Talk:Shuffle!/GA1

GA Reassessment

The result was kept as a Good Article. MuZemike 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• MOS issues: Some of the layout is inconsistent. Some subsections are unnecessary, for instance those under the "Sequels" and "Gameplay" sections. It is also undesirable to have a section consisting of only one short paragraph. Article also contains a few words to avoid, such as however, although, despite, only, just; these words used in this article suggest preference and impartiality. While the "Story" section is written OK per WP:WAF, I am not sure about the Character descriptions sounds like it's more in-universe than anything (just not in my comfort zone).
• Verifiability/original research: There are several sections throughout the article which are completely unsourced. Some of the wording and content those sections also suggest that some original research has been made.
• Images: All the non-free images in the article lack sufficient fair-use rationales; they do not meet WP:NFCC#8. They are also not of minimal usage per WP:NFCC#3; that is, they need to be reduced to a lower size and resolution.

• Reduced all images tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}, will probably further remove those overused screenshots. -- クラウド６６８ 12:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The biggest thing here is the lack of verifiability as mentioned above. MuZemike 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@MuZemike I hope you don't mind that i add some inputs of my owns.
References review:

1 What make this website review WP:RS

2 Remove it or prove it with reliable reference

3 Ok, refer to an element easily verifiable in game

4 Dead link need replacement link or web archive Repaired.陣内_Jinnai

5 Ok, publisher releases list

6 Unless i mistaken most forums posts can't be used as reference for Verifiability. Maybe trustworthy but not a RS

7 Ok but that's a webstore link and the the anniversary edition is already covered by ref #5. Yes, i know that the store link has much more pictures ;)

8 Ok charts sells ref

9-12 Ok various publisher refs

13 Dead link and as a link to a forum post need to pass WP:RS

14-15 Ok

Manga section need rewrite + references. That links may be useful Shuffle! in Kadokawa catalog. Good look --KrebMarkt 08:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed some weasel-words (as well as repairing a dead link); the rest I think are used appropirately or am unclear how to rephrase them for 1 use of the word "despite". I am going to announce this on WP:VN to get some help.陣内_Jinnai 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While i thought to be on the reviewer side this time, i will provide editors ammunitions for the article. --KrebMarkt 18:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Audio sub-section

Need to be re-named.

Omit to mention the bunch of soundtracks released for the games, animes adaptations and so on, and focus exclusively on the Drama CDs. This sub-section is failing Completeness.

Primary source: Full list of audio releases from Lantis --KrebMarkt 18:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the audio dramas section, should it still be renamed? AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead section and redone the infobox with {{Infobox animanga}}. Give me some time and I will tackle the individual sections and sources later. -- クラウド６６８ 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Take your time as long we end up with something cohesive, complete & sourced, time is not that much important. I'm digging Oricon chart to give more flesh to the soundtracks section as some CDs did rank. --KrebMarkt 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the gameplay section condensing and removing some non-relevant OR. There are 2 statements that are still problem ones. One which needs a third-party source as the statement about the scenes being varied is OR...the other is clarification on which versions certain omake elements work.陣内_Jinnai 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the manga section with refs. Is alright now? AngelFire3423 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did cite sources, but I don't think it's just alright yet, since all of the sources in the section are published by Kadokawa Shoten which also published the manga, that would effectively render it first-party sources. Though, I doubt there are any sources for the manga outside of that. Also, I can't exactly agree with removing "which is illustrated by various artists.", since it's an anthology it's pretty easy to infer to that, and it will probably explains it better if we leave it in, albeit there's no sources for that. -- クラウド６６８ 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Manga: Completeness OK until proved otherwise (Like non Japanese publishers popping up), Verifiable OK. I will give it a pass as similar to Tomoyo_After:_It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Manga. Because the manga is an adaptation, i won't ask to expand it for GA but there is room to do it like the various artist fact if it can be assert.

