Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:ANIME
WT:MANGA
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Japan To-do:
Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices: v • d • e • w
  • A new (6/3/08) RFC on the global acceptance for WP:FICT is underway.

More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
WP Anime and manga discussions
  • Noticeboard
 Assessment
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
Mascot Discussions
Archive Topical Index



Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Clean up project

~poking~ to see where we are on the proposed clean up task force? Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll start to write it up sometime this weekend, or whenever time pops up. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. To be honest, I've been too busy to follow up on this myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that there is an inactive animanga cleanup project/Collaboration of the Week? —Dinoguy1000 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes...it probably needs to be moved under the project properly. Might be something to include in the clean up task force as a subsect, especially for the bigger clean up jobs? Collectonian (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Here is a very rough draft. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Should we also include a section on pending FL delistings and FARs that need quick attention? Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds right. Feel free to write it in and spruce up sections as you see fit. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good so far. Any opinions on the best way to work in the CotW project/workgroup? —Dinoguy1000 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...maybe another section noting the current collaboration, and use the talk page to nominate/join in? I've added in a section for FAR/GAR/FLR "rescues", probably needs some work. Also, any thoughts on having a system where participants can note that they are working on article X, so we don't have duplication of effort or end up running into one another? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

~poke~ Think we're good to start this yet, or do we need to do more tweaking? The list of articles is growing and growing :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Anyone up for a quick copyedit?

Speaking of copyedits for featured candidates, anyone up for a quick buff-and-polish pass on List of Fruits Basket chapters? (Which, yes, I really should have taken care of before taking it to FLC, but the peer reviewer didn't comment on it.) Many thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I'll get it a run. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll take any other copyedits you need done. :) I'm a member of LoCE anyway. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC).
Really? Would you be willing to finish Wolf's Rain copyediting? Someone from LoCE started it, did a small but, then left a note on the LoCE page saying he'd done a bit and someone else could do the rest. Its currently a GA nom that's on hold :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Is there anything that you specifically want done, or is it just a general copyedit that's needed? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It just needs a general copyedit for prose/grammar to address the GA concerns. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) I'll get on it as soon as I can. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am currently editing some now. So far it's going well, however, a problem I've come across several times is that there are some unverified claims regarding sales, and lack of attribution (i.e., weasel-wording) as well. Should I leave these problems as-is and have someone else do what they want with it later, or should I just remove these uncited claims? All I can say is, though this is a good article overall, with these minor verifiability issues, it may not make GA status if we don't find more refs. :( I would like to request that someone find sources for:

    • "The Bandai Entertainment English language release sold well in North America." (Sales?)
    • "The manga adaptation was selected as one of their top ten anime properties of 2005."
    • Any other claims stating anything like, "Some critics have said..." or "Many criticised it as being..."

Thanks, I hope this helps! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say tag the sales claims; there may well be an actual source there, but the generalized criticisms can be yanked, or replaced with quotes from actually reviews if you feel up to digging a bit. Doceirias (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
M'kay. I'm on it. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
All of those were properly sourced, in the reception section. They are being summarized in the lead per WP:LEAD. I added that paragraph after the reviewer noted that the lead was not summarizing reception though reception was one of the longest sections. If you find any lacking a source, though, just tag as needing a citation and I'll fix it since it probably means I just didn't make the citation clear enough. Everything should all be referenced properly as I double and triple checked that. For weasel words...mmm...if possible, just go ahead and reword it if possible. Summarizing the reception was kinda hard to do with them, so not sure how to fix myself. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm going to be away from the internet for, well, with luck no more than a couple days. If someone could copyedit List of Fruits Basket chapters while I'm away, I'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Jump SQ.

We are nominating Jump SQ. for a GA, can someone else please help with the article? I can't do the article by my self!! It's to stressfull, apparently it is not well written (everything else is fine though). – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a few suggestions on the Jump Square article (good idea to include a link for the lazy; I ignored this for several hours because there was no link. It could definitely use the project's attention. Doceirias (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manga Chapter List Help

I'm in the process of cleaning up List of Strawberry 100% manga chapters. I'd appreciate any help in regards to the Japanese Volume/Chapter titles as I can't seem to find them anywhere, or atleast am not aware that what I'm seeing in Japanese are the titles. Thanks. Fox816 (talk)

[edit] Series article external links

Every now and then I see someone removing multiple links from ANN down to just one, while I usually will an ANN link for both the manga and anime versions of a series, if there are two. The removals have made me wonder, though, if we should hammer this out more and make a firmer decision (and then note this in the MoS). When a series has both an anime and manga version, or multiple anime and manga adaptations, should there only be one ANN link (and if so, for which version), or should an ANN link be added for each? Or maybe we should modify the ANN template to allow for an option of links on one line, one anime and one manga?

For some examples:

Additionally, should IMDB and TV.com links be added to series pages at all? I'm inclined towards no most of the time, as they rarely add anything of value, though TV.com sometimes has airdates/English titles (not always accurate though).

Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think tv.com is wildly unreliable, and we should avoid it. They were part of the problem with Tite Kubo.
I think we should have ANN links for all relevant parts, and have lost arguments about this before. I can see an argument for linking to the anime, since that has more information that works as a general source, and the pages are interlinked on ANN. But I don't see how it hurts to have both. Doceirias (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Higurashi can't apply up there; the manga adaptations came before the anime adaptations, and the games were first to boot. Further, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and even if we can add in 10 important ELs, a lot of the time it's not only unnecessary, but is much too cluttered. One link to ANN is plenty if ANN links the manga/anime on their pages; linking both on Wiki means users have one less thing to click on, but is it so much to ask for them to go through ANN to get to another page? I mean, look at something like Kanon or Higurashi no Naku Koro ni; would it really make sense to link all three anime pages in the EL section when one works just as fine? Especially since Higurashi already has a ton of links; adding more now will just make the problem worse, not better. Further, I don't believe much of the time IMDB or TV.com have more pertinent information than ANN does, and I believe IMDB should generally be kept to movie articles if it's used at all.--十八 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I listed them to be examples so people could see what it looks like on various articls, not to debate the inclusions on any specific articles. :P if you feel that one ANN link is enough, then which do you feel should be added when there are multiples? The anime always, the first work, etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a link to every single manga or anime, if the page covers several; but having one manga and one anime link, or making the original/primary work the one we link to might be worth considering. Doceirias (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the manga should probably come first. The fact that I've been biased for the anime pages up until now stems from when I first started editing Wiki and when I came across an anime/manga article, a lot of the time the anime page was the only ANN one linked, so I guess I thought it was generally universal. However, Doceirias brings up a good point in that some series have much more information on their anime, than their manga, for ANN pages; Hidamari Sketch is a good example, manga; anime first season. Plus, the anime pages almost always include the original creators, as seen in the linked Hidamari Sketch link. At the very most there could be two ANN links, even if I think it's excessive.--十八 07:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. I definitely see both ways here. Obviously, with things like Higurashi, we need to limit it sensibly; just the anime would be fine there, since there are so dang many manga, and ANN doesn't cover the novels or games. In cases like that, we should have the most useful link; the link that is, essentially, sourcing the page.
But with simple manga-> anime conversions, I'd prefer having both - for the same reasons we lead with the original work. I feel like having only the anime link is slighting the manga, somehow, and it just doesn't sit right with me. It should never be more than two links, though. Doceirias (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a data point, I usually put just a single a ANN link to whichever is the first form (manga/anime), as ANN is very good at interlinking all their franchise pages. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode List Split

List of Case Closed episodes is an insane 209 KBs long. It really needs some split outs into seasonal or episode lists, using the transclusion hack to reduce the main page size down to something that doesn't take a full minute to save on editing. A season 1-2 page was created, though it needs format fixing. It seems like discussion on the list talk page stalled, though, and while several folks have mentioned needing to do a split, no one could agree on whether the season divisions were even accurate. This is a seriously big job, as the current list and the season 1-2 list have bad leads, and are using EpGuides as the only ref *shudder*. Anyone feeling like taking on the task? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the series has been aired more or less continuously since 1996, there is no official designation of "seasons" as in any other anime. In m personal opinion, what could be used is the volumes as used in Japanese-release DVDs.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The way I understand it, when there is no other clear-cut division between seasons, Opening/Ending theme changes are typically used as delimiters. And I've intended to start on this list for awhile now (at least as far back as when I started working on List of Case Closed chapters), but the sheer size of the thing has encouraged me to focus my energies elsewhere... —Dinoguy1000 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit daunting, isn't it? I'm not sure the volumes of the Japanese DVDs can be used unless it was released as box sets, since most Japanese DVD volumes tend to be just 2-4 episodes. Lacking season breaks, I think a break by changing theme would work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The series is divided in seasons. See this DVD description from CD Japan: "Volume one in the forteenth season of anime series "Meitantei Conan" includes episodes 390 through 393".--Nohansen (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The question that arises when dealing with the seasons as the DVDs place them is, do all (or a significant majority) of DVD releases agree on the season divisions? If not, how do we decidde which one might be "correct"? Personally, I'd rather skip the whole business and go by theme changes for now, and then let the details of the DVD sections be hashed out on a talk page. —Dinoguy1000 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying "accurate", "clear-cut" (or make that "official") season divisions exist, so it's not absolutely necessary to use opening/Ending theme changes as delimiters. But if those seasonal brakes aren't used, the lists should be named "List of Case Closed episodes (Part #)", not "List of Case Closed episodes (Season #)"--Nohansen (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terms Chibi and Super Deformed

