Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

User:AA5116

Ordinarily, I'd ignore user pages, but in this case, this user has only contributed to their userpage (6 edits) and two deleted articles, and all of the nondeleted edits were made on June 12. The page itself consists of a non-notable (probably self-published) (OEL?) manga series called "The Huntress" with all sorts of redlinks, the only Ghit for the author is the userpage, and I didn't see any relevant results looking through Ghits for "The Huntress". The user's talk page consists only of two speedy deletion notices. As I said before, I wouldn't bring this up ordinarily, but the page is being sorted into Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters, and I frankly don't feel it's worth updating the infobox to get it out of there. Any thoughts on what should be done? —Dinoguy1000 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The infoboxes can be removed, as they don't belong in user space per WP:USER (no article cats or templates should be used in user pages, so its fine to remove). However, I've gone ahead and been a little bold and just blanked it, as also per user "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages" which is really what this is - someone's personal self advertisement for a not even written non-manga. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

All right. I would have gone ahead and done something myself, but I don't have much experience working with userpages (outside of my own ;P ) and wasn't sure what policy/guidelines might have applied. —Dinoguy1000 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maison Ikkoku and Ranma ½ chapter lists

I have an interesting problem: I recently started working on a Maison Ikkoku chapter list, only to find that whereas the original Japanese version is 15 volumes long, the first English translated version has been shortened to 14 volumes (whether by editing or reorganizing chapters, I don't know). A similar problem exists for Ranma ½ (which doesn't currently have a chapter list, though I've been meaning to start on one), which goes from 38 volumes in the Japanese version to 36 in the English version. Any thoughts on how these should be handled? There is no mechanism in {{Graphic novel list}} to deal with this (nor, more than likely, would one be possible). —Dinoguy1000 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh...now that is an interesting question. Any source for where/why/how it was done? My initial inclination is to put it in the lead, but that would make the summaries and chapter lists off. Hrm.... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any sources on it in either article, but the Ranma ½ article does discuss the difference in one section. I think, regardless of how we decide this, a note in the lead would be appropriate in both cases. —Dinoguy1000 19:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And apparently, Viz's official Maison Ikkoku volume list, which only lists the second edition volumes, skips any mention of volume 14. Ugh... —Dinoguy1000 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find Volume 14 at Amazon.com. First and second editions.--Nohansen (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but the first edition of volume 14 is the last volume of the series (in the first edition), hence the problem. —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always create two lists. I don't see a problem with that, as long as the Japanese releases list is created first. With a Japanese-only list, you could add the bunkoban, wideban, shinsoban or whatever other re-editions exist without the list getting too long or crowded.--Nohansen (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You will also encounter the same thing in terms of 1st and 2nd editions with the Viz releases of the Ranma GNs. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth it to have one list dealing with Japanese publication and another dealing with English publication? There was a split I know for One Piece episodes, distinguishing between original and US broadcast since the latter made changes. As another point of difference, I know that the covers for the Ranma ½ GNs are very different between versions. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, no, that isn't done (and as a side note, the separate One Piece episode list is being merged back with the main one). The cover differences isn't something to determine having them split, as several series have had that done (Rave Master being one). Nice to put both in, though, to show such as was done with List of Rave Master chapters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, editors at List of Oh My Goddess! chapters had the same problem, so they chose to use a table with each chapter in a different row, and each volume in a cell that spanned the appropriate chapter rows (look at the page, it'll make more sense than if I sit here and try to explain it better). I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's certainly a unique approach to a problem that seemed to have all of us licked... ^_^;; —Dinoguy1000 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, any thoughts on how to handle this? For lack of a better solution, I would format the lists similarly to List of Oh My Goddess! chapters, but I don't have access to the Japanese volumes, and as such, I don't know what chapters are in each volume. —Dinoguy1000 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden

Hi there - I'm new to this WikiProject, but I just thought I'd introduce myself and let people know that I'll be working on updating the Rozen Maiden family of articles, in case anyone else wants to pop by and help out. I've recently cleaned up the Manga section, complete with info about the new season of manga in Young Jump, and have proposed a few structural changes to the article on the talk page. I also intend to upload some properly-sourced and annotated screenshots for use on the Characters article; if anyone could give me some tips on doing this successfully I'd appreciate it. Hope to see you out there! —dragfyre (talk 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I heavily suggest using the MOS as a guide in you editing, to help you with figuring out how to redo the article organization, and clean up information. Also, be advised that per the WP:NONFREE policy, individual images on the character pages is a big no-no and they will be cut back out very quickly. One or two group images is all that is allowed. I've tagged the article to help point out some of the biggest issues as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment for Vegeta and Tien

I'd like people in charge to think about reassessing these articles ... I don't see why is Vegeta B-Class and Why is Tien Start-Class ... Vegeta should go down and Tien should go up IMO. But that on you to decide ... Also Gohan should go up SSJ 5 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. G.A.S 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please check Gohan? Seems like B class to me, failing that High C. G.A.S 18:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a problem with the citations, some of them are "chapter ?" with no page. The in-universe info is very big compared to the out-of-universe info, while there are some fansites as sources.--Tintor2 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank yoy, C class it is then, but moreso on the out of universe content vs plot content than the citations. G.A.S 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tnx for looking into it ... As for "fansites as sources", i think that it is ok to use them as long as we all agree that the info stated there is correct. SSJ 5 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not okay to use. They do not meet WP:RS and need to be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all rules have to be followed blindly. Wikipedia:IAR. I'm just sayin' ... If we all agree its a good source ... Let it be. SSJ 5 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

IAR does not give cart blanche to ignore WP:RS just to allow fansites to be "sources" and let non-verifiable stuff get into articles. They are not reliable sources and they aren't even good sources. If the information isn't available from a real source, it goes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What info are we talking about? By way of an example, daizex is a fansite, but it is easy to verify their info (they cite their sources). It would likely, then, be prudent to cite in such an example the root source. But if something came from a site like that, the info itself may not be flawed and should just be looked into. For instance, if one were to cite Daizex for info on the burst limit OST coming, you could say "remove it, its a fansite." But the article has a link to the info from CDJapan. That means it is verifiable, and could just be re-cited. Are any of the links in question potentially of that nature? Onikage725 (talk)

In such a case, you should go back to the original source and check it yourself to ensure it is correct, then cite that original source if it is RS. Daizex itself is still not RS. I cite often cite sources in my reviews, but that doesn't make my reviews RS. Its still a self-published, fansite from a non-expert that does not meet the RS qualifications. It doesn't matter if the information is "correct" as the site isn't considered reliable for determining that. If it is correct, and notable information, it will be available in other sources that are reliable. There really is never any reason one "must" use a fansite. If a fansite or other non-RS source is the only one with the info, then the info is either untrue or not notable enough to even be mentioned anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one said that fansites must be used ... I just said that its ok to use them if the info is acceptable by everyone. There is a lot of unsourced on the fan sites but they can be used to illustrate for example, Big Bang attack or The tournament charts. I'd rather use that than the chapters refs (the best case is that in which are both used simultaneously, which I largely support) SSJ 5 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They not only must be used, they must NOT be used. Again, they are NOT reliable at all, and no, they can not be used to illustrate anything. The primary work is a perfectly acceptable RS for non-interprative statements. Fansites never are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't get is why people say that it's acceptable to use fansites not for referencing development, reception, etc, but for storyline stuff. If it's actually true, can't the book just be referenced instead? It's more professional, actual proof, and is one step closer to achieving GA or even FA. As for development, reception, etc notes, it's already been agreed upon that it isn't a good idea. Basically I'm missing the point of using fansites at all. If the information is true, then it should already be somewhere, not conviently on a fansite. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability requirements

