "Futae no Kiwami", and "Zanza" to the Sagara Sanosuke article? Thanks--Tintor2 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Those would be Zanza (斬左 zansa?) and Futae no Kiwami (二重の極み?) (aaaaaaaaugh!) --erachima talk 02:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks^_^ (why that shout?)--Tintor2 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. (English dub joke. Try a youtube search for Futae no Kiwami.) --erachima talk 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Now I see.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again, but does zanza have a literal meaning or is it just a game of words like Battosai (it needs some explain)?--Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese film editors wanted

WikiProject Films has solicited interest in creating a Japanese cinema task force. We'd like to cordially welcome all regular editors of these articles to voice their interest in starting this task force so as to see if there is sufficient support. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kazue Takahashi

I am working on Kazue Takahashi on User:Kitty53/Test page 2. Does anyone have time to help out? Just wondering. Thank you.Kitty53 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone there? Are you dead?Kitty53 (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If ANN is the only reference you've been able to find, they won't pass WP:BIO. Collectonian (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am working on finding references. In fact, I found some bio parts in the Japanese Wikipedia.Kitty53 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
But the JAWP can't be used as a reference. It can be used to write the article (by translating its contents), but you need to find good sources for everything. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Himura Kenshin

One of our GA character articles, Himura Kenshin, is currently up for peer review before making a push for FA. If anyone has time, additional comments/feedback would be great. Collectonian (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The conception section can be expanded, a few days ago I added info of the redesign as hitokiri from this image of the kanzenban. Could anybody with Japanese knowledge expand it?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Anime voice actors

Yūko Gotō and Brianne Siddall are just a few examples of many, that are in poor shape. It's simply a list of all their roles, along with a few personal life details. I'm not a complete expert on anime, so I'm asking for help here about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust us, we know :( Unfortunately, most voice actors are likely unnotable as is, and even in Japan the ones that might be notable seem to receive little coverage in various sources, much less in English sources. Collectonian (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Though there are several magazines which cover the industry. Voice Animage is one, and there are at least 2-3 others. I don't know if anyone here has those magazines, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to start going through them, and tag them with prods and AFDs. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RM request on Case Closed: The Last Wizard of the Century

There is currently a RM request on Talk:Case Closed: The Last Wizard of the Century on Case Closed movies that have not released in English: they should carry the Detective Conan name or the Case Closed name? Discuss. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags in Infoboxes

Possibly something that could be of importance to us, the TV project is having a heated discussion on whether flagicons should be removed from all TV infoboxes. See Template talk:Infobox Television#Flag usage for the start of the discussion, and Template talk:Infobox Television#Proposal: Flags should no longer be used in Television Infoboxes, per WP:FLAG for the current requests for oppose/support Collectonian (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Chapter list volume references

I recently started cleaning up, expanding, and referencing List of Case Closed chapters, using the Bleach and Naruto chapter lists as samples. These lists both have individual English and Japanese sources for each volume released, and that's how I started to do the Case Closed list. However, recently I had a look at the InuYasha chapter list, and it seems to just list the sources under a "general" part in the References section. Theefore, I want to get a wider opinion: is either of these methods preferred? Does it matter? Should the MoS mention this in any way? (as an aside, is there any reason the Naruto list is titled List of Naruto manga volumes as opposed to List of Naruto chapters, especially when the two sublists use "chapters"?) Strike that, it's called "manga volumes" because individual chapters aren't listed on it. Should have thought it over more carefully. =P —Dinoguy1000 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Both actually work, it just depends on what's available. The General/Specific mirrors what is often done with episode lists for the lists of titles. I personally prefer the general/specific, when possible, for the manga lists as I think it keeps the table neater and keeps the references from being glutted with the same basic links. See List of Marmalade Boy chapters for another list using that system. The criteria, for me, of being able to do general/specific is if the pages being used have all of the volumes listed with the dates/ISBNs either right there, or one click away (or by a flick of the mouse for sites with a javascript page change). Probably would be good to discuss, though, as we get more chapter lists getting cleaned up and hitting FLC, we should be clear on whether the general/specific is acceptable referencing, or if we have to put an individual reference for every release date and ISBN.
For the aside, I believe its because List of Naruto manga volumes is just a list of the volumes, while the sublists actually include the chapters as well.Collectonian (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, that's what I was thinking, but it never hurts to make sure. ;) In the specific case of the Case Closed list, using a "General/Specific" format would probably cut ~10-15k from the page size on an already oversized page, so there's another bonus. —Dinoguy1000 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a third way, which is to still use the general reference as a footnote to the column header for the information in that colunn -- c.f. List of Yotsuba&! chapters. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
General referencing is definitely good if it's available. I found no available single source for all the volumes when I did the Naruto chapter lists, and simply had a lot of references. Same for List of D.Gray-man chapters, which I'm working on now. By the way, I know a fourteenth volume came out for the aforementioned list, but given that my Japanese skills are rather nonexistent, I don't know what the title is. Help would be appreciated. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monopoly of ANN info links - why not others?