Editor JohnnyMrNinja has gone through a lot of articles in the last day or so removing the term "Chibi" and replacing it with "super deformed" saying it was a "misuse of the term." He doesn't seem to be reading for context much, and I'm wondering if this change is correct. Can someone else with a better grasp of the difference between the two take a look at his edits and see if his changes are correct? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Chibi article, "chibi" itself refers to small children or animals, and not to the art style denoted by "super deformed". Personally, though, I'm not comfortable enough with my knowledge of the term to bear judgement on anyone else, and I've actually used the term "chibi" in the past to refer to "super deformed". —Dinoguy1000 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This may be another one of those terms that mutated when imported into English. I've also heard (ever since I first heard of the concept) chibi used for superdeformed. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I remember a previous debate on this, but anyway. From everything I gather, SD means it's actually deformed -- that is, out of normal proportions. Pocket Fighter and Super Puzzle Fighter 2 Turbo use SD characters. Chibi just means small, but retaining normal proportions, like this fanart of 'chibi' Sailor Senshi. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's how I remember them being, Chibi being small, but normal, while SD is super deformed. I don't think they are the exact same, and am concerned he is not distinguishing between these terms in his mass changes. I know he didn't in Full Moon o Sagashite when he changed the description of Madoka's pig from "chibi" to "super deformed" when it is a normal, but small pig.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Where appropriate I have left the term chibi. I still agree with the reasoning behind this edit [1]. If by "chibi pig" they meant "a small pig", then your edit was correct. I read it several times to try and figure it out. If there are specific edits you disagree with, as with that one, then please change them. But I am quite aware of the different uses of the term, hence the reason I was changing references. I have replaced (many of) the anime references to chibi with super deformed because chibi is a japanese word meaning small, and does not actually refer to a drawing-style, although it does have a lot of weight with many anime fans. Please read the articles. I think most of my edits were appropriate, like [2]. It is possible that the original editor meant "small", but I assume they knew that English already has a word for that (which is "small"). JohnnyMrNinja 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with that; the terms are different, even if a number of fans have failed to really distinguish. No reason to use chibi where small will do without good reason. I'd also say chibi, in Japanese, is usually insulting; it is possible certain segments of fandom do use it to describe cute things, but I would not call it a common usage. Doceirias (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to point out that "chibi" isn't the only anime- and manga-related term that is used incorrectly by fans in the context of its actual definition. For instance, "hentai" is Japanese for "metamorphosis" or "abnormality" (according to its article), whereas in the U.S., it's used to refer to pornographic anime and manga (feel free to correct me if I got something wrong). There are probably better examples, but that's the only one I could come up with. —Dinoguy1000 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I just changed the chibi article to this. When I first learned the word chibi I thought it only meant SD - it wasn't until I learned more Japanese that I understood the difference. According to the Japanese Wikipedia, "chibi character" (ちびキャラ chibi kyara?) is used to refer to super deformed (see ja:ちびキャラ). "SD" is apparently also used (ja:SD), but the super deformed article (ja:スーパー・デフォルメ) hasn't been written yet. Due the fact that "chibi" as it has been adopted into English can be used to mean "super deformed", I think it is fine to use chibi to mean such in appropriate articles. I personally find "super deformed" awkward to read in an adjective-noun construction, but it doesn't matter to me what the final consensus is. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if the use of ちび is becoming more commonly used to mean "super deformed", it shouldn't be used in that manner in articles, because it's improper. Chibi and Super deformed remain terms with different meanings, and are not to be confused with each other. On the other hand, it may be helpful to note such disputed usage, for clarity's sake. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Archive

Maybe a dumb question...but is there any particular reason we aren't using a bot to archive this talk page instead of trying to manually maintain the month by month archives? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask the same about deletion archives. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
VG project's one and Military history's counterpart. --Mika1h (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's curious, because I thought we had an archive bot routinely archiving this page. Should we request one? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, its manual. We can add one, but have to have consensus/agreement to go that route instead. Though I figure if its good enough for AN/I, we certainly can go that route too ;) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with a bot archiver... —Dinoguy1000 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, done. I set it with a 30 day trigger. I also set it up so that the HBC indexerbot will create a topical index for us on another page, to aid finding old topics (I hope). :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chibi Vampire redux

Consensus was reached last month to rename Karin (manga) to its English release title of Chibi Vampire. Now an editor who was apparently on wikibreak for a few months has rehashed the discussion, disagreeing with the renaming and trying to argue that the article is a "wreck" after all the clean up work that went into it to bring it line with the MoS. Anyone want to come join the rediscussion, yet again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay...now making a stronger request for folks from the project to come weigh in as the discussion has been joined by one editor who has been following me around just to disagree, and an IP as well. Despite the previous discussion and the current arguments that Chibi Vampire is the official and more well known name for English speaking places, and the appropriate name to use per our MoS and Wikipedia naming conventions, people are still arguing to change the article name back to Karin (manga). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GetBackers chapter titles

I sarted this discussion in order to add some titles. I am adding the link here to see if anybody has them. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katsuhiro Nomura

For the Japanese article for Katsuhiro Nomura, it says in hiragana, his name is Katsuhito, so I think the English article was giving the incorrect name.Kitty53 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, it does. Maybe it was improperly transliterated. Move? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved it, but it looks like afd candidate to me; he's been in more than those two things, but not a lot more, and probably not ready for his own page. Doceirias (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking CSD actually, but agreed. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, prodded. I would've gone through the AfD process, but it seems useless considering it could be easily taken care of via proposed deletion. Should the author have a problem with it, I will just take it to Article for deletion and get it settled there. Best, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC).
No, I have no problem. I created that back when I was still new to Wiki.--十八 06:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, and thanks Juhachi. :) --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two GAs Under Advisement

I've left notice at two of our GAs, Elfen Lied and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime), that they will be delisted or sent to GAR in two weeks if they are not cleaned up and fixed up to meet the current GA guidelines. Biggest issue with both are referencing issues and MoS issues. Anyone else want to jump in to help here? I, as well as Juihachi, have done some work on Elfen Lied, but there is some resistance from the resident editors about removing excessive plot and non-free images, and applying the MoS. See the talk page for the current discussion regarding all, as well as concerns on how to find references for stuff (some of which seems borderline OR). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no resistance to bringing Elfen Lied up to the MoS standards, we all have that goal. None of us are having problems with reducing the plot. I would just like it if you would stop talking down to us and allow us to come to a consensus. You are really unwilling to discuss this and you keep pointing us to long debate pages from here. YOU need to explain your rationale, you can use quotes from these discussions that explain what you're getting at, but don't simply assume that if we read the discussions we'll agree with you.