@Cloud668

The objective is to prove that it really serialized & published with the when and the who so primary source is preferred because alternative are users edited encyclopedia (not RS) or Amazon.co.jp and others Japanese bookstore (avoid commercial stuff unless necessary). RS Third party coverage if any should be used for the reception section of the article. Manga (sub)-section is usually Fact+Reference shouting contest like in Azumanga#Manga --KrebMarkt 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think it will be better for the reading flow to put the sequels section before the adaptations one. The reason is that adaptations can encompass all the games and are more Shuffle! universe adaptations. Soundtracks were released for the 3 games so it would be weird to read about the soundtracks focused on a sequel while this very sequel has yet to be covered by the article. Grrrr, i hope you get it my English sucks as usual --KrebMarkt 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to follow the same layout that most of the other visual novel articles are using like Clannad? So grouping the story, main characters, and maybe themes in the same level 2 section, and then only mentioning the sequels in the leads and in the character sections, since the sequels are a continuation of xx character's story. AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Forwarded you question to Juhachi (who fixed Clannad during its re-assessment) --KrebMarkt 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think following the same layout as the recently GARed Clannad would be beneficial since it's the most-recent example of what a GA visual novel article should look like. Popotan and Air are also good examples.--十八 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankee.. --KrebMarkt 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well changed the layout and edited the character section a bit. The characters of Shuffle each of their own special back story; should the article mention something about that? AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's better to leave any substantive information for the character page. Those with more prominence, including the protagonist, should be mentioned with some detail.

Character Novels - is there anymore information on them? A quick search didn't bring me many results from RSes. If not, the section should be removed and the information added to the lead.陣内_Jinnai 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whack Jinnai with a blunt weapon. I should have unpacked more Shuffle! in Kadokawa catalog. Kadokawa was both the publisher for the Manga and the Novels [1][2][3][4][5][6] Not sure thought it warrants a sub-section on its own. --KrebMarkt 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have clarrified more. I meant nothing substansive that couldn't be summed up in 1-2 sentances. Nothing there really does more than note multple character novels which could be summed up in 1 sentance probably. Maybe 2.

On an unrelated note: I removed Getchu dubious remark - Getchu is a RS as much as any retailer, probably moreso than some like Amazon for some things.陣内_Jinnai 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree on both. Those novels are adaptation not the original work. It's not something like Saiunkoku_Monogatari#Light_novels which has similar level of available material but is the original work. Getsu is reseller so we should be cautious using it as reference and not giving it to much weight. --KrebMarkt 05:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Getchu is used for every GA VN articles as well as some related FLs as its one of the main sources for reliable release dates and general information. Obviously if we can find another source stating such that either the primary or a non-retailer, that's preferable, but generally that's not the case. Also I've never come across any info from other RSes that contradict anything Getchu has stated.陣内_Jinnai 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Yea, Getchu refs for releases dates & content is Ok but i will raise my eyebrows when someone mention Getchu's sells chart rank [7]. --KrebMarkt 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Even that's reliable. 2004年のGetchu.comセールスランキングを大発表します！ translates to Getchu's 2004 sales rankings. For what its saying its true. However as Getchu is not the only or even the primary retailer for Bishōjo games, it's giving their ranking undue weight to the sight and also loses focus to what the article is about, Shuffle. So their use for ranking is not appropriate, but not because its not reliable.陣内_Jinnai 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Other things: Like for Clannad, in Ai Sp@ce a video game developed by Headlock where users can interact with bishōjo game heroines. FamitsuANN --KrebMarkt 05:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding RS resources at WP:VN

I was asked to comment on the reliability of the resources listed at WP:VN#Resources as they may come up. I see that Getchu has already been discussed, so I don't think any more has to be said about that. Famitsu is obviously reliable, as are the PC News game rankings, as that was a magazine by Peakspub with a focus on bishōjo games, but has since been discontinued. The same goes for PCpress, though an archive of it's findings needs to be found, as the sites (and magazine) have seen been discontinued. Megami Magazine is also a bishōjo-focused magazine with bishōjo anime and games as a focus.