I notice you guys have an extra notability guideline for manga, in addition to the five at WP:NB, which I totally support and agree with. Without it, there wouldn't be many articles on any non-American comics, unless someone was darn good at scouring native-language sources. I read through past discussions, but am wondering how that guideline come about, and have you ever been challenged by "outside" editors about it? Has Wikipedia as a whole been accepting of the additional criterium? Are you able to point to it when someone slaps a notability tag on an article because it fails WP:NB? Thanks for the background! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who helped draft it because I perceived a need, I've yet to invoke it. I'm not sure anyone outside the project has even noticed it, in fact. In situations I've seen where a manga has had notability concerns, either the article has been successfully defended by showing the series meets one of the five at WP:BOOK or it really has been non-notable, such as it's a one-shot. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty new at this, so I appreciate your answers! Are you generally able to satisfy challenges based on #1 (third-party coverage) and/or #3 (made in to TV/film)? If just #1, what kind of sources do you use? I don't find most Asian comics covered anywhere in "mainstream" English-language media. Are online publications that deal with anime, manga, & similar "good enough?" (See, I thought they weren't, so I never use them.) To be honest, I am shocked at some of what I see tagged for notability, especially as they are stubs that actually have references. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple very useful sources are here and here. They still need more indexing work, but some has already been done. Just look for links from these pages in the "What links here" list for a specific article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the resources. What about online resources? Are amateur-but-well-known "industry" websites acceptable to establish notability for series that don't have an anime but also aren't enormous mainstream hits? Like, say, a review on animeondvd.com, or an entry on ANN. Because this stuff just isn't getting discussed in "proper" sources like the New York Times, and yet it's still considered notable. For that matter, do editors outside of this project ever slap tags on your stuff? I see manga articles for series that aren't even published outside of Japan with no references -- have those been challenged? (I'm not challenging them, I'm only trying to get some perspective on why some other articles are.) Thanks so much for your time, everyone! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 02:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither AoD nor ANN are "amateur" sites and both are reliable sources. ICv2.com is another good one. They are proper sources, and meet all WP:RS requirements. Occasionally someone will question ANN, but all three have been held up as reliable sources in our GAs, FLs, and our few FAs. For the second question, yes, some manga series that have not been published outside of Japan have been challenged. Some have been kept, others merged. Some of those challenges came from project members, particularly for things like a one-shot. If valid, reliable sources can't be found, in English or Japanese, proper challenging is to be expected and they are either deleted or redirected to the author page (if the author is notable enough to have an article). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wonderful! Thank you for the background on AoD & ANN. I never figured the "rest" of Wikipedia would consider them worthy. That makes things a lot easier. Thank you also for the background on where and why you get notability challenges. I recently got slapped with a notability tag for a Chinese manhua series that's published in five languages (including English), was named in IGN's Top 10 manga of the year, and is sitting on every Borders Bookstore shelf in the USA. I think the editor who did it didn't bother to read the stub, because it was pretty clear he was off the mark, however this info makes it much easier to "refute" the challenge and to generally know what to expect in the future. Thanks again, all of you. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have encountered people(deletionists) who claimed Anime magazines are not reliable sources for Anime and Manga and Hobby magazines are not reliable on anything they think is not notable. MythSearcher^talk 05:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all deletionists claim real magaznes are not RS, nor are all the ones who challenge them deletionists. It really wasn't necessary to even add that part. Yes, some people challenge hobby magazines and other specialized references. Its the same in ANY topic. You really want to get a headache, try following the debates over some science magazines. Has nothing to do with deletionism at all, just different points of view and unfamiliarity with the topic or publication. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is one of the benefits of having projects. Good projects, like ours, can generally be able to say "yes, that's a reliable source for this topic" and we've been able to back it up on those sites. Its much like any other "specialized" topic. Most people outside of the films project don't realize that IMDB is NOT a reliable source, so Films folks have to deal with removing them and replacing them with real sources (they also get the bulk of folks copy/pasting from IMDB, which is another whole issue :P). Almost any printed anime/magazine is also good for a reliable source, except maybe those freebie ones Viz distributes through Best Buy ;-) There also some great books as well. When in doubt, on anime and manga at least, you can also just ask here. :) (Manhua falls under the comics project, so you'd need to ask there for it).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the Viz freebies be okay? If they're directly from the publisher, what's wrong with them?Westrim (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I said maybe. :P Some might question them as long sales pamphlets and therefore lacking neutrality and usable for more than sales dates and the like (and can't remember at the moment if they list the authors of the little articles in each). Don't think I've seen anyone try to actually use one, though, so no idea if it would be challenged or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually the one spearheading the resuscitation of manhwa and manhua at Comics! :) There are great folks in the Comics project, and they do a mindboggling job on the DC & Marvel type stuff and some European genres, but there's just been no one there (until now) who can address the Asian stuff at all. The to-do lists have been immense just for organizational aspects; sometimes I feel actual content won't be tackled until 2010 or so, LOL. The project is very supportive, but I've had to do a fair bit of feeling things out for myself, figuring out what's best and at the same time not commit any faux-pas. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia on top of it all, so I'm not sure what inspired me to attempt this, other than I saw that need. The anime & manga project is so vast and well-oiled, and because of shared aspects of manga and other Asian comics, I've been able to look over your shoulders for many tips. But this is all very much a challenge! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 06:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I welcome to add to the list of references I have on Gundam, Macross, etc. topics? Or is it that I need to first ask here whether they are reliable individually and get a consensus before I can add them? MythSearcher^talk 06:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its okay to add them since that page is for published books so they are likely to be RS, though if you aren't completely sure, it doesn't hurt to double check. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian: for most published books on a particular topic, they will likely be acceptable as RS (though perhaps only for a very narrow focus). If you aren't sure, feel free to ask. There are even specific publishers that publish pretty much nothing but reliable sources (like Stone Bridge). A comment on the Viz pamphlets, though: if they have interviews in them, they would be useful. Other than that, I agree that they likely aren't good for much except sales date information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my concerns are mainly about them being third party sources or not. Are official guide books considered third party sources, or are they considered as self-published sources, things like that. MythSearcher^talk 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The are not "self-published" in the way that, say, blogs are, but no, they are not third-party. They are reliable for the purposes of verification of details, but not for supporting the notability of a subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What Quasirandom said. Official guide books are not "self-published" but they are considered primary sources. They are reliable sources and can be used in the article to fill out details, etc, but they can not be used to support the notability of a topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, added references. Also, as a side question, the reference of Macross in a Gundam book would be a third party reliable source supporting the notability of Macross, is this correct? MythSearcher^talk 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Only barely. It would need much more than just one. The Macross series, however, has no notability issues, so not anything to worry about.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it is just supporting, not the major source. And of course I am totally not worried about Macross, I guess it concerns more about Macross technology in that sense, since the referenced part is all about technology in Gundam and Macross(Mainly on hybrid thermo-nuclear propulsion). The Gundam Sentinel book also contains author references of S.F.3.D.(S.A.F.S.), Atom Boy, Five Star Story and Mazinger Z all being stories that helped the development of the novel story and background.(Even going as far as saying Sentinel is the Up to date version of Atom Boy at the time.) MythSearcher^talk 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

C Class

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#C Class

A Class

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#A Class

Importance scale

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Importance scale

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

Funimation licensed many Geneon properties.

Heads up. Funimation has licensed some (but not all) of the properties dropped by Geneon last year. [1][2]. As such many articles need updating. I've already addressed Geneon, Paradise Kiss and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. Article that need updating Ergo Proxy, Hellsing Ultimate, Black Lagoon, Karin, Kyo Kara Maoh!, Lyrical Nanoha, Elemental Gelade, Fate/stay night, Kamichu, the live-action Ninja Vixens work, Rozen Maiden, Shakugan no Shana, Shonen Onmyouji, The Familiar of Zero, The Story of Saiunkoku, The Law of Ueki. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MY TEARS LIKE WATERFALLS. This is a happy day! Um... back to work. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to know...especially on The Story of Saiunkoku *grin* and thanks for the links, will help source when people update without adding them :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Its on ANN's convention reporting. *fades* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh -- Kamichu but not Haibane Renmei. Interesting pattern there. Oh, and yay. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect they mostly aimed for the unfinished series first so they would get full marketing and sales potential...oh, just noticed Karin on the list too. To bad Funi doesn't do light novels...they could finish what *blank* Tokyopop decided to stop with only 3 left to go *cry* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair number of completed series there, including Kamichu!. Like I said, interesting pattern. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've crossed out ergo proxy it has been updated. for quick cut and paste sourcing use this (just add brackets)

<ref>{{cite press release | title = FUNimation Entertainment and Geneon Entertainment Sign Exclusive Distribution Agreement for North America | url = http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2008-07-03/funimation-entertainment-and-geneon-entertainment-sign-exclusive-distribution-agreement-for-north-america | publisher = [[Funimation Entertainment]] and [[Geneon]] | date = [[July 3]], [[2008]] | accessdate = 2008-07-03}}</ref>

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And additional note. Geneon has not gone out of business when you update the article, be aware that only the North American arm of geneon ceased operation. To state geneon as a whole went out of business is factually incorrect. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An addition to the addition - Geneon USA did not go out of business either, they just ceased distribution. They are still active as the master license holder for North America and other countries, but are now using FUNimation for distribution of the above titles. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good clarification. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm seeing a problem with info box edits regarding this change. I opted to leave Geneon in place and simply add Funimation as an additional licensor [3] but other editors have opted to remove Geneon altogether. Alternatively, we can list is as "Geneon, then Funimation" [4]. This should remain consistent, and account for Geneon's previous licensing. Thoughts? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black Lagoon article has it even a third way,

Geneon
(original licensor)
 : FUNimation

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Collectonian spoke to this on User talk:Mark Lungo's talk page. Pasting here for further discussion

When updating infoboxes to include Funimation's licenses, please replace Geneon or ADV with Funimation Entertainment (full name), rather than added ", then" to it. The infoboxes are for the current information. The prose will handle old licenses. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Though, from what was said below, it appears Geneon still holds their licenses and Funi is just a distributer? If that is the case, then Geneon USA should remain in the infobox, and Funi being the distro should just be in the prose. For ADV, I believe Funi now holds the licenses, so ADV should be replaced with Funi and their holding the license first covered in the prose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon 4chan Edits and Otakon

Apparently, Otakon has opted to not have a 4chan panel. As a result, anonymous editors are vandalizing the article to voice their displeasure. It seems to be just a trickle of edits right now [5], [6], but here is a heads up. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a problem, request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. --Farix (Talk) 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess!

Hi. I noticed in the talk page of Oh My Goddess! that the 20th anniversary of the manga is fast approaching. This suggests that it might be mice to try and fix the main page before that date, but the page is a tad convoluted. I was wondering if there were any suggestions on where to start. I have a number of good secondary sources, so I have some material to work with, but advice would be very much welcome. :) Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope you got lots of time...that is one big clean up project. Could have sworn I tagged that thing for issues (but its tagged now, anyway, to point out some of the biggest issues and I did a few quick things for big issues). The WP:MOS-AM can help with regards to structure and what sort of content is (and isn't) needed. Most of the images need to go, the OR kicked out, and most sections rewritten. Several of the subpages for the individual releases should be evaluated for merging back into this article as they really don't need to be separate articles at all. With all that done, a production and reception section are much needed, and of course plenty of WP:RS :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have the official book Colours, if things need to be sourced. I suck at writing, so I guess I will fill in for the sourcing part. MythSearcher^talk 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't knock yourself there -- sourcing's the hard part. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :) I typically spend much more time trying to track sources than I do actually editing the articles. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also forgot, I do have two books which have info on the series that I scan in the relevant pages for you (or anyone else) for sourcing as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any help on sources is appreciated. I've got Napier's book, and about 5 or so academic papers that discuss the series, which is somewhere to start. While it is a big job, having academic discussion of the work is more than just a tad helpful, which is why I hold out the faint hope that it can be done by early August. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ann template merge proposal

I noticed that the ann templates ({{ann manga}}, {{ann anime}}, {{ann name}}, {{ann company}}) all have practically the same code, so I thought it might be nice to have one template that can be used for all of them. I wrote up the code for it here. I used #switch to easily determine which type is desired. The default type is manga. It also supports using "OVA" and "movie" instead of "anime" where it's needed. Also, for articles that only are about one type, it allows you to not put those parentheses after the title. I thought it would be better to discuss this here instead of on all the templates' talk pages. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Will we attempt to update the old ones, or just let them replaced one by one as time permits? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say replace over time - the new functions are rather minor. Went ahead and created {{ann}}. Will mention it on the other templates talk pages. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to updating the above templates to just call {{ann}}? E.g. for {{ann manga}}, the code might become

{{ann|manga|2={{{1|{{{id}}}}}}|3={{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}

resulting in WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 30 (manga) at Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Furthermore, could we add functionality to allow {{ann manhwa}} to be merged in? —Dinoguy1000 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's... ingenious! Collectonian, was that what you were asking about before? I added support for manhwa and manhua to the template. I suggest changing the templates like this:

{{ann|manga|2={{{1|{{{id}}}}}}|3={{{2|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|4={{{3|}}}}}

so that the noparen part can be used. For instance: {{ann manga|1598|Naruto}}; {{ann manga|1598|Naruto|noparen}} would give:

Naruto (manga) at Anime News Network's encyclopedia; Naruto at Anime News Network's encyclopedia