"When reverting other people's edits, be sure to give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war." -WP:Etiquette

Also, you keep saying the free content policy is not negotiable, but that simply isn't true. There are exceptions and you are required to discuss the reasons why a given image should/shouldn't be included in a page. You simply cannot say "not good enough". I want to reach a consensus WP:CON (see chart), you need to assume good faith with us "resident editors" and stop treating us like idiots.
Specifically my complaints are: we need a better infobox picture (MoS doesn't require a specific cover pic), we to keep some of those images you deleted to illustrate some key ideas in the article (I disagree that they're merely "decoration"). I agree that we need to balance the content and fix the page to conform to MoS. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Could really use some more views over at Elfen Lied as the two resident editors are now edit warring over the clean up, even undoing the infobox fixes that were done after the recent update of the infobox, and removing valid tags (article needs a serious copyediting). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I welcome more opinions as well. Collectonian, I don't like being talked about like I'm not here, or like I'm resisting bringing this up to the MoS. I'm disagreeing with the changes you are making, I don't think they necessarily have anything to do with the MoS or any other project or WP policy. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't like being called a nazi either or otherwise insulted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't call you a nazi (or call you anything for that matter). Read it again if you like. I'll give you a hint, it's your attitude which is causing the problem, I wouldn't normally have a problem with someone making the same edits and cordially explaining what they were doing (and being willing to listen to other opinions). What you did is make drastic changes without warning, then treating us like idiots for not agreeing with you. Again "calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others". I.E. posting one or two lines into the discusison wall and contantly reverting, saying that the change has already been discussed (I think forgot that you need a consensus). It's not that we think we OWN the article, we're merely reacting to being treated poorly. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian: While your edits are always done in good faith (IMO), you sometimes do have a tendency to talk down to other editors or dismiss them as not knowing what they are talking about. While you are often correct in your opinions and information presentation, you are not always correct. I've seen a huge improvement over the last while in how you present your opinions, but you still have a tendency to butt heads with people when a slightly different approach would have led to the desired result with far fewer (or no) ruffled feathers. Rather than being bold all the time, it's sometimes better to take a more subtle and gentle approach to changes, especially if your edits are questioned. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beelzebub (Sand Land), a redirected GA

This good article has been redirected to Sand Land for being mostly a plot summary, as well lacking more conception and reception data. Anyone here think there is still a chance for it to be trimmed, re-written, filled with primary and secondary data, and saved? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I got to admit, I'm not sure a one volume manga really ever needs to be more than a single page. Doceirias (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with Doceirias. For a single volume manga, its highly unlikely any of the characters good be expanded. Not sure how it passed GA before, as the sourcing is spotty (a LiveJournal post, a French forum, and a DeviantArt page are the sources for the reception section). It should, however, be delisted, which I'll do in a moment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be sure, a wiki-bot will get to the double redirects right? Or does one have to do a bot request? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A bot will eventually get to them. :) If any are critical/important links, like from the main, may want to go ahead and delink. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I was also thinking that we could set up the character list on Sand Land with span id coding (for possible redirects), like at The Third, Hikaru no Go and Death Note. Does this make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, since its unlikely this one can support a standalone character list. Though, the question would then be, what would actually be linking to the characters? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You leave that to me ;) though it might be best to wait until the bot gets to those double redirects. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for character list

Comments at the peer review for List of Naruto characters are welcomed, as I don't think we've ever had an anime/manga character list go to WP:FLC, and I would like to work out all the kinks before going to the aforementioned process (specifically copy-editing, given how much prose is in the article). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting arbitration: Edits to Elfen Lied

I've been working on upgrading it to FA for three months, but it seems like Collectonian is disrupting us with er own opinions. Her interpretation of WP:MOS is inconsistent with mine and she is considering delisting it as a GA (its current status). We've had a recent edit war and I've consulted other editors (see the talk page). Would someone please arbitrate? ætərnal ðrAعon 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of Collectionian's statements (the plot bit is currently being discussed on the MOS page, but she may well be right there to) are the voice of experience, rather than personal preference. As in, that is what can pass the GA/FA approval process. She has spent a lot of time on clean ups, and knows what she's talking about. You should listen to her; she knows what she's doing. Doceirias (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, as already recorded above, the consideration for delisting came first, and is not just because of MoS violations, but also serious referencing issues (big no no for GA, much less FA). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll agree with you on that.  :P --Kraftlos (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to take Elfen Lied to good article reassessment. -Malkinann (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If the issues are not fixed, a straight delisting after warning is perfectly in keeping with the delisting guidelines. So far, nothing is being done, and the referencing issues are going completely unaddressed so it will be delisted. Any particular reason for feeling it needs a GAR? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has been reshuffled a fair bit as a result of your warning and your work on the article over the last two weeks. As such, it may be helpful to seek a wider opinion and fresh eyes to help to determine the status of the article. If there are problems with referencing specific controversial statements, it may be more helpful to anyone potentially interested in fixing referencing to use {{fact}} rather than {{unreferenced}}. -Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ther ehas been some reshuffling, but no actual work, and quite a bit of it was undone. The referencing issues haven't been addressed at all, nor many of the other issues I noted. I probably will do a GAR, though, to avoid the resident editors claiming its something personal. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece (anime)

This one appears to be more or less a copy-paste of One Piece. I was about to tag it for deletion but perhaps someone sees potential in this article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete it. Seems like someone tagged the main for splitting, and someone went ahead and just copy pasted without really doing it. In either case, though, I don't see any reason to split them. Rather One Piece itself just needs some serious cleaning up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Same person, actually - looks like he didn't quite understand how the process works. Agree there's no need for a split. Doceirias (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone looked at List of One Piece episodes yet? *shudder* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen worse ;) have you ever looked at List of Street Fighter II V episodes? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, at least it didn't have that hideous navigation thing that was on the One Piece one, and two see also (one repeating all the plot in "story arcs" and one giving the US broadcast) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece cleanup

As part of the new "clean up One Piece" effort, I've made a proposal to reorganize the main episode list. I've started a discussion to look at reorganizing it into seasons or by opening theme change here: Talk:List of One Piece episodes#List organization. Please come offer you views. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gatchaman

Delete the One piece anime article if you wish since Democracy has spoken but surely you must see sense in this. I have made some addition Gatchaman pages to distinguish them from one one another I feel a template needs to be made also.

Plus I feel Eagle Riders and Gatchaman II should be redirected to their respective pages rather than Science Ninja Team Gatchaman. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


I feel the articles Gatchaman II (TV Series) should be renamed Gatchaman II and Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) renamed Eagle Riders. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...another mess to clean up. Tagged for undoing another bad set of splits (also badly named splits), which are all of one paragraph each. The main Science Ninja Team Gatchaman needs some serious clean up and reformatting as well. Its rather confusing, can't tell if its about an anime series itself or the characters in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manhwa and manhua?

Something that's bugged me for awhile (this and a million other things =P ) is the fact that our scope explicitly excludes manhwa and manhua. I haven't done much reading into the archives, so I don't know if there's been past discussion on this, but I think it wouldn't hurt for us not to explicitly exclude these from our scope. Manhwa and manhua, IMHO, are close enough to manga, geographically and in terms of style, for this project to support them without sacrificing or weakening its identity, and we wouldn't necessarily have to state that we explicitly support them, either. In addition, it would be easy enough to relenquish support to a dedicated project should one be created at any point in the future. Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Geographic location matters not. Many countries are close to each other and have similar cultures, but it does not make them the same. Anime and manga are different than manhua and manwha, so they don't fall under the category. For now, they are under the China and Korea Wikiprojects. However, the two projects main focus is on more popular aspects, instead of comics. Unfortunately, manhua and manwha aren't as popular in English speaking countries as manga, and are even mistakenly called manga. Adding them to the Wikiproject would make people want to add "English Language Manga/Anime", which means another flood of comics and shows. And then the creators of those comics/shows. We already have so much to do already; it would make it much more difficult to add the rest. I am, however, in support of having a Wikiproject for both. I'd help out with them, though with their current popularity, I'm not sure how well it would work.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Maybe they can start a task force for manhwa and manhua. Cattus talk 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, there's an argument over on Blade of the Phantom Master with one side not wanting any mention of the author's origin, and the other wanting to mention it. Yay! I love retarded ethnic edit wars. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I normally strip out the author's and illustrator's nationalities in an anime and manga article more for brevity then anything else. Particularly, when there is already an article about them where their nationalities should be given in the lead. However, I have no problems with adding nationalities in front of the terms "anime" and "manga". Especially with the terms being increasingly abused in order to "cash-in" on the manga/anime fad. --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions (Using English?)

While updating the infoboxes in several articles, I've noticed that a lot of them are still under their Japanese titles instead of an English translation of the title. WP:MOS-AM doesn't say anything about this particular siltation unless that anime or manga has been licensed in English, but WP:USEENGLISH pretty much states to use the English version of the name. I'm assuming that means to use the translated titles, with exceptions such as Ai Yori Aoshi where the Japanese title is also the official English language title. So, should we rename these articles to the English translated title? --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is an English title in common use, the transliterated title should be used. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As NihonJoe says. We're following WP:MOS-JP here. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So to use a recent example I came across, Moe Kare!! should be renamed to Burning Love (manga)? --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The manga is not licensed under that name, so no.--十八 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why no? Doesn't using Moe Kare!! conflict with WP:USEENGLISH? I don't see anything in either WP:MOS-AM or WP:MOS-JP stating to name articles by their romanized titles. --Farix (Talk) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We conform by WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation: Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. (bolded portions are to prove my point). To use your example, do you find the title Burning Love to be more well-known for that series than Moe Kare?--十八 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't read it that way. I see it is that a romanized title will override an official English title if the romanized title can be demonstrated to be more recognized be English speackers. At least, that is what that statement in WP:MOS-AM is suppose to mean. --Farix (Talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a gray area ripe for debate. Just take a look at Talk:Chibi Vampire.--十八 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is an English title, whether provided by the Japanese edition, by fans, or by the official edition, then yeah, we'd use that; in the absence of that, particularly with hard to translate titles, the romanized one is more accurate. It can be moved if/when the series acquires an English title. (Burning Love is also not an accurate translation; that kanji means budding, not burning. This is the danger with fan translations. The fans in question might not know what they're doing.) Basically, it just comes down to so many titles really being very difficult to translate well, and the feeling that Wikipedia is maybe not the place to create an English name. Doceirias (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that the Kare in the title translates to "boyfriend"...--十八 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What about Ninin Ga Shinobuden? I see it in the states (in magazines and dvds) as Ninja Nonsense. The manga is apparently licensed as the Japanese name. Where does this article belong? Note: I really hate the translated title but still, I'm not sure it follows convention on this one. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Use the name that the manga is licensed as. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be subject to debate, but since the primary work was licensed under the name Ninin Ga Shinobuden, that's what the article title should be (and the rest of the article should be altered to be consistent with this). A similar debate was discussed at Talk:Chibi Vampire since the manga (primary work) was licensed under Chibi Vampire, but the anime was licensed under Karin (original title).--十八 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is already being discussed at WT:MOS-AM#Clarification Needed?.--十八 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