I'm a long time anime/manga group member, but haven't actually done much except add the button to my profile awhile back due to not understanding much how wiki works XD (I had to try out the sandbox to even know how to do this)

I noticed the discussion here [Hypocrisy regarding external links] and think it deserves a more broad discussion.

In my opinion, the link sections of the anime info pages used to be a lot better - a lot more balanced, at least. A few years back (prior to the creation of the anime/manga group) if you loaded up most anime info pages you'd find links to AniDB, Anime-Planet, NFO, or a number of other smaller sources. Nowadays it seems that the powers that be decided to put a monopoly on information and only allow ANN (or very seldomly, Anidb), and I don't get it. Isn't wiki all about good info for its readers? Why was an arbitrary group of people able to censor everyone else except ANN?

I don't use AniDB/NFO so I can't attest to them (others can chime in if you want), but I do use ANN and Anime-Planet and both are valuable resources for different types of stuff, and both are quite popular and well known.

ANN:
+Awesome staff info
+In depth voice actor info (my main source for this)
+Easy relational links between tons of series/manga
+Sometimes good synopses, often nothing or poorly-written info

Anime-Planet:
+Unique synopses (all of the info is written by someone/edited)
+Screenshots
+No blank info pages
+Recommendations (user-submitted) - the best feature

So I guess this begs the question, why is ANN (pretty much) the only informational / non-official site allowed to be posted as an external link? Yes, it's great for news, and it's great for the stuff listed above, but it's not the ONLY resource and a group of people forcing a monopoly on information goes against the entire point of wikipedia. IMO Anime-Planet and (if they exist) other equally as high quality sites should be able to be listed as anime resources too, just like they were in olden times.