Thoughts? --Eruhildo (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was asking, and that would be rather cool if it can be done. :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't thinking. I changed all the ann templates that I know exist to use the above code. I also wrote up the docs for {{ann}}. If y'all could go through the docs and clean them up, that would be awesome. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Daiwon update

Hello all. I've been expanding and restructuring the article on Daiwon C&A Holdings, now called Daewon Media. If you want to link to the parent company, you can use one of the previous two names. However, if you want to link to the publisher, you'll want to use Daiwon C.I., which is now a separate article. I've updated all the existing applicable Daiwon C&A Holdings links to Daiwon C.I., and if I made any misdirections, I hope you'll forgive. This is a work in progress so please don't be alarmed if things are a bit messy at the moment. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime conventions article structure

This has been setting on WT:ANIME/CONS for some time and I finally moved it to the work group's page (WP:ANIME/CONS). However, I still would like more input on the exact wording of each bullet point. --Farix (Talk) 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime Expo cosplayer image

Kopf1988 (talk · contribs) and I have both removed File:Anime Expo 2008 Cosplayer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from the Anime Expo article. The reason I gave was that the image of the cosplayer was too poor of quality and was purely decorative in nature instead of illustrating the subject or something in the article. However, Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the image to the article without engaging in a discussion on the talk page. Therefore, I am calling for further input by others in the project about this image. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that is a really bad image. An image like that fails the image use guidelines, which call for clear, quality images. As a side note, I've given him a 3RR warning as he's on his fourth revert. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Remove the image. It's cell phone quality, and there are no identifying features of Anime Expo in the image either. It's not like its of an event. Purely decorative cosplay picture. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Anime Expo 2008 Cosplayer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs deleted, so I have nominated it. I can't see it ever being of any use anywhere. Kopf1988 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not even in the Cosplay article, due to quality concerns. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a Commons hosted image, so I voted for delete there due to fair use considerations (Commons doesn't allow fair use images). However I should also note that there are lots of other cosplay pics on there still, as it seems that there's no solid consensus yet as to the legality of these for Commons purposes. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It has been suggested that Teito Monogatari and Doomed Megalopolis be merged. Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack details

So what's the "appropriate amount of detail" for music releases for an anime series that for each season puts out a soundtrack album, a couple image albums, and singles of OT and ET? I'm assuming track listings for the singles is going overboard. What about track listings for the albums? And what's the standard format to use for these? Any model articles to follow here? Thanks for any assist here. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For track listings, a lot of video game articles are going with collapsible tables, like at Music of Final Fantasy VII (and every other FF game), for instance. Certainly if there's good info, especially for series where the music has a lot of Western coverage (like Cowboy Bebop and Utena to name two) then a page like that might not be a bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. Films said no track listings at all, just the details on who produced, release date, releasing company, and maybe a summary of artists or music type if sourcable. The TV project mostly does the same.The Music project, interestingly enough, does not specifically touch on track lists in their editing guidelines, though albums gives guidelines on their style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Track listing. Video game does the collapsible things (which I personally find seriously ugly), and its held up in GAs (don't know about FAs), but that's specifically with a page of soundtracks. There is also {{Tracklist}} template formatting. In the end, there is no consensus anywhere on the appropriateness of having tracklists in an article or if they should be limited to album pages.

I go with the film model, with one paragraph per soundtrack for series I work on and no track lists at all. Specific songs are only mentioned if notable and discussed in reliable sources, and with op/en themes noted in the episode lists. I also strongly believe the last bit, that tracklists should only be in album articles, and the album article should only exist if notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been down this road before, have you? Hmm. What about if it's spun off in a list of albums? Or is that likely to run into non-inheritable notability issues? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep indeed. A tracklist spun off a list of albums or an individual album? For the first, I found dozens of them in AfD, all deleted (along with ones listing all songs used in a series and the like). For individual albums, spinning off from a list of albums will generally have the same result. If it can't meet WP:MUSIC it will generally be redirected/merged to the list or to the artist's page, or deleted (usually just redirected). I'm trying to remember the conversation at Films that resulted in the no tracklists in articles. I'm pretty sure part of it was issues with lists in articles in general, part with WP:NOT for sales catalog info, and just part with it not being notable or relevant to the topic. Highlighting the notable songs, where there were any, was seen as providing more valuable content than just a list of songs on the CD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating a "list of albums/soundtracks" list would be the same thing as a discography, and that's permitted.--十八 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But not with track listings. Those aren't allowed on discographies per Wikiproject Disography, though. :( --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I clarify to you that MOS:DISCOG isn't even a guideline yet, and a WikiProject alone is not a guideline nor policy. That said, track listings aren't taboo as they're in most every article about a single album; I have no idea why they would suddenly not be permitted if you merged a bunch of albums together into a "list of" article unless its a discography which I can see since a discography will most always link to the individual singles/albums; see Foo Fighters discography for an example. So keeping the tracks on a "list of" article of merged albums makes sense.--十八 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh track listings are certainly allowed on articles about a single album or song. They're not allowed, or are "strongly discouraged"(and some editors remove them on sight), on discographies. If I understand correctly (and I may not), the idea is that if an album or single is not notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC and thus get its own article, its full track listing is likewise not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Like other contributors to the discussion, I was simply bringing in how these things have been handled in other situations and how other projects handle related issues. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But sometimes lists are made so we don't have tons of articles that fail notability on their own. This is the same reason why we merge character articles into character lists unless a character can be proven to be notable in their own right. Similarly, if an album can be notable in its own right, then it gets its own article; the other related albums can go into a "list of ____ albums/soundtracks" article with track listings.--十八 04:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. The question was raised, so I added relevant information to the discussion, that's all. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which makes ya wonder how the FF pages are getting away with it. ~whistle~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Music of Final Fantasy X-2 and related pages are "getting away with it" because they are going through GA; it wouldn't work if it was with FL.--十八 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw in that there are a couple of hundred CDs from Prince of Tennis, both soundtracks and character CDs, and that doesn't include the radio show, live-action, musical, or video game soundtracks. Open the door for full track listings and, well...I'll leave it to your imaginations. ;) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So ... summarizing the sense of the meeting, I get that while track lists might be defensible if the albums are spun off in a List Of, they may not be if kept in the series article -- and in any case, they would be better presented in the {{Tracklist}} template (both because that's the standard layout and because they're default hidden). Have I recorded that accurately? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, with the caveat that spinning off into a List of should not be done soley to have a tracklist, but because there are a long list of albums that can not be summarized in prose in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur on this point.--十八 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy compilation albums has track lists and it's a FL... --Mika1h (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, that uses a different (and less graceful) format of collapsed lists than {{Tracklist}}. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball assistance

Merge a nearly unanimous consensus, the various disparate Dragon Ball articles, including Dragon Ball (franchise), Dragon Ball (manga)]], Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball GT, and Dragon Ball Z were properly merged back into a single cohesive Dragon Ball article. A single IP however is making all kinds of stink about it, claiming it had no consensus, threatening to sic an admin on me as the merger for "vandalizing" the articles. He's also threatening to undo all of the merges because he says consensus is against the merge by one IP making a short complaint (never heard from again), and two editors disagreeing with the merge (once), and one disagreeing with the loss of info (not the merge itself), but acknowledging that as the info not merged was completely unsourced, it was appropriate. Instead, he says he has eight editors for consensus and discounts my note that seven established editors has agreed with the merge. I've tried to explain to him about as politely as I can that the merge was done by consensus and to bring the article inline with our MoS, etc. He is still at it, though, even leaving messages with multiple admins (to my amusement) complaining about the butchering a "few individuals" have done to the article and calling it vandalism.

Thought I'd post here to get some more voices weighing in and showing him that yes, the merges had project consensus (or, if you do disagree, feel free to state that as well and why since he's only reason is that he liked the old one). Talk:Dragon Ball#What the hell is where the fussing is going on. I'm done yapping with him because he obviously is gonna decide his one voice is somehow a massive consensus against the merge, but perhaps a few other voices would help him see reason since he's decided I'm a "vandal" *insert eye roll* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shonen Jump and story arcs

Yes, I know, generally story arcs are deleted with vehemence when they're found, but still, I figured I'd ask... The North American Shonen Jump frequently divides the manga it serializes into story arcs - for instance, Naruto has been divided as follows (I don't know all the details, but this is what I do know; also note that Shonen Jump starts chapter numbering over from 1 with each new arc, so I don't have exact chapter numbers in all (most =P ) cases):

• Naruto: 1-~114
• Orochimaru's Invasion: 1-24 (~115-139?)
• The Return of Itachi: 1-10 (~140-150?)

(serialization skip)

• Kidnapped: 1-36 (245-280)
• new story arc starting in September '08 issue (281-?)

Is there any place for these story arc details in any lists of chapters, or am I wasting my time by asking? Of course, I would be sure to first make sure of chapter numbers before I added any such information, but if project consensus runs against even this, then I won't bother in the first place. ;) —Dinoguy1000 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are published with arcs, evne if not in the original, people are going to see those and look for information about arcs (such as what was in which, what have they missed, and so on). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, even the Japanese official publication uses these, or at least retconed after full series is published, as in Japanese X篇, but more usual simply 第一部, 第二部 as in Naruto. Yet the chapter number in Japan remains the ascending order without renewing. A recent series example would be Bleach, first 8 manga is 死神代行篇, 尸魂界篇, 破面篇. MythSearcher^talk 17:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually chapter numbers remain in continual sequence. I can think of a couple (Cross Game and Crimson Hero, off the top of my head) of numbering resets. But otherwise, your point stands, and we should follow the numbering of the original form. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was never suggesting that we "reset" the chapter counts where they get reset in the magazine/whatever, I was merely pointing out that Shonen Jump makes a habit of doing it whenever they start a new arc. ;) —Dinoguy1000 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally the arcs are removed because they are fan creations and unsourcable. If there are official arc names that are sourceable, then I think its fine to use the names for splitting a long chapter list into sections. Beyond that, maybe a sentence or two in the lead to mention the series spanning X story arcs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this at first, but I haven't noticed story arcs as presented in Shonen Jump being carried through into the English tankōbon, so whatever doesn't get serialized in SJ (in this particular case, I'm not speaking for other (English or Japanese) magazines) won't have official arc information present (unless they publish such info on the website somewhere, or I've been overlooking it in the volumes). Once again, using Naruto as an example, SJ skipped the serialization of around six (IIRC, I'll have to look up the exact number) volume's worth of chapters at the end of Part I before beginning serialization of Part II in January. —Dinoguy1000 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually I see the names at the end of each arc. If labels something like 第一部完 (end of First part, which is also mentioned in Genshiken that it is a tactic used rather commonly nowadays that it does not label the end of the series but only part 1 of it, but may never continue to part 2 in the future. My own speculation of such series examples include Blue Seed and MX0.) MythSearcher^talk 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To get a better feel for the frequency with which Shonen Jump labels series with story arcs, I've started a page at User:Dinoguy1000/Shonen Jump story arcs that lists each issue of SJ seperately and what chapters were serialized in it. It's far from done (it only lists three issues out of 68 lol), but if anyone has back issues handy (particularly older than October 2005), you're welcome to list them. When I get home, I'll see about starting on listing my own collection of back issues (as well as reading the issues I got from the library ^^). —Dinoguy1000 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Funimation/Geneon/ADV

There is some mis-conceptions going one between the deal with Funimation and Geneon and some problems with titles that were licensed by ADV Films then licensed by Funimation.