An official English title should be used, if there is one, particularly if there is one for the primary work. If there is not one, then the transliterated title should be used. Using fan translated titles is just asking for problems, as different fansub/scanslation groups will come changing it to their preferred titles. The romanized is the most commonly known title. If its licensed for English release, then we move to the English title. Also, note, work is being done to clarify our MoS regarding naming conventions to better explain thie. You might want to check the proposed rewrite.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that possession conflicts with WP:USEENGLISH, which states we use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). For example, would you see an English reference work use Lucy of the Southern Rainbow or Minami no Niji no Lucy (ANN)? --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by possession? Doceirias (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant "position". --Farix (Talk) 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Worked it out too late to change. I'd agree that a fan translated title can be used (when there is no official English title) if there is a clear favorite, but also think it is worth going against WP:USEENGLISH when there isn't a clear favorite, or several hotly contested names. If there isn't an English name with any real popularity, then we must used the romanized name. Wikipedia isn't the place to make an English name. Doceirias (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
But we are not making an English name, we are translating it to English. --Farix (Talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a rare name that can be translated that easily. Most names would actually be making a new title based on the Japanese one, and require a creative decision. Doceirias (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Doceirias' comment ("If there is an English title, whether provided by the Japanese edition, by fans, or by the official edition, then yeah, we'd use that") made me think: If the original title in Japan was in English, and the North American licensor changed it to another title (also in English), which do we use?--Nohansen (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From the discussions on the MoS, it seems like it would be the NA one (and we really should combine these discussions into one place :P) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Not even the proposed additions to the guideline ("Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, use the version best known and that has contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world.") seem to suggest that. I mean, what's more "official English title" than the original English title?--Nohansen (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You may have found something else to clarify, then. Since the Japanese provided titles are often in questionable English (look at the horrific names they've given the Haruhi novels) it seems only natural to favor the names designed by the Western companies. Maybe add the word "licensed" between official and English? Doceirias (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the key there is "use the version best known and that has contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world." While the title may have an English title in Japan, which title is best known to the broader English speaking world? While there are some anime/manga fans who do view stuff from Japan before its released, a large portion of them are first exposed to series on Cartoon Network, or just picking up a book in the library or buying. There are a good chunk of fans that won't even watch series subtitled, much less would have a clue about its origins. Some even like the 4Kids editing. All of that should be taken into consideration...though in reality, how many such titles are there, that have an English name in Japan and are renamed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the "becoming known in the English-speaking world" part doesn't come into play unless the primary work "is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries". And to answer your question: Apocalypse Meow was originally titled Cat Shit One. Changes happen.--Nohansen (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this was addressed above, but just wanted to throw in my two cents here. The logic behind things like "use English" is to help make things less confusing for the reader. In the case of anime we have a strange situation where a lot of people are often more likely to have heard of a work untranslated. If the end result is that translating the title and moving the articles to those titles would cause more confusion than keeping them in their current place, then it's probably not a good idea. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we only do this if we can prove, with reliable sources, that the original names and untranslated works are more common. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say I agree with Ned Scott on this one: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We should look at this on a case by case situation. We cannot assume that the English name (in Japan) is more common, nor can we assume that the American English name is more common: that can only be established against reliable sources. According to WP:MoS-JP#Names of companies, products, and organizations, we should honour the official name given to a product by the original company, though, that absent, the Romanization. Maybe we should get more input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan and WP:ENGLISH?
Refer also: WP:MoS#Foreign terms, WP:ENGLISH (Specifically WP:ENGLISH#Include alternatives).
G.A.S 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to WhisperToMe: Not really, because we're not making a statement in the article itself that says "this title is more known than this". The naming of the article is more of a technical matter. We're basically making a decision to help with navigation. The article itself should mention both the original Japanese title as well as a translation. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as navigation is concerned, even after the article's name is settled on, wouldn't we still make redirects out of alternative titles that were considered? —Dinoguy1000 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the crux of the problem is English speakers in WP:NC and English-speaking world in the MoS is not well-defined, as is a user in WP:ENGLISH (Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article.)...--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legend of the Glass Fleet → Glass Fleet

I have made a request to move the article Legend of the Glass Fleet to Glass Fleet. To participate, please see the discussion page. --Farix (Talk) 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MoS rewrite to clarify naming conventions

There is an ongoing discussion, and a suggestion, on the MoS concerning a rewrite to address issues with naming articles. Have a look at the discussion and suggestion, everyone's input there is welcome. —Dinoguy1000 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles. While, for the most part, this doesn't have an affect on us directly, I think it would be good to weigh in as the TV episode guidelines often do influence our own. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any Dragon Ball fan there?

Yesterday, I created List of Dragon Ball chapters, but I dont have the Viz Media edition of the volumes, so Im unable to add the chapter list or a volume title, could anybody who has a volume give a hand? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, anyone want to help wrestle the hideousness that are the multiple List of Dragon Ball episodes articles into some decent shape? They are badly named, with the "dubbed" episodes all pushed out to separate lists. I've fixed some to remove the "Japanese" from them in prep for a proper merge, but for the series size (and sometimes rabitity of fans), assistance would be good. Discussion started here on the need to merge, clean up, and do a proper episode list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had List of Dragon Ball Z dubbed episodes on my watchlist for a while, and I can say first-hand that these need some serious work. As for the chapter list, I noticed their conspicuous absence previously, but never really did anything about it, though I have been checking DB volumes out at the library. Looks like I'll have to re-request them to help you out... —Dinoguy1000 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks--Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It can be done! :P The former two episode lists for Dragon Ball GT have been neatly combined into one well formatted List of Dragon Ball GT episodes, with a real lead, some refs, etc. Still needs some work, as many of the episodes are missing their transliterated and translated titles. If no one else gets to them first, I'll try to get them added later this week or weekend. Took about three hours. Weee! Anyone familiar with the series want to give the lead a check. I think I got the details right, using what I found in the references, but should be checked to be sure. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

A recent comment in one of our peer reviews brought a thought to mind. Should the project have a page/list that notes websites that are considered to be reliable sources, with a brief explanation/rationale as to why they are? While those of us who are familiar with the industry know that sites like Anime News Network and AnimeOnDVD are reliable sources, I've seen them questioned in peer reviews, GANs, FLCs, and FACs. Anime and manga is somewhat of a niche, so those who aren't "in the know" may not realize that sites like these are reliable sources. The list could include the site names, URLs, and a brief explanation of why it is a reliable source. Such a list could also be quite useful for our editors in trying to looking for resources to use, and not use, especially for the reception sections of articles. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, but it would have to be maintained in that websites added to that list would have to first get community approval before deemed "reliable" (by crosschecking the site with WP:RS), although that probably won't stop a mess load of non-notable sites from people who think they're reliable, and I can imagine now the edit wars that will ensue. Still, I have been involved with editors in the past that try to argue about ANN's reliability, but even we can admit that ANN isn't always 100% correct about the information on the anime/manga encyclopedia entries which comprises most of the site's purpose.--十八 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the ANN encylopedia's entries aren't always totally accurate since some parts are user edited, however, I think we can agree their news articles are WP:RS. Those are the items, however, some unfamiliar with the arena have questioned as being someone's blog rantings. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig names

A question has been posed at the MoS talk page questioning whether we should change the disambiguation guidelines in the MoS to replace anime with TV series or OVA (as appropriate) to follow the guidelines of the TV project. Please feel free to go to the discussion and offer your thoughts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the WP:TV-NAME conventions; not WP:TV guidelines.--Nohansen (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Dragon