Phamenoth (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I see ANN as an extensive and generally reliable resource. As far as I've seen Anidb is mostly based around information on what fansubs are available. Animenfo also provides information on fansubs and the other information they do have tends to be less reliable than ANN and harder to get corrected (I posted the same error report multiple times over a couple of years before giving up, and some of those errors were still there last time I checked). Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
ANN is considered a reliable source and the anime equivalent of IMDB or TV.com for linking. AniDB, AnimeNFO and any other fansub distribution/listing site was banned and all links removed, and most of their templates deleted. Anime-planet I've never heard of. If its notable enough to have its own article, like ANN, then it can be considered, but it isn't. Its nothing but some little site with a blog and a recommendations database that adds absolutely nothing of value to any article and doesn't meet WP:EL. It has nothing to do with "forcing a monopoly" or anything else. There just happen to be very few reliable anime sites that meet the EL guidelines. Wikipedia is not a link directory nor a link farm. ELs are kept to a selective minimum. Collectonian (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
After looking at Anime Planet, it doesn't contain any new content that doesn't already exist on ANN. On top of that, the content that is on Anime Planet doesn't appear to be verified by the site's maintainers. The "reviews" on the site are user summited blog entries and the user submitted ratings are inconsequential. In short, Anime Planet deals more more with opinions then facts. And under Wikipedia's External Link guidelines, we are suppose to avoid linking to opinion sites. --Farix (Talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
All of the content on Anime Planet is unique, not copied from other sites. All of the data for each entry is gone over manually by the site owner before being added. All of the reviews contained within each entry have been manually selected by the site owner (although anyone can post their reviews & opinions in the site's forum). Anime Planet's main function however is acting as a database to find related and/or similar anime series. On Anime Planet you can find unique synopsis for each series, data such as broadcast dates, studios, episode counts, and also find similar series that you might also like. The screenshots on Anime Planet are also original & not copied from any other source. That gives you 3 different items of original & useful content for every series on the site.
As far as not having an Anime Planet article on wikipedia; I have seen one here in the past, but it got high-handedly deleted just like the external links to Anime Planet. It's very convenient to refuse to allow a site to have an entry on wikipedia, then turn around and use it's lack of an entry as an excuse to not allow any external links to it either. Cypherswipe (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't "convenient" its reality. It is an unnotable little fansite that I wonder if you are the owner of or somehow affiliated with that you gave it such a rousing sales pitch. It is not a site that has any notability for having an article. If one existed at all, then it wouldn't have been "high-handedly" deleted but deleted by consensus for having no notability and being nothing more than any other small website of little consequence. However, as there is no evidence such an article ever existed at all, that whole point is moot. Being "original" means nothing for the purposes of reliability, notability, or linking. The site has no value in either of those areas and links to it will continue to not be added as it does not meet a single Wikipedia guideline or policy for inclusion. Collectonian (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me dissect this one by one.
All of the data for each entry is gone over manually by the site owner before being added.
When I looked at the website, I didn't see any of this, at least not to the extent that it would be useful.
All of the reviews contained within each entry have been manually selected by the site owner (although anyone can post their reviews & opinions in the site's forum).
Which is one reason we should avoid linking to the website. In fact, we avoid including links to reviews in the external links section. Instead we citing those reviews from columnists/reviewers at well known and notable websites as part of a reception section.
Anime Planet's main function however is acting as a database to find related and/or similar anime series.
Again, this is a reason to avoid linking to that particular website. It is not a feature that enhances the person's understanding of the topic.
On Anime Planet you can find unique synopsis for each series
This is irrelevant. Every website should have their own synopsis instead of copying off of each other. But that doesn't make for a reason to link to the website.
data such as broadcast dates, studios, episode counts,
ANN is far more complete.
also find similar series that you might also like.
Irrelevant and probably a reason to avoid the link. It doesn't add to the understanding of the actual topic being linked to.
The screenshots on Anime Planet are also original & not copied from any other source.
The External link guideline advices that we not link to image galleries.
All in all, you actually gave us more reasons why this website shouldn't be linked to instead of why it should. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of Anime Planet's information is off, anyway. Take a look at the Last Order: Final Fantasy VII page ([1]), for example. First of all, that's more of the plot of the original game minus Zack, even though that's even a little bit of a stretch. Though it's listed in the "Other Names" bit, they messed up with the correct name being Last Order Final Fantasy VII. The plot is just a retelling of events, and no character knew Sephiroth's plans. They never once tried to destroy Jenova. In their Advent Children guide ([[2]], they basically say Kadaj was the only enemy to appear (he had two 'brothers', you could say, Lox and Yazzo), the team later bands together again in a video game sequel, and the only original-playable characters that got more than five minutes of screen time were Cloud and Tifa (Cid and Barret were random and irrelevent). The Ginga Nagreboshi Gin page ([3]) calls him Silver (the translation of Gin, the dog's real name) and says he's named for a silver stripe (Gin is a silver brindle/tiger striped/tora-ge, basically meaning that he is silver with slightly different colored silver stripes, not a single stripe). These are only three, but there are deffinately more innacuracies just regarding plot. Plots doesn't need to be referenced unless the material is argued over, anyway, and everything else can be found on official websites. And Anime News Network has been recognized by many different 3rd part sources. The articles that are smallest are the ones about small and less-popular manga and anime.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

References in infoboxes?