First, Funimation & Geneon partnership. The titles currently involved should not have their licenses updated to say "Geneon, then Funimation". All the animes in the Funimation/Geneon deal should have their license section read "Geneon" only because this is a partnership to distribute select anime series. Similar to Funimation's involvement with Full Metal Panic! The Second Raid where Kadokawa Pictures USA holds the license.

Second, Funimation & ADV situation. Titles involved should have their license part updated to read "Funimation" or "ADV Films, then Funimation" but somewhere in the article should mention that the title was previously licensed by ADV then picked up by Funimation as a result of the ADV/Sojitz breakup. When looking at Le Chevalier D'Eon the article does not mention ADV's involvement with the series, the only thing mention is Funimation is the license holder. New readers that are not familiar with the situation will think that Funimation did the production/dubbing of this series but really it was ADV. Also current series that were stopped mid-way through should indicate the shake up plus the fact that Funimation is retaining ADV as a sub-contractor to handle dubbing and production duties for these series. Keynote Address: Gen Fukunaga, CEO, Funimation (see last paragraph regarding Geneon/ADV). In addition, both Funimation Entertainment and AD Vision should be updated with proper information regarding the topic.

This would help each article that is involved plus better inform readers. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The first is mostly being done by a single editor, which I left him a note about. After learning more about the Geneon ones, I agree that they should still say Geneon as the licensor, with the prose noting that Funimation is the distributor. For the second, it should just say Funimation Entertainment in the infobox, with the prose noting the earlier ADV license and the details. And for my notes, please either use Funimation Entertainment or use a pipe...avoid redirects and all. And when doing updates, make sure Geneon is noting that Geneon USA is the licensor, not Geneon Entertainment, so as to avoid confusion since Geneon USA is the one that closed, while Geneon Entertainment is still quite alive and well. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops I just spoke to this above in an earlier at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Funimation_licensed_many_Geneon_properties. It appears, I have a conflicting view on how to proceed. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated all Geneon properties involved to reflect that Geneon still holds the license but Funimation is the distributer. All articles now include somewhere the nature of the deal as outlined in the press releases. I did this because one title was correct, most were wrong and others didn't mention Geneon's involvement.

In regards to the ADV/Funimation titles I think that maybe we should have this in the infobox:

ADV Films
(original licensor)
Funimation Entertainment

What do you guys think? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe in the case of the ADV-->FUN titles, only Funimation should be listed in the infobox, and we can keep the "ADV was the original licensor" info in prose.--十八 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan at MfD

Considering Wikipe-tan is our mascot, I thought folks might want to know that Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan has been nominated for MfD (again). Discussion here -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances of the nomination are also notable: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan2. --Masamage ♫ 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

When will this madness ever end? G.A.S 07:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like now, for now...for the second time, its been closed per WP:SNOW. First was non-admin close, and it was reversed; second is also non-admin, so may be reversed again :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's Nihonjoe or Sephiroth when you need 'em? --十八 07:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't say much, but the last time I saw something this ridiculous was here. G.A.S 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Even worse, there is actually an AN/I thread about it! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"It's a black blob" - priceless, just priceless. And yeah, I would have speedy closed that if I had saw it earlier. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have let someone else close it as I may be considered to have a conflict of interest given my interest in Wikipe-tan and Kasuga's works. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AnimeOnDvd links potentially broken

Since Beveridge sold out to Mania.com, they're in a period of transition and all their urls are changing. No idea what sort of effect this is having on us, but simply navigating the new site is a chore so I can only imagine. Just a heads up. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

From the forum postings, the links should supposedly be fixed after the DNS entries all finish updating. Also checking to make sure the actual AoD reviews will be separate from user submitted stuff, or we'll end up losing one of our best reliable sources for reviews/reception :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As an update, it looks like review redirects have been fixed and existing links are working again. News links, however, are still down. ~back to mourning AoD~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully I don't use AoD for anything other than a weekly visit to see what new dvds are coming out. It still is "ok" for that now that they fixed the amazingly bad formatting errors. But we can agree that its no longer the well designed resource it once was. *mourns* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shugo Chara!

I am currently trying to bring Shugo Chara! up to B-Class and would like someone to give it a once over to make sure it meets all of the criteria. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We have B-class criteria now? Not that it's a bad thing (IMO, most projects should imitate MILHIST in this regard). We probably should send all such requests to WP:ANIME/ASSESS though. As for the article itself, it looks good for B-class (prose needs sprucing up before a GA-run, though). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since C-class was introduced. --Farix (Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We are just ironing out some final issues at WP:ANIME/ASSESS, and can then make a final announcement. If you want to list something there in the meanwhile, that will be fine. The idea is to get a worthwhile system going. Any volunteers? G.A.S 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How to disambiguate Dragon Ball characters

I'm having a talk over here with an editor who moved Cell (Dragon Ball) to Cell (Dragon Ball Z) some time ago. I disagree with the move, mainly because there was no consensus to do so. I would like to hear some thoughts on the matter. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball is one word, surely? I'm ambivalent. Given that the manga has also been split into two halves to follow the Z naming convention, if a character first appears in the Z section of the series, I can see the disambig specifying that. Doceirias (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the franchise is simply "Dragon Ball". That is the point I am trying to make. Does this give precedence to moving Pan (Dragon Ball) to Pan (Dragon Ball Z) just because she appeared in DBZ first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to use only "(Dragon Ball)". That's the name of the franchise and, regardless of Viz's decision of releasing the second half of the manga as Dragon Ball Z, there is no Dragon Ball Z manga. Cell and Pan were introduced in the "Dragon Ball" manga, not "Dragon Ball Z". Also, WP:DAB says that when it comes to disambiguation, simpler is better.--Nohansen (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's ignoring the official English name based on personal preference. Doceirias (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The franchise is known as "Dragon Ball" in Japan, America and (I'm pretty sure) everywhere else. It's the same reason Category:Mortal Kombat characters use the parenthetical qualifier "(Mortal Kombat)" regardless of when the character was introduced: because the characters belong to the whole series, not just one instalment.--Nohansen (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, we have Chaos (Sailor Moon), not Chaos (Sailor Stars). --Masamage ♫ 05:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to move back the page? And I'd like for this discussion to apply for all fictional characters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Disambiguation in titles should always use the most general possible term while still being specific enough to be identifying. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this; using the franchise name consistently is a convincing argument. Doceirias (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is as good a time as any to remember that redirects are cheap - if there's really that big a problem, just redirect all the alternate forms being fought over to whatever form is (forcefully?) agreed upon. —Dinoguy1000 22:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I'll try moving the page back now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Building better plot summaries

I've worked up a potential guideline on how to write plot summaries at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I welcome input from members of this project as I try to move the page to guideline status. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime image RfC