Anyone familiar with the Blue Dragon anime and manga adaptations from the video game? The manga series currently have their own articles: Blue Dragon: Secret Trick and Blue Dragon Ral Grad. There is not one for the anime, beyond a bad plot summary that redirects back to the game. Another editor asked me if the anime should have its own article, but I'm not completely familiar with the work to answer for sure. Is the anime based on the game or on the manga? Are the manga series based on the anime or are they unrelated? Trying to get a clear idea of the relationships to determine if the anime should be covered in one of the manga articles, or if it should have a standalone article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I could determine, they're all a big media mix. I'd guess the anime is fine with a page of its own; certainly, Ral Grad was distinct enough (and should probably be retitled without the Blue Dragon, since it was removed from the official English release.) Doceirias (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Guess a page for it should be made then. For Ral Grad, interesting that Viz got away with releasing it as Ral Grad, but Tokyopop is required to use Blue Dragon RalΩGrad for its German release. That article also needs some cleanup and real world info added. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup task force, round two

Reviving this dead discussion. Rough draft of the task force. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on having something where participants can say they are taking on article X or to otherwise "sign up" to work on something from the list? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Added. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seiyuu roles

Ok, I've actually brought this up before, but I think that was well over a year ago. What's the MOS for seiyuu roles? I looked up 4 (relatively popular) seiyuu and chose 3 of the 4, because all three are different. See

I just noticed this, but even the sections are different in all three (not to mention linking in the section name in one). But for my original point, style wise, they're all different. I know according to the general MOS, the roles should be listed chronologically, so Rie Tanaka's is wrong off the bat in alphabetical order. Then of the two that are listed by year, the format showing what character in the series uses either a dash or paranthesis, the latter of which I like, but isn't part of WP:LOW#Filmographies. The sectioning by year doesn't appear there either. If people want something different than the general WP:LOW version, can we add the MOS for seiyuu somewhere on WP:MOS-AM#People so we can more or less standarize the style so they all look similar? I keep wanting to standarize them, but I don't know what people here want. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Poo, no one cares =P Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Shunga painting in Hentai article

The famous Hokusai shunga painting The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is currently being used in the Hentai article. However, historically shunga is not considered a type of pornography, but a type of artwork, therefore I do not believe Hokusai's painting belongs in the article, as it is not Hentai (or an early form of it). Any thoughts? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is getting free content, I imagine. That photo is public domain...most hentai isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but it doesn't seem very relevant. It's like putting an image of Michelangelo's David in the Gay pornography article, or at least that's how I see it. I'm sure there are plenty of relevant Hentai images uploaded for use in articles like this. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It used to be relevant, if I recall correctly. There's even a bit on it in the lead, but the actual section of the article appears to have been snipped at some point. Doceirias (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, Doceirias; wasn't that painting one of the inspirations for the tentacle rape genre? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) I see. In that case, should I modify the caption for the image to relect such inspiration? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The image is perfectly relevant as the article covers hentai/pornographic manga, and shunga are precursors to modern manga. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FICT RfC

In case anyone didn't notice the message in the box above, there's currently a discussion concerning whether the existing version of WP:FICT should become a guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Feel free to comment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another move request

This time Sentō Yōsei Yukikaze to Yukikaze (anime). To participate, please see the discussion page. --Farix (Talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Adhering to naming conventions"