Something that's bugged me for awhile now is whenever I see a reference in an infobox for, for example, a premiere date or broadcasting company. Is there a policy or guideline concerning this? Is there a wider opinion? Am I just looking for something to complain about? (not 100% sure on that last one... ;) ) —Dinoguy1000 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the general view is that there shouldn't be any references in the infobox, as it should either be sourced from the primary work, or supported by the article where the sources should be. I see it quite a bit in character articles and it chafes some as I wonder if the information is relevant enough to be sourced in the infobox, why isn't it instead sourced in the article. Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If the information has already been cited in the article's text, which it should be anyways, then there is no need to cite it again in the infobox. --Farix (Talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be no need. I've very occasionally copied a ref from the main text into an infobox for frequently mis-"corrected" bits, to more firmly assert, for ex, yes this series really is shōnen. Both otherwise, yeah. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to rename the anime userbox page

I recently started a discussion over at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Anime to rename it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Anime and manga. Everyone is invited to join in the discussion there. —Dinoguy1000 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference help?

I'm looking for a reliable reference to use for the statement in List of Fruits Basket characters that "In Japanese society, non-black hair is often considered "disrespectful" or "unnatural" and is made fun of." I've seen it said, in one form or another, and have no reason to doubt it, but I'd like to nail it down with a citation before it gets challenged. Can anyone help? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That statement is either a gross exaggeration or extremely dated. Everyone dies their hair. They might die it black again for a funeral or a job interview, though. Doceirias (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Or possibly both. So your recommendation is to just cut it? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say the context renders it redundant anyway. Pretty clear the character is being bullied for being different. Doceirias (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin merges

In the on-going effort to get Rurouni Kenshin cleaned up and ready to go to GA/FA, it has been tagged to merge in some various sub-articles, including its OVAs, movie, a CD, and a bad media split out. A discussion has been started at Talk:Rurouni Kenshin#Merges for each suggested merge if anyone would like to weigh in. Collectonian (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Exile

Last Exile could really use some project love. Its main page is badly formatted, with no sourcing, and the badly written statements that end up being false. The characters are in bad shape as well, with a bunch of individual articles that read like little personal essays with absolutely no referencing and no establishment of notability. I've proposed that they all be merged into a single List of Last Exile characters. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Last Exile#Character articles to list. I've never seen the series myself, so the clean up and work I can do here is limited to fairly basic stuff. If anyone would like to adopt this page for overhauling, feel free to chime in :) Collectonian (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did some minor work on the infobox, as well as updating the episode list to use {{Japanese episode list}}, but I've never seen the series either (I wish G4 would bring back Anime Unleashed already =P ), so I can't really do much either. —Dinoguy1000 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Much thanks :) I tackled the non-plot elements, fixing the MoS issues and adding the anime broadcast/distribution info, the soundtrack info, the Japanese episode titles, episode airdates, and references. I also added a section on the rumored live-action movie, though may not been totally warranted since it appears to have just been a one time rumor. Now...here's hoping someone whose seen the series might come in to deal with the plot, characters, and provide some episode summaries :D Collectonian (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently running manga templates