N-Denizen (talk · contribs) keeps insisting that Image:Old vs New Anime.jpg is a bias image because it was upload by an opinionated individual, Paul "OtaKing" Johnson, and therefore should be removed from Anime. I've tried to reason with this person, but I have a feeling I'm talking to a brick wall. So I'm calling for additional comments on whether the image is bias or not and if the NFU rational is still valid. --Farix (Talk) 15:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of screencaps from different series this image includes, I've got serious reservations over whether any rationale can be applied to it so that it meets FU, etc. Of course, not being overly familiar with image guidelines/policies, my opinion probably isn't worth much there. Aside from that, though, a new version of the image where all the screencaps are the same size and spaced more evenly, and labeled as to what series they're from, would be nice. No opinion on its usability in the Anime article, though. —Dinoguy1000 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the dates seem to be wrong for the series shown - at least going by the Wikipedia articles the rationale links to. I would say that the ones on the left look like what I would think of as "old style" anime and the ones on the right as "new style" anime. I don't really see a problem with having it or one like it in the article, and I don't see such an image as biased. Sounds like someone just has a chip on his shoulder about Paul Johnson. I could care less whether Paul or anyone else created it, myself. If this is going to be an issue, I can easily create a new image that better exemplifies the matter. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be what will have to happen, since the one vehemently protesting the image is making a big deal about it begin created by Paul Johnson. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to work on it then. Anyone have suggestions of anime series to use? I'm thinking we should have about a 10 year gap or more to emphasize the difference. Right now I'm thinking Akira & Neon Genesis Evangelion for old and Bleach & Naruto for new. I'd prefer to use the more popular series. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Record of Loddoss War was a good choice for the old. Haibane Renmei has good comparable "new" art because of its detailed backdrops and lighting effects. --Masamage ♫ 18:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also think it would be better to include whole scenes instead of facials or portraits. There is more to a style then just the character designs. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, will make sure to do both and combos. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It IS a biased image, I've seen several like it. You can make one yourself, too - simply put screenshots of major scenes from OVAs and films on one side, and put images of minor scenes (such as characters just chatting during downtime) from low-budget or extremely long series, then use it as "evidence" that all new anime really DOES suck compared to all the old stuff people watched when they were younger and that they're not just tainted with nostalgia. In reality, the two sides aren't comparable for a variety of reasons including the ones I mentioned earlier, and even if they were comparable, it still wouldn't be accurate because regardless of the quality of still shots, the actual animation was lower in quality and subject to many more obvious animation shortcuts just a few years ago. Those images are usually made and posted by forum trolls and then reposted by people who don't know any better. It really, REALLY isn't encyclopedic. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to make a non-biased image showing comparable scenes from similar anime. --Masamage ♫ 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I plan to do. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The big hole in your argument is that the image is NOT being used to demonstrate that "new anime sucks" nor is such a claim being made by the article's text or the image's caption. Instead, it is illustrating how styles have changed without expressing an opinion on whether the changes are good or bad. --Farix (Talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What Farix just said. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Farfax, now I don't have to rant. ^_^ --Eruhildo (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are partly right, though, if you're trying to suggest that the exact choice of series is arbitrary. If you think you have better sample series, then by all means, list them. —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is still a hole in that, Farix. The images should show equal animation; the stylistic change could point to something mediocre drawing-wise. Well animated and high quality anime, like the older OVA screenshots used, might not have as much detail with lines and coloring, but will be well drawn and glossy. I can safely assume that the person who added it, by looking at their deviant art page, intentionally compared high quality OVA scenes to low quality scenes. It isn't a huge deal, of course, and I doubt that many people would notice it, but I wouldn't mind the image being cleaned up, either. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't be creating an image that shows "high quality" or "low quality" or anything that would be a matter of opinion. I'll just be showing some snapshots of some older shows, and some snapshots of some newer shows for the sole purpose of showing how the typical "anime style" has changed over the course of time. Just thought I'd clarify that. Thought of some more possible series to use: Outlaw Star or Cowboy Bebop for the older style (ack, those two were made in 1998, I thought they were oldies) and Claymore for the newer style (mainly 'cause it's got some awesome, detailed, beautiful backgrounds). Ok, how about these for older ones: '60s: 8 Man, Astro Boy, Cyborg 009, Speed Racer; '70s: Candy Candy, Lupin III, The Rose of Versailles, Obake no Q-tarō; '80s: Mobile Suit Gundam, Dragon Ball (not Z), Maison Ikkoku, Ranma ½, Saint Seiya, Voltron. These are just the ones I recognized while going through Category:Anime by date of first release. I don't know how many of them would be good examples, I don't even know how many of them I can even get screenshots of. Obviously we can't use them all, so what are y'all's thoughts on them? I think I'll skip '90s anime entirely 'cause I don't want to be saying, "Well, is Sailor Moon old style or new style?" This should be something where bias doesn't come into play. For the new style, I'll use strictly '00s series. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to rain on the parade, but what are we trying to demonstrate with an image like this? I was about to go point how that big shonen hits now tend to have very distinctive art styles, and there is no longer a set mainstream look (unless you count the bishojo game style) but then I realized that was original research...as is the basic idea that animation styles have changed over time. I'm not sure this is something we can be doing here at all. Doceirias (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say that, at least in Shōnen, styles have changed quite a bit over the last 30 years. As for the other demographics, I think they have changed, though some not as much as others. Shōjo seems to me like it's changed some, but I mostly just watch Shōnen and Seinen, so I can't be entirely certain. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, they have. But we can't be the ones to say so. We have to find an article elsewhere talking about the change in styles, and source the section to that - and that goes for images or text. Doceirias (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, styles have changed. But there's not really any distinct style common to all old animes nor is there any style common to all new animes, and even the concepts of "old anime" and "new anime" are rather subjective - for example, I would consider decade-old series like Cowboy Bebop and Outlaw Star to be "old". The main fault of the image, and the reason people have a problem with it, is the comparative aspect. There's not really any good reason for the Wikipedia article to compare old anime to new anime anyway - it's enough to demonstrate the wide variance in art styles without inviting trouble by trying to unnecessarily categorizing stuff. I think the image ought to be removed entirely, considering that Image:Modernanime.jpg does just as good a job of displaying the variance in anime styles without burying itself in subjectivity or controversy by assuming too narrow a focus. It's definitely redundant to have both images on the article, in any case; one should definitely be removed, and given the controversy here, it seems like Image:Old vs New Anime.jpg's removal would be contested by fewer people. I don't mind if you make an image showing both old series and new series as long as it's not a comparison and as long as it replaces BOTH of the current pictures. Gelmax (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Those are actually really good arguments; there's some OR going on no matter what we do. --Masamage ♫ 06:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems I wasn't just talking crazy, huh Farix? In regards to what anime are good to use, I think these are all good examples. However I would try avoid using the same genres, and use an even amount of Sci-Fi, Mecha, Drama, Shounen action, harem, etc. Though I think this has practically been addressed anyway N-Denizen (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point - I'll be sure not to focus one any particular genre. I'll be looking today for which series I can get a hold of. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DragonBall Task Force

I've made a few updates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball to bring it more inline with current project guidelines, the actual consensus seen in article pages, and the deletion/merging of various subarticles.[7] However, it seems like other parts may also need updating. Considering anything else I do will probably get reverted by one of the rabid new fans trying to overturn the merge of the various individual series article into Dragon Ball, would someone else be willing to get the task force page a reading over and update sections, as needed, to make sure it reflects the over arcing project guidelines. In particularly, I am a little concerned about the article structure section, which may not be accurate per many recent discussions on the use of English names of characters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyopop Website

Just a little heads up, Tokyopop is redesigning their website, yet again. From the Beta version so far, the new site will not have the nice series pages with related links, which may mean the need to do some reference link updates, especially in chapter lists, if that isn't fixed before it is made live. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Thanks for the heads up, there. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gatchaman

I have just added references from the official animators of the Science Ninja Team Gatchaman and created a template is this OK? As some of the references are in Japanese. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also on a side note I think Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) should be simply renamed Eagle Riders as it keeps redirecting to Battle of the Planets. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The references are very poorly formated. But why are you adding references to the plot summaries? Plot summaries don't need references because the work verifies the information in the plot summary. --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit the references are poorly formatted hence why I put a tag on the Gatchaman article to format the article properly since I don't know how to do it. The reason I put links to justify the summary I felt if fell underWP:BURDEN. I admit what I have I done is not perfect in trying to improve the article I used Official references from Tatsunoko Productions which I felt makes the information a reliable source WP:SPS.

I don't understand why the official G- Force book has been ignored as potentially useful information for this article. I am not suggesting I am perfect and all knowing but its easy to criticize me I don't see anyone else providing better or more reliable third person info.

And one more question why has the IMDB website for this article being removed[8] and this website from the weblinks I feel its no more or less informative than the White Shadow website already there[9]

[10] G-Force: Animated ISBN 9781893905184

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh Millenium Items

There is a discussion ongoing about what do do with the Millennium Items page. The AfD resulted in no consensus because about 6 different options were presented. It was clear, however, that neither the status quo nor any of the suggestions were strictly superior. I'm looking for some support from the project to see what to do with this page. Thanks Protonk (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Naruto Work Group

I just read that Naruto was a former FA, but isn't anymore so I wondering if anybody was interested in creating or joining a Naruto Work Group. I'm not exactly sure how to create one, but I would really like to, because I really think we can make Naruto a FA. Oh, and anybody is welcome to teach me how. :D Hyakurei (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the first Naruto Work Group was removed because it did not actively do anything to the Naruto articles, (see its MfD) I highly doubt that another one will be of any use. I also question if a series specific work group is really needed given the attention that the Naruto articles are already receiving. --Farix (Talk) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the first group was pointless if it didn't do anything, but I'm sure there are users like me who are willing to help out. That's another reason I'm not creating a group yet. I want to find people who are interested, and the people who are interested need to know what they can do to make the articles better. The users that do edit the articles probably know a lot of things that can be fixed. Sure Naruto recieves a lot of attention, but so do tons of other topics, and not all the people who go to the Naruto articles edit them. For now, let me just see if I can get others interested in this topic. Hyakurei (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The former work group failed because none of the editors that commonly work on the Naruto articles deigned to join it, myself included. There's not really much use to it. Editors already collaborate fine on the local talk pages, and there's no need to create a higher form of organization to manage the articles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You would be welcome to add it at Wikipedia:ANIME/CLEANUP#Series_projects. We can always provide input, if not help with the articles. G.A.S 05:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga-Inspired Comics and What to Call Them

A discussion is on-going on Talk:Original English-language manga#What to call it regarding the name of the article and what term should be used for "world manga" (aka, comics from other countries inspired by manga) as there are now original German language MICs, Spanish MICS, etc. Input appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that this discussion is actually primarily about the Comics project category and only secondarily about the name of the article. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is important, though, as is coming to a consensus on what to call it and what page we'll be linking to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this a C grade Article

If the links I have provided are considered not good enough for Gatchaman what about the links provided by The Littl' Bits I think many of the references are self published and unreliable.WP:RELIABLE WP:SPS

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, they're both Start-Class. Anyway, it should be noted that they recently changed the B class criteria and template so all b-class articles were automatically downgraded to C until they could be re-evaluated. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the articles were previously improperly assessed as B class. We adapted the template after the introduction of C class to assess all B class articles as C class, until such time they are reviewed. Considering there are about 16000 articles to review, this might take a while. G.A.S 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While we are accessing I don't think this is a C grade article either Samurai Pizza Cats

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust assessments (please note your reasoning in the edit summary), or list them on WP:ANIME/ASSESS for review. All B class reviews should preferably be listed on that page as well. Regards, G.A.S 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted the Pizza Cat article rating but back to Gatchaman I feel I have provided official information from the official website albeit mostly in Japanese. I get the impression maybe incorrectly editors seem dismissive of the links. Including the official Gatchamann book. For an encyclopedia you would assume official information would be more pro actively used rather than poo pooed.

[11] G-Force: Animated ISBN 9781893905184

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The current links seems fine, but they still require cleanup: I recommend using the {{cite web}} template for this purpose. The article would require much more citations, though.

Please ask if you require further advice with the article.

G.A.S 05:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, every article shown thus far is pretty bad, and should be considered start class. Following the anime and manga MOS in regards to the organization of the article should be a prerequisite before C-class is even considered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines adjusted accordingly[12]. G.A.S 05:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My last words onn the subject of inadequate articles I believe this these articles are in Astro Boy Belle and Sebastian (TV series)Mysterious Cities of Gold need serious clarification and additional information Dwanyewest (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC).

Why are you stating the obvious? All start-class and stub class articles are in need of serious attention. Note: Belle and Sebastian (TV series) has been re-assessed as a stub G.A.S 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Amazon an acceptable source of sales information?