I'm working on changing the Dragon Ball "guidelines" to no longer advocate using the manga and/or English subtitles for the Japanese dub, and to switch to the English dub names. It may not be PREFERRED to use these, but naming conventions encourages the use of them nonetheless - namely, it suggests to use the "most common English name", which would be the anime names (based on common sense - the anime is marketed more than the manga, and is the basis for most merchandise based on the series), and the guideline recommending the usage of the names that would least surprise the reader (that is, the name that the reader would most expect to be used should be used). Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be an inappropriate change to the guidelines as they would conflict with the Anime and manga guidelines and could cause a lot of conflict with the editors. The manga is the primary work, so its names and content should be focused on first, with the anime differences noted as needed. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Clarification Needed?, in particular the subsection "Another concern", for current discussions on modifying our MoS to better clarify this and some remarks speaking to the need to emphasis the primary work, especially when both are licensed. Also see #Naming conventions (Using English?) above.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the manga is the primary work, but that does not mean that using the names from the manga is most helpful to those reading the articles. Anime and manga's MOS conflicts directly with that of Wikipedia's, and thusly, cannot be applied to anything. If the manga were dreadfully unpopular in English territories, you would certainly have a hard time establishing cause to use it over the anime. And the fact of the matter is that there are no English territories where the manga is more popular or well-known than the anime, so it being the primary format for the series doesn't change the fact that most people who know the series know it because of the anime. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the MoS does not. They are completely in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and all relevant MoS. You have shown no evidence that the anime is somehow insanely more popular than the manga, nor does the entire choice come down to a popularity contest. The manga is the primary work, it is what should be used for all articles. They are of equal value, with the manga being slightly above based on it being the first work and without which there would be no anime at all. Also, note that Viz calls both the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z manga as two of its most popular titles, right up there with Rurouni Kenshin. It was among the top manga sales in its earlier years, only toppled by Naruto relatively recently. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with A Link to the Past in that, yes, the MoS (sometimes) conflicts with Wikipedia's conventions, guidelines and others aspects of WP:STYLE. TheFarix pointed out one conflict ("I actually think that position conflicts with WP:USEENGLISH") in Naming conventions (Using English?), and I pointed out another in WT:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. But, honestly, I don't see how this relates to Dragon Ball because, as far as I know, the characters are named the same. I thought the only difference was in romanization ("Krillin" vs. "Kuririn").--Nohansen (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that people insist on the less common romanization because of the manga, which is not in the best interests of the reader. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You got a point there. After all, WP:MOS-JP says "names should be romanized according to common usage", and Kuririn's article says "Krillin" is used in most English adaptations (a little evidence for this claim would be nice). To paraphrase Collectonian, "a large portion of [anime/manga fans] are first exposed to series on Cartoon Network, or just picking up a book in the library or buying. There are a good chunk of fans that won't even watch series subtitled, much less would have a clue about its origins. Some even like the 4Kids editing. All of that should be taken into consideration" when decided "the version best known and that has contributed most to the [anime/manga]'s becoming known in the English-speaking world".--Nohansen (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, this appears to be an extension of an on-going argument occurring at Talk:Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Why Can't We Use English Names? regarding the use of Son Goku over Goku. Disclosure about why you are posing the question is a good thing.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that is exactly what we're supposed to do, we're supposed to cater to the most popular names. Guidelines say this constantly. And let me add that there is very, very little opportunity for those not into Dragon Ball to understand the manga well. The anime was advertised heavily on television, had several DVD releases, most if not all merchandise based on the series in the US is based on the anime, and there's no way for someone to really be exposed to the manga without attempting to expose themselves to it, while all the person has to do to see the anime is have cable and be on the channel when it's on. It's a lot simpler, and the fact of the matter is that the anime was exposed to people watching Cartoon Network, those who are fans and those who are not, while the manga cannot "expose" itself to anyone, they have to have an interest in it. And the one most important question is "does focusing on the manga's naming conventions help the average reader looking to learn about the series?" And the next more important question? "Would the average reader know the character as Goku or Son Goku most?" The average reader does not read the manga, the average reader does not own the DVDs. And your comment about the manga taking precedence because it's the primary medium for the series, that's not backed up by any policy or guideline on Wikipedia - that is, at the very least, any guideline that supports that argument is one-upped by "Naming conventions (use English)", saying to use the most common English name. And on top of all this, if we had used the FUNi dub, the vast majority of Dragon Ball fans who know the direct translation names know the FUNi dub names. It doesn't hurt them to use those names for the title (which is not exactly relevant, since they don't need to be catered to) - there is no confusion in using these names at all, and they don't need these articles. However, according to naming conventions, using a name that would "surprise" a reader to see the article under that title is discouraged. Goku would be known by basically every single person who's ever heard of the character. If they know him as Goku or Son Goku, Goku is commonly affiliated with the character. Since naming conventions says to use the title the reader would find least surprising (Goku), and since using Goku would be of no harm to fans of Dragon Ball, it should be used. Knowing who Kururin is means you almost definitely know who Krillin is, but knowing who Krillin is does not mean you know who Kururin is. So in your way, people who don't need to read the article are helped while those who do need the article are not. In my way, the people who need to read the article are helped, and the people who don't just stay the way they are - in their continuous state of not being helped or hurt. The only thing that using the manga names serves to accomplish is to fulfill peoples' personal preference. Do you dispute this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
And the reason I posted it here is for the reason that it should be posted here. I dealt with DB naming conventions, Sailor Moon naming conventions, European naming disputes, Japanese game naming disputes, etc. It is not "an extension of this argument". I plan on altering the conventions of all anime and any other project that may support Japanese preference or preference to names that would not follow the naming conventions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still disagree. I'll let others weigh in and try to convince you as well. I would, however, strongly caution you against saying you will "alter" the conventions without noting you will only do so with consensus. Doing so just because you (and so far only you) think it is wrong will result in very quick reverting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Collectonian on all points. In actuality, there have been three significant discussions on moving "Son Goku". Here are the links: #Move to Goku., #Move, and #Requested move per WP:MOS-JP#Names & WP:GOOGLE. The names and configurations will pretty much remain where they stand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change - that is an official Wikipedia guideline. At no point can discussion be discouraged because it's been discussed before. Throughout the entire discussions, the only arguments cited in favor of the manga were based on using a less common romanization. The articles admit that Krillin is more common. Wikipedia guidelines state that the most common name should be used. What's the problem? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but not in this case as long as I live and breath. His name is Son Goku, and there is absolutely not reason to remove one of the names. Most people and characters are not referred to by their full name, yet I have never seen anyone else propose discarding part of the full name on the grounds that it isn't used as much. You might have an argument on the different spellings between anime and manga, but this Son Goku -> Goku argument is laughably absurd. Doceirias (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the "Bill Clinton" argument. The man's actual, full name is William Jefferson Clinton; but the article is named "Bill Clinton" because that's the name he is best known by. Another example would be H. P. Lovecraft.--Nohansen (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
He's not arguing changing it to Bill Clinton, he's arguing changing it to Clinton. Doceirias (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have to take it so literal (if anything, he's arguing changing it to "Bill"). The point is still the same, there appears nothing wrong with "discarding part of the full name on the grounds that it isn't used as much". Another examples are Alfred Hitchcock and Uncle Ben. At any rate, I'm more concerned with the romanization of Kuririn, Yamucha and I-don't-know how many more characters.--Nohansen (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a light year's difference between shortening one of the names to a nickname and removing one entirely, on the hilariously flimsy grounds that it isn't used as much. And "Clinton" would be the commonly used name in that case; first and last was irrelevant. Doceirias (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You lost me; I have no idea what you're getting at. But here's another example: May Reilly Parker, commonly known as Aunt May. It seems this is the way it's supposed to work: articles on people and fictional characters are named after that person's or fictional character's most common (or recognized) name. It's Clark Kent, not "Clark Joseph Kent". Nisio Isin instead of "Ishin Nishio". Steven Spielberg instead of Steven Allan Spielberg. Gardner Fox instead of "Gardner Francis Fox". It's not me, it's the "community" that's saying it.--Nohansen (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's Steven Spielberg, not Spielberg. I don't think calling a character by a first name most of the time makes a name change worth doing. Plenty of characters have a first or a last name that is never really mentioned, but the character pages remain at the full name. Uncle Ben and Aunt May are certainly cases where an exception has been made, but I don't think this situation qualifies for that exception. Doceirias (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are Aunt May and Uncle Ben exceptions? The most common name is not the full name. Do you have a guideline that advocates using the full name even if it is not the most common name for the character? A large majority of people know the character as Goku. And if you asked everyone who's seen the anime and/or manga who Goku is, they would know. If you ask them who Son Goku is, most would be confused. Wikipedia guidelines tell us to use the name the majority of people would best recognize, and Son Goku does not qualify. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why those are exceptions, having not been party to the naming discussions. I think the difference here is that all versions of Spiderman refer to them as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, with very few exceptions. Only one version of Dragonball refers to Son Goku without his last name. It might be the most common version, but it is not the only common version, and there is not reason to give it preference when the full version is equally correct. "Goku" is still there as part of "Son Goku"; it does not become less correct to have the full name. Eliminating the last name, however, does add a bias towards the English dub which I do not feel is justified. By all means, Goku should be, and I assume is, a redirect. But the page name should not be made less accurate because one version of several common versions chose to simplify things. Doceirias (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Being biased towards the English dub is EXACTLY why Goku is best. The English Wikipedia is supposed to be as biased as humanly possibly towards English content. The literally one and only reason people choose to use the manga's names is that they are direct translations of the Japanese names, so in essence, the DB taskforce cares about giving bias to the Japanese dub. Will you stop stonewalling and pretend that guidelines matter for anything? Here's all the things taken from guidelines that support using Goku over Son Goku:
  • "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." (you yourself stated that the most common name used for the character is Goku and not Son Goku)
  • "Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article." (the most common name, which you admit is Goku, is also the least surprising name, meaning this statement could be easily changed to "use Goku")
  • "An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese; that is, use Mount Fuji, Tokyo, jujutsu, and shogi, instead of Fuji-san, Tōkyō, jūjutsu, and shōgi." (from WP:MoSJP - Kururin is certainly not the most common form of the character's name. And in the case of Androids 17 and 18, calling them Artificial Human 17 and 18 goes against this - Android 17 and 18 may not be a proper translation of the Japanese names, but they are indeed the most common names for the characters)
As we can plainly see, the arguments in favor of Goku over Son Goku are staggeringly apparent. These guidelines do not suggest that the existence of other common mediums for the series cancels this out. All that matters is that the most common iteration of the name should be used. And looking at the mediums, we can count - manga, anime, English subtitles (only because WP:DB will advocate it being counted), and video games. The manga and English subtitles use the direct translations of the characters' names, but they are far less common than the anime. English subtitles are contained on a DVD containing the English dub, and being a secondary feature, it would be less commonly viewed than the English dub, much less so. And as can be observed, the video games, along with the TCG, action figures, and most if not all other material based on the series is based specifically on the anime, not the manga.
The biggest problem is not with my argument, but with yours - you attempt to attack our evidence at some points, but fail to respond to the attacks over your LACK of evidence. For instance, you constantly suggest a need for the use of Goku's full name, but never provide any Wikipedia guideline that suggests that full names are encouraged. And to bring up your claim that Uncle Ben and Aunt May are exceptions, why isn't Goku? The one reason Uncle Ben and Aunt May are at where they're at is simply this - these names are the most common for the characters. Similarly, Son Goku is NOT the most common name. Using Son Goku goes against two separate guidelines - and Heck, one of the guidelines is about Japanese content, making it directly related (and I can't believe how much a guideline that didn't support the argument in all the past discussions was cited so much). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, I hit a nerve here. The manga names are EQUALLY English. The current version allows us to satisfy both popular names. Anything else is irrelevant. Son Goku is his full name. There is no reason on earth we should present a less accurate name just because the version you like better choses to do so. You can Wikilawyer all you like, but your fundamental position doesn't make any sense. Doceirias (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, just curious, why do you keep acting as if being his full name is relevant to Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not belong to you, and enforcing multiple guidelines that are being blatantly violated by most if not every single anime project or taskforce. Why is the article the exception to multiple quality guidelines? And I look at your argument of "his name is Steven Spielberg, not Spielberg" - do you somehow find that a good argument? Are we asking to have first names be removed? No. Are we asking to have the common name used? Yes. Spielberg is undoubtedly not the name people commonly know him as, and Son Goku is not the name most people know him as. So why does the latter get used, but not the former? And no, Son Goku DOES NOT SATISFY GUIDELINES. You refuse to provide literally any reason why this is an exception. Son Goku is not the most common name for the character, and yet it's used. You constantly pretend that any Wikipedia guideline exists that suggests that being the most accurate name is more important than being the most common name. If we're speaking of most accurate, William Jefferson Clinton IS the most accurate name. Why isn't it used? Because it's not the most common name. It's not the name people identify him with. Bill Clinton is what the majority of the population call him. Son Goku is the most accurate name, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, it is NOT the better name. Multiple guidelines assert that the most common name is the best for the reader, so in their current state, these article can not achieve GA or FA status, as they flagrantly ignore quality guidelines. If you do not present a guideline that encourages the usage of the most accurate name in spite of it being less common than another name for the person, place, or thing, I WILL report this project for violation of WP:OWN - you do not have the right to ignore multiple established guidelines for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I find it especially bothersome that WP:JAPAN is often used by multiple anime-related projects, and yet is arbitrarily ignored when the contents work against it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. If he was much more well-known as Spielberg, he wouldn't be called the for disambig purposes. But he's not. Seeing Tupac called Tupac Shakur is not a stretch because he is known by many who are not fans of the rapper in his full name. And even if these articles are contradictory to guidelines, that does not allow for other articles to be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you threatening to report the project because I am voicing my opinion vigorously? Without, I might add, getting insulting? I am doing my level best to explain my opinions here, and your reactions are getting increasingly overwrought. If you seriously can't understand why I think there is a difference between shortening William to Bill and removing one of a character's name completely, then there's really not much more point in my trying to explain myself. The arguments you keep siting simply do not apply here. There's no regulation I can site because the regulations you are citing do not support your argument. The character's name is Son Goku, will always be Son Goku, and will not stop being Son Goku not matter how many times you attempt to wave that away in a puff of Wikilawyering. I don't believe the majority of experienced editors would agree with you, as, indeed, they have repeatedly failed to do every time you've raised the issue. Doceirias (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. No, I believe it is because you refuse to fight with actual evidence, choosing to use a mass of people with one opinion to fight against it - not because it goes against Wikipedia quality guidelines, but because of their personal preference. You are pretty much declaring ownership of the articles by stating that they will always be at this title. I've more than established that the title does not follow with Wikipedia guidelines, and yet you say it will always do so? If you can't provide any reason supported by any guideline why this would be so, I cannot help but read your statement as "we will not allow it to change our article". Care to explain why it will always be at Son Goku, without mentioning the opposition to moving (because opposition to moving which lacks any guidelines supporting such opposition is not noteworthy).