I would like the project's opinion on templates that are used to show what manga are currently running in a given magazine, such as {{Series in Weekly Shonen Jump}}. Is this a good thing, or does it have too much of a propensity to become dated if no one cares to update it? Or if a template was not to be used, what about a category? I bring it up because I'm unsure if this should be one of the things taken from the Japanese wiki, as I only used to see it there until just recently. Like ja:Template:月刊コミック電撃大王連載中, ja:Template:LaLa掲載中, or the template which the one above is patterned on, ja:Template:週刊少年ジャンプ連載中.--十八 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say using a category or template is unnecessary and very likely to an annoyance to maintain. I can't see that it would add much value versus what we already have with the tables showing the current series. Collectonian (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it any more or less likely to get out of date than the list in the article itself? I do find it an interestingly way of being both informative and navigational. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the template is easier to maintain than a category. I don't think every magazine needs them, but as long as they are being maintained, I think they're fine. If we notice one getting out of date, bring it up or nominated it for deletion, but for the moment, whoever created them is probably planning on keeping them accurate. Doceirias (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this WikiProject

Do disambiguation pages relating to anime and manga also fall under the scope of this WikiProject, given the banner at Talk:InuYasha (disambiguation) and Talk:Astro Boy (disambiguation)? I ask because Talk:Dragon Ball do not have one. Should it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases like those, where most to all of the items are anime/manga articles, then yes, the disambigs should be included in our scope.Collectonian (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Done ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The scope section doesn't explicitly state anything about disambiguation pages, but I see no harm in assuming that they would fall under our scope. This is especially evident when you consider that our project banner has a ratings setting specifically for them, and the non-article animanga category seems to be almost exclusively for them. ;-) Speaking of which, our article assessment documentation (and many other things on the project page) needs some work done. It's not terribly helpful when it only talks about A-class, GAC, and FAC assessments and peer reviews. —Dinoguy1000 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, thirded, and fourthed. I keep meaning to propose, but keep getting distracted. I think that whole area needs an overhaul (and how about examples in the scale that are actually from our project LOL) Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and do some typographical work on the "Scope" section, and also add the Videogames wikiproject to the list of sister wikiprojects. If there are any objections, feel free to do a partial or complete revert. —Dinoguy1000 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool...I'll try to find sometime and energy this week to do a proposal for a new assessment page. Collectonian (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I couldn't decide where best to list the VG wikiproject, so I left it out... I doubt it would qualify as a parent project, but it's too closely related to just be a "similar" project. And is there any reason that the Pokemon project is listed as "similar" rather than "descendant"? —Dinoguy1000 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea, it should be moved up to the Descendant section. For the VG project, maybe similar like Square Enix? Collectonian (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I moved the Pokemon and Square Enix projects up to the "Descendant" section (WP Square Enix actually explicitly lists us as a parent project), and added the VG project to the "Similar" section. Any complaints/comments/etc.? —Dinoguy1000 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have lots of those, but not about that ;) Looks good to me. Now...if we can just clean up the page as a whole LOL. Collectonian (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pokémon is a descendant project of VG, not AM; reading their project page (or hell, even just the article itself) makes this abundantly clear. This needs to be moved back to "similar". —TangentCube, Dialogues 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why can't it be a decendent of both? We're a decendent of both Japan and TV. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree: it's a descendant of both as the Pokemon franchise includes anime, manga, and videogames. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'd really like to know is why this project is claiming video game articles like Mana (series) and Chrono (series) as some of its recognized articles. The information on anime and manga on those articles is really, really insignificant. It'd be like WP:PHILO and WP:PSYCH claiming Evangelion as one of its article because of the "Inspiration and symbolism" section.--Nohansen (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same reason albums sometimes claims any anime/manga article that includes the soundtrack info in it, and video games tries to claim the same articles that have a one paragraph video game section (i.e. excessive project tagging) :P Personally, I'd like to see that reduced except where the anime/manga related series actually has significant coverage or a separate article, and then our project tag should only be on those specific articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a movement at one point to put the project banner (and relevant categories) on the redirect page for the anime or manga adaption instead? Likewise, the video game banner on the redirect for the video game adaption's name. Doceirias (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the disambiguation page Animanga