The only two I'm dubious about are Animetric, and visual-novels.net, which both carry reviews, but don't really show any reliable backing from a publisher or editing committee. Specifically, Animetric's reviews are all done by a single guy, who doesn't have any special expertise in the field, or notability either, although WP:SPS may be the reason for the exception. I would like to hear from Jinnai who added Animetric last January. Now for visual-novels.net. This is one that I would be willing to argue about since it's one of a very few websites actually specifically dedicated to visual novels, and whose resources pertaining to the news and reviews of VNs, I believe, could probably be seen as reliable as the news and reviews from ANN, they being a site specifically dedicated to anime and manga.--十八 23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Animetric was found initially to qualify as a SPS because it met the requirements of an SPS upon a GA review, ie that it was quoted for its reviews by other media. However, ANN ultimately decided that 1 reliable source quoting it was not enough and the 2nd source that may have quoted it has been lost to the net. Therefore, if you want to remove that one, I won't have much complaint.陣内_Jinnai 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the dicussion. By the way, it's quoted in THEM anime's directory of good links for reviews [8]. But in the dicussion, there were saying that even though it is mentioned as reliable, for WP:SPS, the author must alos have his/her work published by a reliable source. Or that's what I gather. AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that ANN is recognized as a reliable source because it's often been referred to in alot of places like the New York Times and alot of other newspapers when they're talking about anime and manga. I don't think being one of the only sites that provides news on visual novels qualifies them as experts. AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to erogamespace. PC, PS2, and something else by navel (haven't actually really looked at it). I'll add the information myself like tomorrow if no one else does. AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Before using those links information could you write a brief blurb about why they are RS. Sorry to be so annoying but that's necessary hassle for GA quality :( --KrebMarkt 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have no idea. It's just that they're used on other GAs like Clannad and on the dicussions in WP:VG and WP:VN, it's been described as a reliable source and one of the best source for review numbers for eroge games. We'll probably have to ask User:Juhachi. AngelFire3423 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see how the review numbers on the site could be considered RS, because those are user generated, just like the reviews given on the anime/manga pages at ANN. ErogameScape (at least what I've used it for) is for the staff referencing (to show who worked on the game). I know those aren't user generated, though, as there's no registration or edit feature on the site, unlike at ANN where the staff info is not considered an RS as it's user-generated.--十八 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just clarrify to use the company & staff info? Or explicitly state the reviewers are not consider reliable?陣内_Jinnai 08:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But why is it reliable for company & staff info? AngelFire3423 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because they're taken from the games themselves. Every game has its credits, or otherwise the staff info is posted on their official websites.--十八 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that really all that's needed to say that it's reliable? I get the feeling that it being taken from the game only makes it a secondary third-party source. To be reliable, I was under the impression that it had to be published by someone reliable or links to it from other reliable sites. AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That falls under qualifies as being a lexicon for eroge games. A similar issue came up with Chrono Trigger FAR using Chrono Compendium can be used for citing stuff from the game itself. While there was some disagreement, it was largely confined to 1 indivisual and the FAR staff and closing admin were fine with it (it's not like it was easily passed over as there were multiple statements about it). This is because what it was citing was from the game itself; it was just in an easier to verfity manner. When it came to stuff not from th game, it couldn't be used without proper sourcing.陣内_Jinnai 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if this review could be used [9]. The main site says it's published by K-Opticon which is a company that does news and telecommunications according to ja:ケイ・オプティコム. Also I was wondering if the legacy section should be rewritten since it was just copy-pasted from Clannad. AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick glance: i have the feel that the website is somewhat a blog hosted on K-Opticon servers (K-Opticon acting as ISP). Anyone else can give another look. It's that i don't read Japanese, you know :p --KrebMarkt 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right; it's a blog on their servers, and is therefore unreliable. As for the legacy section, there's nothing in that prose that makes it specific to Clannad, as it's just a general overview; if you don't like how it's written, then that has to do with copyediting. Otherwise, the content posted on any Wikipedia page can be redistributed under GDFL, so it doesn't matter if we copy/paste from one article to the other as long as its pertinent.--十八 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that the other visual novels articles use the actual game as a source for alot of the plot information, but I no longer have my copy of the game. So there anything wrong with using the character pages as sources? AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem if it's the official source. To make an analogy you have the right to cite chapter+page of a novel to verify a its plot & characters description --KrebMarkt 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

About game play

Can any one check that ref on tell me what ever it contains the game breakout/walkthrough. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't say, as far as I can tell, if it has a walkthough. It is the fan artbook and it does contain media related to Shuffle as well as an interview with staff.陣内_Jinnai 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you check that [Blancked] then blank that links. Thanks.

Yea, there is a walkthrought. --KrebMarkt 06:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that the gameplay references 1 & 2 direct to Navel (company) article. So if game books can be used as refs it would be way better. --KrebMarkt 06:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dropping it here: "Shuffle! On the Stage" visual guide for ps2. --KrebMarkt 06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you want all the gameplay refs replaced with that? AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That would do for the some gameplay issues, refs 1 to 3 in that section. While it can prove the 2 sexual intercourses per characters it can't prove the fellatio fact so better remove it. The ref 4 well that would do as it is now or you can put a ref to the game main page.

For the PS2 ref we need something to verify its CERO 15+. The rating dropped from 18+ to 15+ because all the sex scenes are removed, logical reasoning. No need to look for a written statement that it contains no sex scenes.

Maybe we should steal ideas from Air (visual novel)#Gameplay ?