Hi. Apologies if this has been brought up before, or is answered elsewhere. I was just wondering whether Amazon is considered an acceptable source of information for sales figures? I don't really know how one would go about finding out detailed information regarding sales except for what little snippets of data are sometimes posted on anime news sites, but Amazon seems to me like a reliable enough resource (why would they lie?) regarding how well an anime sells (on amazon at least). What does everyone else think? Thanks for any help. Hellspawn (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to bring the question up over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But since Amazon's data only reflects sales made by Amazon, it would be too narrow a sample to be of any particular use. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't as those sales are purely about Amazon's sales. As Farix notes, its a narrow sample, and likely not a very good one as Amazon isn't unlikely to be the largest seller of anime making it a skewed sample. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Publisher, broadcast, etc. country list ordering in infoboxes

I've recently, and with some hesitancy, begun some cleanup work on the lists of publishers, broadcasters etc. by country in infoboxes. Part of this cleanup entails alphasorting the lists by country name - this also extends to multiple countries listed under the same publisher/network/whatever (see, for example, my recent work on Dragon Ball). However, I could definitely see the possibility for accusations concerning WP:BIAS (and possibly some other policies/guidelines) in this, so before I end up getting myself engaged in an edit war or worse, I'd like to know what the feelings of the project as a whole are. Any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorting them by alphabetical order according to country is probably the best approach. I don't see how that would be considered bias unless someone has something against the alphabet. --Farix (Talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I often end up coming across {{flagicon|United States}} {{flagicon|Canada}} or the like, which I reorder to {{flagicon|Canada}} {{flagicon|United States}}. Obviously, this change could rub some editors (particularly new ones) the wrong way, so I wanted to get a wider opinion down in a discussion that could be pointed back on should the need arise - or to be told that "I'm doing it the wrong way", if I am. —Dinoguy1000 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the alphabetical sorting isn't bias. But the those who will be upset that the Canadian icon will come before the United States icon are the one exercising a bias. ;) --Farix (Talk) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was 99.99% sure that would be the case, but that last 0.01% was naggling me, which is why I asked. =) —Dinoguy1000 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The only argument could be for the order of licensing, or lapsed licenses being the best order.Jinnai (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OVA release dates

Should the release date for each OVA episode be listed in {{Infobox animanga/OVA}}, or should only the range from the first release to the last be used, as is done with anime, manga, novels, etc.? If the first is done, then what about longer OVA series (10 or so episodes plus)? —Dinoguy1000 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends very much on how many releases there are—assuming that some releases may contain more then one episode. If it is no more then 3 or 4 releases, then list the releases individually. More then that, a date range should be used. --Farix (Talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside of a very few really long series (like Legend of the Galactic Heroes), most OVAs are 6 or less episodes long, so I don't see a problem with listing each release date separately. For anything longer than 6 or so, I think a range is fine. For the longer ones, there should be an episode listing somewhere with the release date for each one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To address Collectonians concerns as the above have stated, that works down to a certain point, but when you have only three or four pieces, a list is impractical. The same goes for a first-last span, depending on the regularity of, and time distance between, releases. At that level it's easier, clearer, and more accurate to list them separately, not to mention more informative. Any series that uses episodes to describe it's parts is almost always at least six segments or more and novels are by definition self contained even if part of a series. There's no reason at all for OAV's to be treated the same.Westrim (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about an article that just is about a series of OVAs that's less than 6, then I agree with you for that case. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's almost no OVA's above that number anyways. Beyond five it generally gets considered to be episodes of a series, like FLCL; if that were two or three sections it would be an OVA, but at six it's a set of episodes.Westrim (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to disagree with the others. For a multi-release OVA, it should just have a span of first-last, same as episodes, manga, novels, and everything else. No reason at all for OVAs to be treated any differently. Let the applicable episode list or prose provide the appropriate details on the individual releases, same as we do with all other forms of media that may have multiple release dates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Collecttonian. --Eruhildo (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say range is fine, but series that release their OVAs in multiple sets such as Tenchi Muyo or Hunter x Hunter each ova range should be separated as the span between releases can be quite great sometimes, especially in the case of the former.

Merge of several character pages

For the Ultimate Muscle character list. No one seems to really edit it much (which is why I'm posting this here now). There are several character pages that consist of only in-universe information. Because it deals with so many articles, it's kind of a touchy subject; if I were to be bold, I have no idea what would happen once people noticed I merged them all. Feel free to post your opinion on Talk: List of Ultimate Muscle characters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Robotech characters I view that as a similar problem with Robotech as I have only started watching and researching characters so its difficult to understand which characters are significant.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That list seems to be in worse shape; I'd like to try and help, but first a tag for all the character merges should be placed on the main list and a discussion should be brought up, explaining the lack of notability and references. The merges will be a little different than the Ultimate Muscle ones, but once they are all merged, I'll work on condensing them into reasonably sized sections. For reference, I think the set up of the Characters of Final Fantasy VII article looks rather nice. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind: the name should be List of Final Fantasy VII characters. G.A.S 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Robotech characters I dunno if this helps anyone categorize the Robotech characters list.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as they fit a certain category, which in this case would be the series, then adding them will be easy. The worst part will just be adding information; the articles are pretty long, and there isn't a smaller section we could keep and just scrap the rest. But first: A discussion of the merge needs to be started. A few people are probably going to argue. And a merge tag needs to be placed at the top of the list. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Off topic) We have added a "merge" parameter to the template recently for situations like this. Note that it is not a replacement for the normal merge parameters, but merely a way for the project to track outstanding mergers – it should only be added to the target pages. See Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged in this regard. G.A.S 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion for Shōjo → Shōjo manga

• Shōjo → Shōjo manga —(Discuss) — Please come participate in the discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have a conversation about this a few months ago? We should move the other terms while we're at it. Doceirias (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Popotan Caramelldansen Verification

Earlier this year, Popotan was cited with an original research tag for what I can only assume at the time was its referense to the Caramelldansen meme as being the one that really made the loop an minor internet phenomia. Recently after placing (and replacing) a similar tag on Caramelldansen because of very similar claims, we have had someone on Talk:Caramelldansen come to claim he is the one who created the video. A quick prelim check finds the dates match fairly well, but it's hardly verifialable.

So i'm wondering if we could get help to verify his claim somehow( or refute it if it's bogus).Jinnai (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of his claims, this person can't be taken as a verifiable source. Wikipedia's policies requires that that claims be verifiable by reliable published sources and not by people vouching that the information is correct. Both articles should probably be copyedited to remove any original research claims, or the specific claims should be tag and removed if a source is not provided withing a few weeks. But it is also not helpful to put up a banner like that at the top of a article if the problem is with one sentence or paragraph. --Farix (Talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies about verification. I am posting this to see if anyone has information from a published source that could verify his claims. I had no intention of just adding him. For the Popotan article this referance could easily be removed, but for the Caramelldansen article its a significant part of its history and a simple copyedit would not suffice. Jinnai (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To change or not to change?! (Gatchaman titles)

The reason I ask this is I have asked before regarding this subject to no avail. So I thought I will ask one more time I believe Gatchaman II (TV Series) should be renamed Gatchaman II as believe that I have enough basic evidence of noteworthiness and third person sources. That the article should not keep redirecting itself to Gatchaman the same I feel about Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) should be renamed Eagle Riders as it keeps redirecting itself to Battle of the Planets.

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think they should be reorganized to use a main page, then make a season (or in this case, series) specific page for each of the three. That way we don't have to repeat character listings as much, etc. In any case, since the page does exist, it would make sense for it to be at the Gatchaman II title, at least for the time being. I tagged the redirect with a speedy delete tag for housekeeping, since this seems to be a noncontroversial page move. This wouldn't be a prejudice against a future merge or rename, if such is proposed and gains support. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Eagle Riders though? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot that one. I've now tagged it as well. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stagnant yaoi merge

A while ago, I proposed the merge of shonen-ai into yaoi as I feel that they are broadly the same phenomenon, and they are usually conflated in the literature, either under yaoi or "Boys' Love". Can I please request some comment from the project? -Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Gotta admit that I don't wanna touch that one with a ten foot pole, but I see your point. They're basically the same phenomena in different degrees. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please comment at Talk:Yaoi, where the merge proposal is? -Malkinann (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops, my apologies. :$ I didn't see that you'd already commented. Anyone else? -Malkinann (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When will the merger happen?

Editing of anime in American distribution and Anime licensing be done it seems to be long while coming and I think the article needs sorting out as I believe it has some original research.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime of decade sorting finished

I've finished the sorting articles to individual years for the "Anime of xxxx". The only decades I didn't sort by year were 1910, 1940, and 1950 because there were too few series for those decades to bother sorting them further (there were no series at all for the 1920s or 1930s). You can see the beginning of the trail here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Good work. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm trying to go through the various anime categories and finish sorting the anime series, OVAs, and films into the year cats. It'll take a little time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to start on manga after you wrap up the anime stuff? —Dinoguy1000 16:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gundam episode articles

I'm not sure why these exist. You can find the beginning of the trail here: Char and Sayla. There's nothing which says why these episodes have articles, either. I've marked the first one with notability and reference concerns. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no list of episode, then one should and the individual episode articles redirected there. All of the Gundam episode articles I have seen are nothing more then detailed plot summaries that violate WP:PLOT which needs to be dealt with. I just didn't do it because of all of that hoopla over TTN (talk · contribs). --Farix (Talk) 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating a list (or rather, lists) of episodes, merging the episode articles, then editing them down looks in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New anime list

Please see List of anime series by episode count. It's only a beginning list, but I created it because people are always asking about this and I thought it would be useful and interesting. We should try to get references for all the entries, though the only one I have right now is for Sazae-san. Recent issues of Animage would be useful for current shows, and older ones could be used to find older shows. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it may make sense to link to a list of episodes if available. We have about 310 lists of episodes (including season lists) currently, of which at least some might be applicable. I can provide you with a list if required. G.A.S 06:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments. Why the arbitrary number of 150 minimum, and if you're going to even set a minimum, then shouldn't the list be called List of anime series with over 150 episodes?--十八 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the 150 minimum from one of the lists of long television series (link on the page). I'm fine if that number is changed, but I wanted to set it high enough to make the list not insanely long. As for including the number in the title, I don't think that's necessary. Perhaps just changing it to List of long anime series by episode count. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that comment. G.A.S 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why exactly was the list created? What purpose does it serve?
• What is so special about anime series with over 150 episodes versus anime series with less then 150 episodes? On what bases was the 150 requirement chosen?
• How is this list different from List of anime which was deleted through AFD nearly two years ago? --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read my post as I answer the first question in the second sentence of my original post: it's a commonly asked question (just search for "longest anime series" on Google), and it's useful and interesting information. Such lists are also encyclopedic (tallest building, longest bridge, oldest person, tallest person, etc.) Additionally, there are similar lists for standard television series and franchises, so I think such a list would be useful here. I answered the 150 episode question above. As for how this is different that List of anime, it's a very narrowly focused list, not an open-ended list which includes every anime show ever made. The criteria for inclusion on the list are very specific, so maintaining it won't be an issue. We just need to find refs for everything now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely gotta answer the 150 question. Many, many anime are only 13 or 26 episodes. (As for references, ANN can probably be considered reliable for total episode counts.) --Masamage ♫ 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sub-thought. The first argument made in the AFD TheFarix linked to is that "List of anime" was a duplicate of Category:Anime. Why don't we just make categories for this, if it's really a subject that needs coverage? Category:Anime with 13 episodes (since that one's so common), Category:Anime with more than 150 episodes, etc. --Masamage ♫ 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A category would be less useful for this kind of thing as the main interest is in comparing those which have the most. This is very difficult to do with categories, but very simple to do with a list. People don't care about which series have 13 episodes, but many people are interested in which series have the most episodes. This kind of list is inherently encyclopedic. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Well, I'd still enjoy seeing categories, but they're certainly not mutually exclusive. Maybe List of longest-running anime would be better for assuring the article's focus? --Masamage ♫ 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be better and prevents you from setting an arbitrary minimum number of episodes as an inclusion criteria. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd still have to set an arbitrary minimum number of some sort in order to limit the number of listings, and I don't see any reason why 150 is a bad arbitrary number. In fact, I think setting a minimum number of episodes for inclusion is better than trying to limit it to a certain number of listings. 150 is as good a limiter as any, IMO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the 150-episode bound was taken from the longstanding List of television programs by episode count, which seems to be the model for this one. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a cool idea, but then again I'm failing to see if the page will be of any major use. Oh, and is anyone planning on adding Bleach to that list? I believe the series has over 180 episodes. ^^ ~ Hyakurei (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masamage in that if we ended up deleting List of anime in lue of Category:Anime, then if we really want to do this, a category seems like the obvious choice. However, I think specific numbers like 13 and 26 would be a problem too since a good amount of anime actually have 12, and just as many have 24. Others have 52, while still others may have 51, and then there are those 14 episode anime. So if we did do this, I think a Category:Anime with 1-26 episodes should be employed since I think that probably covers most anime. Then we can do 27-52, 53-78 and 79-104. I think, then, anything over 105 episodes is pretty rare (in comparison to the hoards of anime with less than 100 episodes) and everything else can go into a Category:Anime with over 105 episodes.--十八 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a use for any of these categories, but if someone wants to make them, rather than try to account for variable episode counts (Air Master, for instance, was 27) I recommend dividing by cours, with a category for 1 cour shows, and a category for 2 show cours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doceirias (talk • contribs)