I'm working on cleaning up the disambiguation page Animanga, and I wanted to ask you knowledgeable folks here what the actual definition of the word is. Is there something that is a combination of anime and manga, or is it really just a word referring to anime and/or manga things? Any clarification will help! Thanks -- Natalya 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but shouldn't ani-manga and aniManga redirect there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. Also possible is if Films comic is really the only accurate meaning of the word (and the other three entires aren't easily confusable), we could just redirect the disambiguation to it instead. Knowing if that's true or not would require some knowledge on the topic; hopefully there can be some clarification from those familiar? -- Natalya 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll modify this question - any objections to redirecting Animanga to Films comic? -- Natalya 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against it. If there's anything that can be merged, the better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the input. -- Natalya 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists and List-class assessment

Something that's been bugging me for awhile is that we don't consistently assess lists as List-class. Should this be done with *all* lists, or is there some other system being used that I don't know about? Would it be possible to have a seperate assessment scale specifically for List-class articles? —Dinoguy1000 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I started looking around, and on the project banner's talk page, there's an old discussion (more a handful of comments, really) on this issue. In it, Farix made a distinction between lists along the lines of List of anime conventions, which he said should be assessed as lists, and character, episode, etc. lists, which he said should be assessed as articles (please forgive any personal interpretation on my part =P ). If this is the opinion of the project as a whole, it should definitely be noted in the assessment documentation. Any further thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should do the method used by some other projects; assess lists same as articles as far as Start, B, FL, but have type=list set on them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that lists should be assessed as articles. How are you going to differentiate a Start-class list from a B-class list from an FL-class list? On top of that, by assessing lists like articles, there would be no way to separate the assessed lists from the other assessed articles on the automatically generated quality statistics. And given the amount of initial resistance when adding FL-class to the quality statistics which took over a months to overcome, the idea of further braking down the statistics based on type would be DOA. --Farix (Talk) 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Excel Saga

Excel Saga is one of our few featured articles, having passed back in 2006 when we had no MoS and FA had looser criteria. Back in March, I left a note on the talk page noting it has a lot of issues, including not being anywhere near MoS compliant, excessive non-free images, too many unreferenced statements, use of non-reliable sources, and a complete lack of the very basic information about the series (like sourced statements on manga releases, anime releases, etc). It has tons of production info, but little else. I tried to do a MoS conversion, but honestly couldn't sort it out as it is rather convoluted in structure right now, with a lot of stuff blending plot, reviews, and commentary in the same paragraphs. No one answered and I intended to take it to FAR for delisting at the end of April, but forgot. Someone finally answered, reminding me of the article. Before taking it to FAR, though, I figured I'd see if anyone wants to actual tackle giving it the massive overhaul it needs. Meanwhile, I've tagged it for the non-free, needing expert attention, and having too much plot (at least from what I can figure out). A discussion is also at Talk:Excel Saga#Article Issues with only the one person answering today after its sat unnoticed two months.Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I cleaned up the Excel Saga navbox just a few days ago. Not that it has any bearing on the article's cleanup, although I did just finish working on the infobox (is it just me, or do I always take the easy work? =P )... —Dinoguy1000 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL...well, sometimes infoboxes can be a rather aggravating mess to clean up too (and hey, its still important since its one of the first things seen ;) ). Collectonian (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not giving me much to go with here, Collectonian. Beyond release information, which is in List of Excel Saga media (and cited, I believe), what other "basic information about the series" do you want to see? The major production staff for the anime are identified when relevant, and I doubt that Rikudou's drawing assistants really merit much mention, though I can add that if desired. I'll admit that the combined character and plot section defies MOS-AM, but guidelines tell us to ignore all rules and to be bold. Perhaps some text could be cut from that section, but it's pretty close to the bone as it is by my reckoning. The use of proprietary images is consistent with other FAs put out by the project and promoted last year, and I personally feel that their use meets the requirements of policy and guidelines. But the article would probably survive without them. And I'm still not sure what needs citation.--Monocrat (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay...I see your reply here, but not seeing on the page when I refresh. Weird. Anyway, for one, its not just you who is expected to do the work, as problems with an FA article is something the project as a whole needs to address. My gut response, though, is to say that if you aren't seeing all of the issues, not understanding the major MoS problems, and can't see all of the unsourced statements that are glaringly obvious to me, then that might be part of the problem. The media list split out is, in fact, another major problem. I've mentioned part of its problems there, of course. Its not as hideous as some, the basic information also belongs in the main article, in the media section. Its been agreed that a whole scale split like that is not appropriate at all and needs to be cleaned up and merged back in to the main article where it belongs. Appropriate splits are a list of characters, a list of episodes, a list of chapters, and, if relevant, a list of light novels. Standalone, single splits, not one giant media split. The article needs a lot of work to get it up to current standards, not old, out of date ones. Collectonian (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see the case for having a media section, with appropriate links to lists of manga, episodes or what have you, and I'm willing to work on that. But beyond that, I'll ask again that you please tell me what the "major MoS problems" are. If they're so obvious, why not list some of them or sprinkle "citation needed" notes throughout the article. (I don't intend to cite every sentence in the article unless I have to.) That would go a long way towards allowing us both and others to make needed improvements. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that request. I might be unreasonable in disputing your stance on the images and the combined character/plot section, but I won't reverse edits made in good faith, and I think you're acting in good faith! :).--Monocrat (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The tags on the article worries me. At this rate the article would be on its way to WP:FARC without any difficulty. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If no one is going to work to fix the article, then yes, it will. I would even take it to FARC myself. I posted here to give it wider exposure to avoid that, since I hate for the project to lose an FA, but I also don't want to see an article that is no longer an FA quality work being held up as a good standard to follow. Even without the tags, it would have the same result, the tags are just a more obvious, and glaring, warning to get to work to "rescue" it. For fixing the article, I can only do some fixes, as I have neither read the manga nor viewed the anime. Unfortunately, the way its formatted and written now, someone unfamiliar with the contents, like myself, will have a hard time retooling it to conform to the MoS, so it would be best to have someone familiar with it doing much of the work to sort out the various sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