  2. And no, you are not. You are doing what is done in all discussions of following the guideline - stonewalling. You do not present any evidence, and make every attempt to deny any evidence that is provided to hurt your case.
  3. And there is no difference. Bill Clinton is where it is at because of the common name guideline. The difference in name is completely irrelevant. You constantly ignore me when I ask you to provide a guideline suggesting using only one part of a person's name is against Wikipedia quality guidelines.
  4. How so? I do not understand why this article is exempt from Wikipedia quality guidelines. The naming conventions exist to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, and I believe improving the quality of this article is very, very important. Logically, since it was decided on multiple guidelines that the most common English name should be used, it certainly does apply. Unless you can provide an actual reason why this is not so. The regulations say "use the common name". My argument is to use Goku, which you've already admitted is the common name. I would say that the regulations do nothing if not support my argument.
  5. And, just curious, in any of those discussions, how many guidelines were cited? I can think of one for your side - WP:MoSJP. It was commonly cited in defense of Goku. And would you look at that? When it's revealed that the guideline actually damages the case for Son Goku, it is not relevant. Convenient of you, isn't it?
  6. It's not my problem that the editors do not agree with me. I'm not trying to change their minds, I'm trying to make them follow real guidelines, not made-up guidelines to suit their personal preferences. Editors followed WP:MoSJP until it wasn't advantageous. You continuously insist that the article will not move, and clearly, that's a statement of ownership. Why will it not move? Will it not move because of a lack of reasoning? It's clearly not that, because I have two guidelines that specifically state that the most common English name should be used, and you have agreed that Goku is more common. It's not that this article is an exception to the guideline, because the article on Japan-related subjects covers ALL Japan-related subjects, including Goku. Unless you're prepared to explain your statement as to why the move will never happen, this is a flagrant violation of WP:OWN - declaring that the article belongs to you and/or the project.
  7. And may I ask one thing - according to Wikipedia guidelines, does using the name Son Goku help the top priority readers? That is, those who have little to no knowledge of the series. And if so, why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You're one coming in, attacking the project, being extremely rude and insulting, and basically saying you don't care at all about consensus, because you alone are right and your singular opinion is somehow more valid than the multiple editors saying otherwise. The problem isn't one editor displaying ownership, its your attitude and lack of respect for you fellow editors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, I forgot - disagreeing with the project is disrespectful. I don't care about the consensus against Goku because it has always been a farce. Are you honestly implying that people fought for Son Goku because there were legitimate guidelines defending their position? The only guideline, besides anime/DB guidelines that I've seen cited has been WP:JAPAN (which is conveniently not relevant anymore). And it's not my opinion, it's my fact. The guidelines CLEARLY apply. No one's actually countered them in ANY way, explained why there's an exception in this case that makes the guidelines not apply. The guidelines say that the article title should be the most common name for the character, and Son Goku is clearly not "the most common name for the character". I've cited three different quotations from two guidelines that say that exact thing - "use the most common English name", "use the name that would be least surprising to the reader", and from MoSJP, basically the same as the first one. There may be a consensus against it, but it is NOT the result of people legitimately establishing reason to make this article the exception to the guidelines (one of which that they commonly cite whenever it says what they like). - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Son Goku may be his full name, but Goku is his common name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tupac Shakur is utilized over his common name "Tupac" (or "2Pac"). Same scenario no? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tupac's article says "also known by his stage names 2Pac and Makaveli"; that's a slightly different scenario from Son Goku, "addressed only as Goku in most English adaptations". Where "2Pac" is an aka (not the most common or recognized stage name), "Goku" (according to his article) is the character's most common (or recognized) name. That's why I said earlier that "a little evidence for this claim would be nice". If there's proof that "Krillin" is a more recognized romanization than "Kuririn", that "Yamcha" is a more common variation than "Yamucha", then that's a strong argument for renaming the article(s). Like Collectonian said, we have to take into account the fact that "a large portion of [animanga fans] are first exposed to series on Cartoon Network, or just picking up a book in the library or buying. There are a good chunk of fans that won't even watch series subtitled, much less would have a clue about its origins. Some even like the 4Kids editing." If, ultimately, "Krillin" (and others) are the names that have "contributed most to the [characters] becoming known in the English-speaking world", what argument (other than stonewalling with the fact they're the ones used in the English translation of the manga) is there to preserve the names as they are?--Nohansen (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(random indent) If you're strictly following the English manga's naming practices, why is "Yamucha" being used? The manga and every other piece of Dragon Ball merchandising uses "Yamcha". Similar usage of "Artificial Human" and "Mr. Satan" produces the same inconsistencies. ~SnapperTo 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:WPDB is also basing their page titles on names used in the Japanese-audio English subtitled portion of the Dragon Ball DVDs. Yamucha and Majin Boo are such examples. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. So then why is the "manga knows best" defense being used? Subtitles would be the anime, not the manga. Ignoring that, subtitles are an incredibly obscure reference point to be using. ~SnapperTo 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've been wondering about this for a while when looking at the DB pages. Whatever English media we have that is the most prominent trumps all other forms of naming, period. It's why Bleach shinigami are now "Soul Reapers" for instance. If the dub is the most prominent form of the DB series (which I'm pretty sure it is. I remember watching it way back when and not even knowing that the manga existed), then whatever naming choices it uses are the ones that should be present. The examples that Snapper provided should be "Artificial Human" --> "Android" and "Mr. Satan" --> "Hercule". Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To add to Sephiroth's line of thinking, the "the English manga does it that way" argument was used to justify having Naruto character names in Eastern order as opposed to Western order (e.g., Uzumaki Naruto instead of Naruto Uzumaki), but that argument was eventually discounted. Like with Naruto, most of Dragon Ball's popularity can be easily traced to the English anime, so it's more likely that the average person (fan or non-fan) is familiar with anime's quirks, not the manga's. I'd have to agree with those that argue the English anime's romanizations and translations should be used first. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with this, too. I have no problems with the anime translation, spellings, naming conventions all taking precendence over the manga version, since the anime is what most people know. I don't know why I draw the line at eliminating half the character's name, and I'm starting to feel a little silly arguing the point, since I'd never have noticed or cared if the entire discussion had taken place on the Son Goku page. I've had my say, I'll go with consensus. Doceirias (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I actually commented in that discussion back when I was a Wikipedia newbie. Shows how far I've come since then :p Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "eliminating half of the character's name". No guideline even suggests such a thing. The only relevant guideline establishes that the common name should be used, never mentioning that shortened names shouldn't be used, because they should be used if the shortened name is what most people know the character as.
And let me ask, is there any REAL problem with using Goku? Extra emphasis on real. I don't mean "being the most accurate", because William Jefferson Clinton would be an example of "being the most accurate". Using Goku (Dragon Ball) does not create confusion at all. People who read the manga would understand who Goku is, people who do not would not understand the name Son Goku, and because of this and the fact that the guidelines say that the title should be the "least surprising for a reader to see it titled as", Son Goku is factually a less helpful title for those who are trying to learn about the series, the absolute top priority group. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to point out that for people who have never heard of Dragon Ball, "Son Goku" and "Goku" will both have the exact same significance. For those familiar with only the anime, "Son Goku" is nowhere near as confusing as, say, "Kuririn" might be. The difference here is in omitting part of the name versus using a different romanization. Personally, I feel that "William Jefferson Clinton" is not a good parallel, since most English speakers don't think of individuals in terms of their middle name (and many people will go to great lengths to keep their middle name a secret), and because "William" is very commonly shortened to "Bill" anyways. And if you're familiar with the anime, it's not too hard to figure out that "Son Goku" can only refer to "Goku", since there is no other character in the series named "Goku". —Dinoguy1000 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not matter. Guidelines say to use the name that would be the "least surprising" to the reader. It says to use the most common name for a reason, and it never says to use the most accurate name for a reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Link, can you find someone who actually agrees with you? I know I've asked you that in past discussions, but don't recall a response. So far, WP:CONSENSUS is against you, no matter how much effort you put in bantering. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides Nohansen, Sephiroth, NeoChaos, and Snapper2? Consensus is important, but more important is evidence. Do you have a consensus because there's strong evidence with your side, or do you merely have a consensus because people want to stonewall efforts to enforce the guidelines? I've clearly established that using a less common name violates multiple guidelines, including one you've cited in the past. On what grounds do you argue that Son Goku is an exception to WP:MoSJP and WP:NC? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Doceirias. He sort-of agreed when he said he had "no problems with the anime translation, spellings, naming conventions all taking precendence over the manga version, since the anime is what most people know." Still, it's surprising that you, Link, are still in a fighting mood when people are (sort of) agreeing with you.--Nohansen (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:IAR. The Viz manga and Japanese anime are just as official as the Funimation version and other dubbed media. And as many have said before, the Dragon Ball WikiProject is not aiming for "recognizable names", but consistent ones. It's more a terminology case rather than popularity. Let me ask you something: why do you want "Son Goku" to be moved to "Goku (Dragon Ball)" and not the redirect "Goku"? And why only argue to move him and not the other characters? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've got to ask, though, is there any point in the anime where Goku's full name is unambiguously stated as/shown to be "Goku", rather than "Son Goku"? Otherwise, it could be argued that he is referred to as Goku only because none of the other characters felt like using his full name (though that would be ridiculously close to WP:OR =P ). There seems to be agreement to use the anime versions of the names, except where Goku is concerned, and even there, Goku redirects to Son Goku (Dragon Ball), so I really, really (repeat several more times) don't see a problem. —Dinoguy1000 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. I'm fighting because I'm annoyed that I've had to go through four discussions with people ignoring the several guidelines that flat-out state Goku to be the better name.
  2. Please, listen, Sesshomaru - official does not MATTER. At no point is being official more important than being convenient for the reader.
  3. And that doesn't matter. By aiming at consistent names (consistent with what?) rather than recognizable names, you're basically saying those guidelines don't matter.
  4. Because Goku is the most important. Many people agree that Kururin should be moved to Krillin for the reason that they're merely different romanizations. But Son Goku v. Goku is the real issue (and on that subject, I clearly DO want to move the others, as evident by the fact that I have made attempts in the past to move Kuririn).
  5. Well, like I've been saying, even if his full name in the anime is acknowledged to be Son Goku, it does not mean that it trumps Goku - Goku is still what most people recognize him as, and using the more recognizable name is higher priority than using "the more proper names".
  6. And redirects don't matter. The guideline still states that the name of the article should be one that the reader would be least surprised to see it at, which would be Goku. As it stands, Sesshomaru insists that the project goes for the "proper names", but never explains why they are allowed to treat them as an exception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen another anime/manga-related character article named with a shortened version of the character's name - whether for reader convenience, recognizability, or any other reason - and any such article would probably be renamed as soon as it was brought to the project's attention anyway. If the anime says Goku's full name is Son Goku, it's in agreement with the manga, and therefore, Son Goku should be retained. —Dinoguy1000 19:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Maybe that's because they ignore the same guidelines that you are? You can't cite articles NOT following guidelines as being a good reason to not follow guidelines.
  2. IF the anime did. It doesn't.
  3. And why should it be retained? I'm seriously getting tired of asking this so many times and having it ignored every time - why is this an exception to multiple guidelines, INCLUDING one dealing specifically in Japan-related content? The guideline clearly exists, which means that the content inside of it - "use the most common English name" - exists as well. Until you can prove an exception or prove that there exists a guideline of more authority to trump this guideline, then you can't say it's an exception to these guidelines, and if you can't say it's an exception to the guidelines, then the guidelines apply, and because the guidelines apply, the article should be at Goku (Dragon Ball). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring guidelines at all, except to whatever extent my ignorance of the more esoteric ones might be. To the best of my knowledge, all other character articles follow all applicable naming guidelines, policies, and conventions (how about you provide specific examples of others that don't?). I only said "if the anime..." because, in your response to my query on the subject, you merely mentioned that it was possible that the anime acknowledged Goku's full name to be Son Goku, rather than providing evidence one way or the other (it would be easy enough to prove that the anime shows his full name to be Son Goku, as it would require only a single occurence; disproving it, however, requires that every instance of his name (spoken, written, etc.) be shown as only being Goku). And you still haven't responded to why you think the article should be moved to Goku (Dragon Ball), instead of Goku, which already exists as a redirect to the current article. —Dinoguy1000 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the opening statement of WP:UE - "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources". This is the English dub, therefore we're using them. This really isn't an argument, and invoking WP:IAR here doesn't work, especially when there's significant opposition to it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines are not a food. But also, WP:UE and WP:MoSJP are not esoteric in the least - they are necessary guidelines that apply completely to the Goku article. Why won't anyone ever explain why this is an exception to those guidelines? And two points on your "finding Son Goku in the anime" - one, YOU have to find it, I don't have to look through every episode to prove that it's not there if you haven't gone through them all to prove that it is. I can't disprove nonexistent proof. And two, finding one instance of it does not establish that it's the best name for the article, according to both relevant naming convention guidelines. And why does it matter why I want it at Goku (Dragon Ball)? You seem to oppose that and Goku regardless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to them. And personally, I don't care enough about this issue to take the time to hunt down such occurences, even if I am opposed to moving the article. If this bugs you that much, you're free to discount my opinion, but if the article gets moved, it should be moved to Goku, not to Goku (Dragon Ball). —Dinoguy1000 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any input is appreciated at Talk:Blade_of_the_Phantom_Master