Dragon Ball redux

Well, we now have a "formal" proposal to resplit Dragon Ball back into separate articles, with the proposal suggesting that DB Z and DB GT have stubs with plot and character summaries. Comments from the project highly appreciated. Talk:Dragon Ball#proposal for dbz and dbgt -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed in a section in Case Closed

I am in the progress of changing Case Closed#Movies into prose, but there is a problem-- I have a hole in the understanding of CC/DC movies for movies 7-9. I need writers to help me fill in this hole. Thank you for your attention!--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper Order of Japanese Names in Articles

I have a question about the order of Japanese names as they pertain to articles about manga and anime (or more generally). From what I have seen, it seems customary to have the Given name first and the Family name second, like in most European or American cultures. For example, Masashi Kishimoto, author of Naruto, is actually Kishimoto Masashi in Japanese. Does Wikipedia have a policy about the particular order of the name (i.e. Japanese names in traditional or Western order)? Or is it more of a stylistic choice for writing articles. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where to look for that kind of information. From what I've seen it seems more common to have the names in Western order, but it would be technically correct to have them in their original order. Anyone? Silent Firefox (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's dictated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), specifically the section Names of modern figures that we put names in Western order. There are exceptions to this - Rurouni Kenshin has it in Japanese order, since its setting is pre-Meiji era. There's also the issue that the English translations of these works more often than not use Western order, and since the official translations will be the most common use among English speakers, we use it per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that, if you use the nihongo template, then both are represented anyway e.g. Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮 ハルヒ, Suzumiya Haruhi). Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this kind of template is allowed...

I'm fed up with the random calls for Detective Conan naming on Talk:Case Closed-- and I assume such occurs for every series whose name have been significantly changed in English. Is that possible we put a template that practically say, "The naming is based on WP:MOS-AM. If you have any disagreement over that guideline, do argue at WT:MoS-AM. Else, get over it." on the top of talk pages of such anime?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I share your fustration. I believe there is precedent for it, though worded slightly more politely *grin* Talk:Bleach (manga) uses a notice box to reiterate stuff that has had to be resaid over and over again. It seems to use Template:Notice (via subst). Template:Resolved issues is another option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The applicable templates are {{Round In Circles}} and {{FAQ}}. G.A.S 05:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AniDB

Was any formal decision ever made by the project with regards to sites like AniDB? There are a few pages again linking to this site. If we can come to some sort of decision then it may be worth adding something to the external links section on WP:MOS-AM. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was extensive discussion here, and I believe at the talk page for the copyright policy, and maybe the RS notice board. Result was that AniDB should not be linked to at all. All of its templates were deleted in TfDs with the overwhelming consensus that linking to AniDB violates WP:COPYRIGHT. All known links at the time were also removed from any articles that had them. See also: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 9#Linking to sites that list illegal files.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Setting question

Is it appropriate for an anime/manga article to have a "Setting" section, for those cases when a recurring location influences the story as much as if it were a recurring character? --Masamage ♫ 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)/Archive 3#Revisiting Order and Sections. Rough answer is that if it can be sourced to more than just the series, I.E. third party, reliable sources give it at least some discussion, pointing out the influences, etc. then probably. It should, however, be a rarity rather than the norm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see e.g. Bleach (manga)#Setting for an example. —Dinoguy1000 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episode lists

The 4 Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episode lists could use some project love. I've some some basic work on them, including fixing the table formats, removing false prod codes form TV.com, cleaning up the general refs, and removed the unnecessary see alsos. Some of them were even using wikipedia talk pages as a reference (those refs have been stripped)! Also adding the missing ep list cat. They are still in need of complete intro rewrites, ref improvements (all currently from unofficial sites), and all of the episode summaries need to be checked to make sure they are not copyvio from TV.com as it was previously listed as the "source" for them all. Also, all of them had the English translated titles listed as the Japanese title instead of the romanji. I've moved those titles over to RTitle, so if someone could go back in and add the proper titles to the Japanese field, that would be great. Also, the main Yu-Gi-Oh! GX could use some serious help. Its got a lot of problems and could use an overhaul. The format is all over the place, the refs mostly non-existant, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008‎

Here's what it's all about—WikiProject Anime and manga has about 7,500 stub and start articles, built up over the last few years. The time has come for comprehensive housekeeping and that's what this drive is all about. The main purpose of this drive is two-fold: (1) to ensure that they are within our scope and (2) to ensure that they are correctly assessed for class. I would like to invite everybody to participate in the effort.

Sincerely, G.A.S 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should start with the most well known anime shows because some of the shows I have seen seem to use YouTube or fansites for references for the shows information and plus they are most likely to have easily available info. I have found with some anime shows the most reliable info sometimes is from non english sites unfortunately. I am sad to say I am not Bilingual so I have to use Babel fish which translations aren't so Good.

Here some in my opinion really need fixing

Astro Boy confusing and a lot of unreferenced info in the character sections. Gatchaman and the related Gatchaman articles, very few references Robotech the character section needs doing I tried editing but met resistance as I tried to removing unreliable fansites as references but it keeps being put back up Voltron and Golion again the best info seems to be in Japanese.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be systematic, we are working in order. These drive is not for folks to fix the articles, but simply to check their class and importance assessments and update them as needed. For those articles you feel need fixing, you may want to post to the clean up task force to suggest them as series projects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The drive has now gone live and will run until such time we are done. Until then, you are very welcome to sign up. Please visit Tag & Assess 2008‎ to find out more about what the drive is all about as well as the rewards up for grabs. G.A.S 05:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something.. should I be updating the importance parameter of the project banner as well? If so, what's the basic guide for that? -- Ned Scott 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, we have set up a table in this regard at WP:ANIME/ASSESS#Priority scale. Normally the assessment would be low, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is not specifically necessary to update tags on the articles, though—just set |attention=yes<!-- Check tags --> to record that this is outstanding. G.A.S 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Anime and manga participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ore wa Mita

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ore wa Mita#Article Name to determine if the article should be renamed to I Saw It per its English release name. Project input appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Slayers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slayers#More_specific_articles_.28and_less.2C_sometimes.29_.2F_WHAT_TO_DO_according_to_me

Thanks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: discussion is for the suggestion that Slayers have articles created for every individual media type, including the novels, the manga, and the anime, as well as the creation of a list of minor characters and a list of dieties (there is no main character list at this time) and the creation of articles for the mangaka and illustrators of the series. Also noted the {{Slayers}} template is in need of an overhaul. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As it was me who brought this to your attention, please don't gon on a delete/merge rampage :) I didn't write this stuff, but I'm working on it right now (may take time - I did na lot of cleanup already, it was in a really bad shape). Just don't massacre it :) and just cleanup, or expand what you think should be. Thanks!

I'll do the list of deities to keep this in the category of "fictional deities". How about cutting List of Slayers episodes (all series altogether) from the List of Slayers media stuff? (I think List of Slayers media should be re-integrated back into Slayers, too.) What do you think about an article about magic (magic types, spells)? It was originally as an unexsiting article in the template and I thought it would be a good idea. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, a list of deities is unnecessary and not an appropriate or necessary split. A single character list is all that is needed. An article about magic would be highly likely to fail all Wikipedia guidelines. A "deletion/merge rampage" is necessary to clean up some of the the mess the Slayers articles are in. It is still in really bad shape and needs a lot of work. Fixing the articles to bring them up in quality is not a "massacre." Please see WP:MOS-AM and look at some our GA and B series articles to see properly formatted articles and subarticles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying my best (I just made a single article out of 3 - hardly splitting), but what about this list of episodes? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created it and am working on it now. I've started discussions for some suggested merges at Talk:Slayers#Merge discussion. As no one supported you creating a deities list, it was not appropriate for you to go ahead and do it anyway. I've moved it to List of Slayers characters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Slayers authors articles requested

Rui Araizumi (illustrations in novels and artbooks) and Shoko Yoshinaka & Tommy Ohtsuka (mangakas). Some others too, but these are these who I knew before I came here to check, so 'd like them (at least for now). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure

I'm assuming the consensus at Talk:Sailor Moon#Franchise type will also apply for the manga-related articles mentioned here? There are probably others with similar hatnotes, I'd like to know if I can change those too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Original English-language manga proposed merged

It has been proposed that the Original English-language manga be merged into graphic novel to address the issues of bias in the name and limiting the issue to a specific language. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Original English-language manga#Merge into Comic Books or Graphic Novels -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Astroboy needs major sorting out

Template:Astro Boy I created this template but I think that the character section needs deletion especially since there are no references or third person sources used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 July 2008