YuYu Hakusho

User:Abtract is currently placing a truckload of citation tags on the article. Anyone want to look into this? I don't think what he is doing is bold, more disruptive in my eyes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...I hope he isn't being retaliatory. I can't believe he actually put {{citation}} tags on the article headers! I've undone his edits and given the article some proper over all tags. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, now this was just ridiculous. Don't you agree Collectonian? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I see the tiger has not changed his stripes at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people never change I guess. Have you added YuYu Hakusho to your watchlist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and gave it some initial MoS fixes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I just finished cleaning up the infoboxes and navbox, and moved a couple of pages to conform with the series' name and the MoS. Basically, same old, same old. =) —Dinoguy1000 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre discussion

To anyone who has enough familiarity with the series, please join in here to help us reach a conclusion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A wasted FAC

References : First PR, FAC, GAC

Odex's actions against file-sharing is suffering from the The Man, His Son, And the Donkey syndrome. There are a lot of criticisms thrust at it, but nobody is willing to fix it. The single biggest problem is that there are no editors other than myself being able to copyedit it (in which an objection of FAC requires someone with a fresh perspective to review it), and not all objections on the article seem fixable. Which is a waste because content-wise it is comprehensive enough to be an addition to Featured Articles. Is anybody here willing to give it a cleanup? - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what's involved in this "clean up"? Where are the materials in question that are to be used?
--NBahn (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Essentially copyediting, and the structure of the article. And how some of the objections in the GAC/FAC are to be looked at. Material wise, the references should be sufficient. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is there this big huge article about this, rather than a more concise summary in the Odex article? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a national issue that was once on the frontpage of the press almost everyday. Think why RIAA lawsuits are bigger than RIAA itself. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to animanga infobox

There are some proposed style changes for Template:Infobox animanga being made. Please see Template talk:Infobox animanga#Template style. -- Ned Scott 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)