Talk:Doraemon (1979 TV series)

Problems

be careful most of the japanese names are wrongly associated.

For example

[Goku Cross おばあちゃんのおもいで（前）]

is wrong. The japanese says "memories of grandma (before)" please correct accordingly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.38.176.251 (talk)

Notability?

Doraemon merits a page, but I don't think episodes individually or collectively have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (WP:Television episodes, WP:Notability)" "Wikipedia is not a directory. (WP:What Wikipedia is not)" -- Meyer (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, in as far as I suspect there is a lot of material in Japanese available, as well as some in English. (Personally I don't give two figs about Doraemon, but I think a list of episodes page is merited.) In my view it's a case of WP:NOTPAPER. I will say that this page is horribly formatted and needs to be broken down into a page for each season with links from this one providing an overview. That would be following the standard format for other TV shows.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's well established that notable TV series (whether animated or not) can have episode lists broken off when the list becomes too large to effectively fit into the main article. Episode lists are also not seen as entirely independent from the main article. This is one of the longest-running animated TV series (or just plain TV series, for that matter) in the world, so stating that its list of episodes somehow doesn't (or couldn't) meet any notability requirement is disingenuous. I should note (as VsevolodKrolikov did above) that I strongly dislike the Doraemon series (I think Nobita is a complete moron), so I'm not just stating this opinion because of some love of the series. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither the precedent of episode list pages for other TV series nor the existence of a large number of Doraemon episodes constitute significant, reliable, independent coverage of the subject of this page. Without such coverage, the page fails the Wikipedia notability test.

Also, I propose that we discuss the notability of both this page and List of Doraemon 2005 series episodes here. -- Meyer (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this page is a list of the episodes. I have never seen any sort of coverage for any series which discusses a list of episodes. They may list the episodes, and give a short summary of each, perhaps review one or two of the episodes, but never will you see them discussing the list itself. That's just absurd. Rather than complain that it doesn't meet this or that policy or guideline, why don't you just fix it instead? That's far more productive than what you're doing here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability can be established for some series' episode lists (see List of Bleach episodes), but that hasn't been done for Doraemon episodes. It has nothing to do with the number of episodes or popularity of the series. If someone improves these pages by establishing the notability, that's fine, but they're not there now. I think you should let this discussion take it's course, notable or not, rather than trying to force it down a particular path. -- Meyer (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing all of refs in List of Bleach episodes, only one of them is even close to meeting WP:RS for establishing notability. The first reference (to the ANN encyclopedia) is not a reliable source (as nothing in the ANN encyclopedia can be used to establish notability on Wikipedia per discussion at WT:ANIME)The majority of the other sources are either references to specific volumes of manga, DVD cases, or press releases, and there's one about some toys. I seriously question the validity of that as a Featured List since it uses references which should not be used (and the first one is used three times in the article). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good argument for reevaluating the page's Featured Article status, or even consider deleting it for lack or notability. I offered it as an example of a well done episode list page, though I, too, thought DVD jackets, etc. weren't really independent sources. It at least has one source coming close. Therefore, I think it's an example of the minimum quality to justify the existence of an episode list. -- Meyer (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD inserts and covers can be used to obtain the names of episodes, verify cast members, and staff members, and such, but they can't be used to establish notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Doraemon is constantly rated in the top five anime programs each week,[1] so these declaration that they are non-notable isn't practicing common sense. Also, stand-alone lists follow different inclusion guidelines than regular articles. So long as the main topic, i.e. the series itself, is notable and the list has an unambiguous membership criteria that is not overly broad, then they are perfectly acceptable. --Farix (Talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Episode list pages for notable series have an automatic right to exist in WP? What's your basis for that claim? That's not how I read WP:Television episodes:

• Create page for the television PROGRAM.

Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, then:

• Create a page for each series/season, or a "List of episodes" page with every season/series.

If there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, then:

• Create pages for outstanding episodes.