I filed a RFC several time, but for some unknown reason, it is not working well, so I need people's opinion on a tendentious dispute at Talk:Blade_of_the_Phantom_Master. The work is created by a famous manhwa artist and writer in South Korea and formated in manhwa style (paper oder is opposite to manga and others). In an interview with them, they said the draft was written in Korean and then translated into Japanese and first published in Japanese. Later, it was published in Korean language in South Korea. I think the work is manhwa as well, but the OCN ISP user and suddenly appeared user User:Jazz81089 after his 8-months-break did the same thing with the anon to the article: removing completely Korean mention and manhwa. The anon first removed Korean mention since last June, and I think it is absurd, because the work is created by Korean artists but he insists on removing the info completely. Manhwa/Manga are originally translated and introduced to the English speaking world as "Korean cartoon/animation, Japanese cartoon, animation", so my edit as "the work is a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artists in specializing as Japanese manga published in Japan" is WP:NPOV. However, the duo or the one person-like anon/User:Jazz81089 denies it. I've talked to htem(him or her) many times, and all are no use. Therefore, I'm writing this. Any input at the talk page would be appreciated much. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece Characters

A discussion occurred previously over at Talk:List of One Piece characters regarding the need to do some character merges. There seemed to be consensus to do them, but the injunction brought everything to a halt and nothing ever happened. I've restarted the discussion at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Merger, but one of the original merge proposers, TTN, is not allow to do the merging now, and some SPAs are popping in to argue against it. Anyone else want to come weigh in, and if consensus says yes, aid in the merging. There are quite a few to go. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We need more people to prevent Kyuu and Collectonian to engage in a collected catfight (pun intended).--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
cute... :P No worries, I'm not going to answer him anymore. Kinda pointless. More points of view would be good either way, though, since most of the "discussion" has been our back and forth instead of actually discussion (sans Samuel's remarks) :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Reviews

Just a little reminder that we have several items up for peer review that are potential milestone items, so they could use some additional feedback. Tokyo Mew Mew (PR) and Fullmetal Alchemist (PR) are two series articles being prepped for FA runs, which would make them our first manga/anime series FAs, sans the Mana series, since 2006! So project feedback before the FACs would be graet. We also have a character list, List of Naruto characters, up for peer review in preparation for a Featured List candidacy. If its FLC is successful, it would be our first character list to hit featured status, so again, getting it hammered out in PR is very important.

Thanks in advance :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fullmetal Alchemist character lists

A List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters was finally created recently (yay). With its creation, seven FMA character lists have been suggested for merging into this singular lists. Discussion has been started here, with sections for discussion on each proposed merges. As a note, I'm not the one who did the tagging nor the suggested merges, just the one who started the discussion and am sending out the appropriate notification. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing disputes around Shogakukan on Japanese blogosphere

See also Talk:Zatch Bell!, thanks. --Aphaia (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)