It's mostly jury ringing with the best we have at hands without sacrificing quality & verifiability. --KrebMarkt 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That better? I kept the fellatio fact, but do you still want it removed? AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it because it's an element of plot but it can't be proved unless you finish it completely. (similar to reading a book) --KrebMarkt 05:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Only two things that I see that needs to be addressed before I'll pass. The Plot section needs some referencing, be it to the video game, manual, or whatever. Readers need to know where the content is coming from and to ensure that no original research or unverified claims (a common pitfall in regards to writing about fiction) are going on. Second, because of the size of the article, I would like to see the lead lengthened and expanded to a third paragraph to better reflect the size and content of the page. I'll do a more thorough check sometime tomorrow for any smaller issues. Otherwise, images look good and the other material is much better referenced (I'll defer to the consensus above to determine if the sources given are RS). MuZemike 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I might add something obvious more play edit time will be given to do it right if it can't be finished before the deadline. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There's not really much a deadline right now. This should have been closed after seven days (which, at that time, would have resulted in a delist) if we followed the GAR guidelines, but it's still being worked on, so I have no problem extending it until everything is addressed, provided it's still being actively worked on. MuZemike 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still some instances of words to avoid out there as noted in my initial reassessment above. Please make these corrections and either remove or substitute with more neutral wording. MuZemike 20:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that the Gameplay section needs better referencing. Make sure everything else in the Plot section is sourced, as well; make sure there are no holes in verifiability. MuZemike 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

About the gameplay section, I'm not really sure what you want cited since there really wouldn't be any source for most of the information there other than the game itself. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay section looks good now. A couple of more things to tighten down on sourcing:

• The remainder of the first paragraph in the "Setting and themes" subsection.
• Also, in an indirect flora allusion, the city the series takes place in is Kōyō-chō (光陽町), which literally means "Sunshine Town", alluding to sunlight's beneficial effects on plants.
• In middle school, and the two meet and later befriend Asa Shigure, another heroine of Shuffle! who is in her third-year of high school and thus about one year older. While she has a weak constitution, she makes up for it with her energetic tomboy personality and is an excellent cook. She has a habit of slapping Rin on his back.
• Soon after the two daugthers come to his school, Rin meets Primula, a strange, soft-spoken girl who often carrys a stuffed cat around.
• In addition to the two, he is also liked by his childhood friend Kaede, his senior Asa, and the mysterious Primula.
• The remainder of the first and last paragraphs in the "Anime" subsection.
• The second sentence in the "Merchandise" subsection: Each boxset was compiled by Comptiq and contained a book, clothed Figma figurines, drama CDs, and mousepad released for the visual novel, first anime adaptation, and manga adaptation for their respective characters.

That should be the remainder of the loose ends right there. Fix those up (I'll handle any other prose/MOS issues myself), and I'll pass it. MuZemike 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for making you wait, I was little busy recently. For the "Setting and themes" section, is it the 10 years bit you want cited or the fact that it takes place in Verbana Academy? I think the other references are now fine. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One more: Ten years prior to the story, the gateway between the worlds of the gods and demons were opened, and since then, people from all races have been immigrating between the worlds. The characters attend the transracial high school, National Verbena Academy (バーベナ学園, Bābena Gakuen) in Kōyō-chō (光陽町, lit. Sunshine Town). (I've also been a bit busy as well) MuZemike 06:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The only cite I see working for that would be the game itself though, which I'll put right now. AngelFire3423 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. Everything looks good on my end. I'll wait to close once everything else below that KrebMarkt has addressed is good. MuZemike 16:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't veto the GA stamp as the article pass Broad coverage, verifiability & accessibility however i should point out two things:

• There is room for improvements as there is a gap between GA required broad coverage and real completeness.

Umm, well according to the WP:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-2 I would say it's as complete as it needs to be since it pretty much all major topics. AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're describing more fits the Featured Article criterion in regards to comprehensiveness. There is more than enough broad detail to easily meet the more lenient GA criterion. [[User talk:MuZemike|]] (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if i was misunderstood, i wanted to stress that there are still few ammunitions to exhaust for FA. Nothing Big was overlooked or else the article would not have kept the GA status --KrebMarkt 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some layout re-organization may improve accessibility & cohesiveness even more, nothing too drastic that can't be handled afterward. (I acknowledge the logic on the current layout and don't want to use the GA re-assessment to force my view on this matter). --KrebMarkt 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

@MuZemike

If you agree i think AngelFire3423 deserve a Barnstar for his contributions to rescue this article GA. --KrebMarkt 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. [[User talk:MuZemike|]] (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Audio

I think that the music section should moved. The current article organization:

• Game play
• Plot
• Development
• Adaptations
• Music
• Reception
• References
• External links

I think there isn't enough strong argument to have it at the same level the game play, plot or development.