We don't have "enough verifiable information independent of the show itself". If we can get it, then the notability problem is solved. If not, the episode lists don't belong on WP. -- Meyer (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that, as it's consistently in the top-rated anime TV series every week per news reports such as this, it most certainly meets any notability requirements. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing the notability of the Doraemon TV series. What I am arguing is that notability of the series does not automatically make an episode list notable, which opinion is supported by the guidelines in WP:Television episodes. You are arguing that an episode list of a notable TV series is automatically notable itself, and justify that by the existence of a large number of such episode list pages, most of which do not pass notability criteria when considered independently of their series. Is that an accurate summary of your views? It sounds like we have a conflict of guidelines versus practice. -- Meyer (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, lists fall under a different set of inclusion criteria and isn't required to follow the notability guidelines so long as the main topic, the TV series, is notable (see WP:STAND). WP:EPISODE actually agrees with this point. so you are either miss reading the guidelines or miss representing them. To suggest deleting the list means you think there is a notability issue with the article about the TV series itself or that there was not enough contain to justify a split from the main article (WP:SS). --Farix (Talk) 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article references, but I see nothing in WP:STAND, WP:EPISODE, or WP:SS that supports the claim that an episode list page has different notability criteria than any other page. Please indicate the passages you think support the claim. -- Meyer (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This has to do with inclusion, of which notability is one for which article may be included. WP:STAND gives inclusion guidelines for stand-alone lists that are not directly related to notability. But WP:EPISODE strictly permits this list to exist. The article on the television program exists and has some references to third-party sources, though it can be improved. This meets the first phase of WP:EPISODE. The second is the creation of episode lists or season pages. No where does it state that "List of episodes" must establish notability separate from the parent article. WP:EPISODE only states that individual episode articles must to have notability separate from the parent article.

But if you still don't think that "List of episodes" should not be included in Wikipedia, then you are free to send them to AfD. But you are not going to get anywhere. --Farix (Talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reference to "inclusion" in WP:STAND relates to the inclusion of individual items on a list page, not to the existence of the page itself, so that source does not support your argument.

Where WP:EPISODE calls for independent sources before creating an episode list page, it means there must be sufficient sources for the list itself, not just for the program in general. WP:EPISODE specifies, "While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory." The episode list page itself must pass notability criteria. -- Meyer (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And there is plenty of coverage of the series at Anime News Network.[2], and this Google news search brings up a pluthera of other potential sources. And I'm sure that anyone willing to dig through old copies of Newtype and other anime magazine will also find additional sources. Just because they are not incorporated into the main article doesn't mean that they don't exist. --Farix (Talk) 03:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If they exist, incorporate them. Then we can conclude this discussion. -- Meyer (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not on a timeline. If you have a problem with the article, and are now aware of references that exist, rather than continuing to complain about it I recommend that you roll up your sleeves and fix it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Farix is the one claiming such references exist, and the links he posted above support notability of the program as a whole and some of the movies, but not episodes individually or collectively. I think it behooves those who think the page is worth keeping in Wikipedia to "roll up your sleeves". I still don't see anything to work with here. -- Meyer (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

With statements like that, I begin to think you are just trolling. The program is the episodes, so if you demonstrate the notability if the program, you demonstrate the notability of the episode as a collective. To in short episodes = program. Individual episodes will, however, have to establish notability if they are to have stand-alone article. But we haven't gotten to that bridge yet. --Farix (Talk) 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct titles?

I have the first 300+ episodes which I believe to be in the correct order but from 81 - 111, the titles differ to those in the Article so I hesitate to change them. I don't know the source of the titles used. (193.250.81.66 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

As pointed out in "Problems" I have both Japanese with English titles to episodes and the ones on the main page sometimes have the wrong Japanese titles associated with the English titles, like 31 and 33 have the Japanese titles for 23 and 24. I will see if I can do something about it sometime, shifting them around to where they should be. (193.250.66.65 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

I hate to say this but most if not just about all have the wrong Japanese titles on them. I have just corrected 33-40 using my copies of the shows and it is a very slow job. To be honest, it may be easier to remove all the Japanese titles.(193.250.31.98 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

I've just corrected the Japanese titles for episodes 14-32. All were wrong and some not even there at all under other numbers (I spent considerable time searching) so now left blank. It needs a Japanese person who reads English to redo just about all of them.

Length will become a problem. I did some reviews, keeping them short but I see 1-10 have been done again, much longer than I originally did them. Episode 30 is far too long and I am tempted to redo that as just maybe 3-5 lines.(Cyberia3 (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Length

The article will be rather long to read if all the descriptions were to be filled. Is it possible to separate it into two halves? Newfraferz87 (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be split up into different seasons or something similar once it gets completed, but I suggest waiting until then (or at least until it's much more complete than it is now). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doraemon (1973 anime) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)