I would suggest move under Adaptations section. That would give something like that:

• Adaptations
  • Manga
  • Books and publications
  • Anime
  • Audio
    • Audio dramas
    • Music
  • Merchandise

In addition, i made a full recon mission on the discography Talk:List_of_Shuffle!_albums#refs_drop_out_place. Singles and albums which ranked have their rank with link to Oricon. I have also an interrogation: is there Radio CD released like some albums covers seem to suggest ? Yea don't know Japanese and yet i can dig CDs & charts refs :p --KrebMarkt 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there were seven radio dramas in total, two petit versions as the list of albums page calls them, and five regular versions. Also if the articles address audio dramas seperately from music, but both still under adaptations, then they're usually placed seperately. Like:

• Adaptations
  • Audio dramas
  • Music

instead of under an audio section like how Popotan does it. Though maybe it's better to do it you're way. AngelFire3423 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking account of the Radio CSs

• Adaptions
  • Audio <- Recount how many singles, albums, drama cd and Radio CDs = quick glance view as too many CDs were released
    • Audio dramas
    • Music
    • Radio CDs <- Only if you have enough materials to write more than just a catalog listing.

--KrebMarkt 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I had already put the Radio CDs under audio dramas with drama CDs. However the only thing is, if you want to move the music section under "Adaptations", then where should the description of the theme music for the actual game go? Since the theme music for the actual game is hardly an adaptation. AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that the real painful part. There are the music CDs released for the game and then are also musics CDs release for others adaptations namely the two spin-off game plus the two anime series. While putting the information of the former at the same level than development & gameplay is OK. Putting informations on the later is not. Real case of completeness versus MoS. Time for some Bold solutions & edits. I would have likely renamed Adaptations section into something that logically permit inclusion of every adaptations (some soundtracks) but also the byproducts of those adaptations (the others soundtracks). That's editors rights & choices as long they justify those choices --KrebMarkt 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How about putting the theme music as part of the gameplay section? How is doing it like this

• Adaptations
  • Manga
  • Books and publications
  • Drama CDs
  • Radio Drama
  • CDs
  • Merchandise

after placing the theme music in the gameplay section? The order is probably off. It's just because this is how the Tokyo Mew Mew article seperates it sort of. Though remind me again what is wrong with just putting Drama CDs, Radio Dramas and CDs in one section called "Audio CDs"? AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

The reasons we could not have a "Audio CDs" or "Music" at the same level than Game play is at that level you imply that it's focusing on the music & music CDs related directly to the game Shuffle! while in reality we have a mixed bag of soundtracks that encompass most of the franchise. Anime/manga MoS cheats by putting everything under a Media section. I asked for input from others editors because i'm not thinking straight anymore :( --KrebMarkt 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not using "Related media" instead of "adaptations" to go around the issue. This is what have been done with Popotan Popotan#Related_media --KrebMarkt 21:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't do it like it's done on Clannad (visual novel), where there's a separate Music section apart from the header which details the theme music from the game, and then details the music CDs released for game, anime series, and film. Then you place all the drama stuff under an "Audio dramas" header in Adaptations. Otherwise, do like KrebMarkt said and place the music section under Adaptations and rename it "Related media". We're trying to make the article as easily readable as possible, so placing all the dramas in one place, and the music in another makes sense to me.--十八 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Music current point: As it is that would do. I'm not a big fan on how it was handled but it's rather complete & correctly written. Just a detail for future soundtracks edits album titles are in italic while singles and songs titles are between " " check MOS:TITLE. --KrebMarkt 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anime reviews

I apologize to have omitted them. We are missing a paragraph on the anime release in reception

ANN DVD 1ANN DVD 2|ANN DVD 3|ANN DVD 4

Mania DVD 1|Mania DVD 2|Mania DVD 3|Mania DVD 4|Mania DVD 5|Mania DVD 6

Active Anime Box set

--KrebMarkt 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oups it seems someone anticipated my call :) --KrebMarkt 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You could always expand or change some of the refs to make it more varied. Also THEM Anime did an review that I didn't include. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Finishing touches

There are still some materials to include from [here] --KrebMarkt 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a live concert featuring music for the series at some point. AngelFire3423 (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)