Which reminds me - anyone with good Japanese skills and access to a really good library? There's a book called Tezuka Osamu kyarakutaa zukan (roughly "An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Osamu Tezuka's characters") by, I think, TezuPro and Ikeda Hiroaki Corporation, that while not independent, sounds like it would be a half-decent reference for Osamu Tezuka's Star System, an article in dire need of sourcing. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The main Astroboy article is poorly referenced but the character articles are even worse Dwanyewest (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources can be found I say delete WP:Burden

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot List of Astro Boy chapters needs major sorting out too Dwanyewest (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Osamu Tezuka's Star System can be fixed using the official website [13]

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, but I'm worried more about the lack of independent sources - the article itself is probably borderline WP:N and no amount of links back to the official website will fix that. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Winner of Shogakukan Manga Award

Should the above category be renamed? Something like "Shogakukan Manga Award Winners" or "Shogakukan Manga Award Recipients" makes more sense. Noveltyghost (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. It's for not all the award winners, but winners of the award when there was only the one category, then the Seinen category when the Shounen/Shoujo categories were split off, which category was later renamed General. Whatever we do, the other category categories (such as Category:Winner of Shogakukan Manga Award (Shōnen)) should be named to match. Personally, I'd rather stick a parenthetical on this one, if we could agree on a suitably correct one. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some reading here, and this type of category definitely needs to be plural. The name of the award is placed before -winners in a similar category (Category:Emmy Award winners), so this one should follow suit. The categories would be renamed Shogakukan Manga Award winners (Shonen, Shojo, etc.). I'll handle it sometime soon. Noveltyghost (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to have multiple categories; Emmy Award winners doesn't specify what award they won, does it? Shonen, Shojo, doesn't matter - what matters is, they won. Doceirias (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The cat definitely should be renamed to Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners. But I guest the question is, do we really need the sort each award category (shōjo, shōnen, and children) into its own category. If so, then we should follow the pattern set by the Academy Awards. The same goes for Category:Kodansha Manga Award and its subcats. --Farix (Talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for whether to merge or keep the four categories separate. Though I wonder how many articles the combined would get. Note that the category is applied to both creator and work articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The example of Academy Award winners, are you suggesting a pattern like Category:Shōnen Shogakukan Manga Award winners? Seems a bit awkward. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend something like Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners (Shōnen), Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners (Shōjo), etc. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes for the general category (Category:Shogakukan Manga Award winners) as there is no debate about what that one should be named. Whoever has the ability should delete the old category. I vote that the categories (Shōnen, Shojo, children) remain separate and parenthesized as suggested by Nihonjoe. Noveltyghost (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Let's put up a general request to change the category names for the eight (seven) award categories in question. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how/where). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question, why are Japanese terms used for two categories (shonen & shojo) but not for the other? "Children" is used instead of the Japanese term jidō in the third award category. Noveltyghost (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Because "shounen" and "shoujo" are known in the English-speaking world, in no small part because manga gets marketed with those labels, while the children's category isn't. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will start making all the changes if there are no objections to the above suggestion. Noveltyghost (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So where are we on putting in a renaming proposal for the two sets? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• pokes with stick* —Quasirandom (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Although I have been told that this was discussed before. One of the rules and guidelines for this project state that all terminology in all anime and manga articles had to conform to the English language adaptation. But, what if there are multiple English adaptations with completely different terms for names, places, and things in each adaptation? What do we go by then? Sarujo (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Good question. If you can determine which is better known/more popular, go with that, but also note the other. Otherwise, well, good question. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like Gakkō no Kaidan, AKA Ghost Stories, AKA Ghosts at School? In that case the Ghost Stories title was chosen because ADV had the larger native English language market. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As they said. Is there any particular series you had in mind when asking this? It may help to bring the project's attention to it, we could probably help you out. —Dinoguy1000 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up was due to a discussion that Sesshomaru and I had here at the WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball about the term for the energy in articles, primarily in the Son Goku article. Viz uses in their translation of the manga "chi". While FUNinmation use in their dub of the anime terms such as "power" or "energy", and their sub, provided by Steven J. Simmons, uses the original term "ki" as does Atari and Namco Bandai in English releases of Dragon Ball related video games. Sarujo (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a fairly long discussion on Dragonball recently, and the conclusion was that the dub version, since it aired on TV, is much better known than the other versions. Obviously, the other translations, and the original term, should be acknowledged; but the dub version of the term would be used thereafter. Doceirias (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, So we should stick with the anime dub? What about Viz, or are you just referring not to based terms strictly on Steve Simmons? Sarujo (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is Steve Simmons? The earlier discussion resulted in several pages being moved to the dub names, so for consistency's sake, I would imagine the terms Viz uses would only be mentioned when the word in question is first used. Personally, I would prefer to see things default to the original work, even if the adaptation is more popular, but I can also understand the arguments they've made. What's most important is that all usage is consistent, all words and names come from the same official English version. Doceirias (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve J. Simmons is the guy responsible for the for the Japanese to English subtitles in all the Dragon Ball related DVDs FUNinmation has put out. Sarujo (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I have heard "chi" (the English transliteration of the original "ki") many more times in Dragonball than the above mentioned "power" or "energy". I really fail to see a conflict here.Scottrandall (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Funimation used the term chi? I don't think so. Sarujo (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Testsusaiga name issue

User:Raijinili wants to include this section in the Tetsusaiga article: Here is my take: [14]

• 1. The section contains original research and
• 2. The section is unnecessary. Do we need a whole section about how a name change was made in the English version without verified original information about the name change itself (nothing about why or how it was made, nor anything about the significance)

Also see User talk:Raijinili and User talk:WhisperToMe WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

With the correct version in the template in the first line of the article, I don't think much else is necessary. Maybe if he could find a reference to someone admitting in an interview that a mistake was made, you could justify it, but not while it is unsourced OR and badly written (first of all, the name isn't translated, merely romanized.) Doceirias (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My main points:

• The change is notable, as it is one of few important and frequently-used names which were not romanized in a well-established system. This warrants a mention of the change describing the differences
• It has a significant and unignorable possibility of being an error, as the misreading of the sokuon as "tsu" is easy to make, which can be verified by most people who have read a lot of hiragana, or by the reader who can verify that the "tsu" looks a lot like a sokuon. There is no confirmation (which is not to say no evidence) that would tilt the scales one way or the other. Thus, ignoring the possibility that it's an error violates WP:NPOV.
• English usage for "tessaiga" versus "tetsusaiga" was 7 to 9 against (about 43% of results explicitly used "tessaiga" exclusively, as opposed to "tetsusaiga" exclusively), in a Google "straw poll" of popularity (an acceptable use of Google as outlined in WP:GOOGLE, despite WhisperToMe's implied claims of my Google-usage violating OR).
• The line isn't drawn at WP:RS, but rather at WP:V. The first can be verified by checking the character pages, unless you can argue that those are not reliable.
• The fact that the name in at least one Japanese episode of Inuyasha was proven with a screencap from the show, within a discussion that WhisperToMe also participated in.
• His deleting content which was not harmful to the encyclopedia while the section was in dispute (since I had left a message to him before the revert) was itself harmful to the encyclopedia. This kind of action leads to edit wars, and as an admin, edit wars should be avoided even more than by regular users, since it may then be followed by accusations of abuse. Had I but chosen to follow, we would have likely fallen into an edit war.

Note that I have no special feelings about adding bias towards it being a mistake on the part of Viz, though strictly speaking it is technically an error, whether intentional or not. However, we've put too much undue focus on whether a mistake can be intentional.

I have tried to compromise with WhisperToMe. He pointed out several flaws in the passage I restored, and I told him that they were minor and could be corrected himself, and were no cause for full deletion of content. Since otherwise we'll keep referring to the original addition, ignoring all agreed-on corrections, I'll do a rewrite of the paragraph here:

The name 'Tetsusaiga' is not, while very close to, a standard romanization from the original Japanese name for the sword. InuYasha's sword is actually known as the 'Tessaiga' in Japanese, but when Viz published the story in English, due to either an error or an intentional change, the sword became the Tetsusaiga. The smaller version of the hiragana character "tsu (kana)" (っ) was read as the larger version of the hiragana character "tsu" (つ), which is the difference between the Japanese pronunciation "Tessaiga" (てっさいが) and the pronunciation "Tetsusaiga" (てつさいが).

There. It's verifiable, neutral, and contains no original research (in case you forget, the three pillars of Wikipedia). Now I kindly ask that you stop telling me that I have no right to call it a mistake when I already admitted several steps back that it was a mistake to use "mistaken". I'd rather you argue about how significant the possibility is that it's a mistake, since that's actually relevant. --Raijinili (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of that is purely original research. Without a reliable published source to back it up, it doesn't belong on the article. The only thing that can be and is done is to note in the lead that "Tessaiga" is an alternative romanization. --Farix (Talk) 11:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I say. "Tessaiga" isn't an "alternative" romanization to "Tetsusaiga". One of them uses some standard of romanization, while the other is not romanized under any such standard. The whole point is that "Tetsusaiga" isn't a correct romanization, which is notable since it's the only incorrect romanization in the principal names of the series. This isn't to say that Viz did or didn't do this intentionally, but it's still incorrect.

I've challenged that it's "original research." I can't participate in this argument very well if you people would not acknowledge that challenge and respond with something more than a restatement of "that's original research." Please point out claims which you're calling "original research" so that I can respond rather than making a blanket statement.

Meanwhile, I'll do what I can. From Wikipedia:These are not original research:

Obvious deductions

The fact that the sokuon and tsu (kana) can be mistaken for each other is an obvious deduction from their images.

It was incorrectly romanized. This is an obvious deduction from the kana. Are you claiming that adding the kana is OR?

Translation and contextualizing

Giving the kana, as well as claiming that てっさいが is not "tetsusaiga," is translation.

--Raijinili (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

...Why can't we just get along with the merge? The page itself isn't notable and has no third-part information. Tetsuaiga is the official Romanization, so it will be called that, and possibley have a little note such as "called Tessaiga in the original Japanese". But a whole section of original research is not needed; unless a third-party source makes a big deal about it, all we need to put down is that it was Tessaiga in the original--just like every other object/character that wasn't romanized correctly. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, in the spirit of WP:Etiquette, that I not be ignored when I say:

• It is not original research. When a challenge to a claim is made, the original claim should not be repeated. It has been repeatedly stated that the whole section is not original research, and the only supporting argument that was made is that it was improper to say "mistaken". I admitted that it was a mistake to use that particular word, yet multiple times after that acknowledgement it was used as an argument against the section, despite my offering to reword it. I challenged that any of the rest of it was OR, yet no one has pointed out any other parts of it as OR.
• It is not a correct romanization, and should not be called a "romanization" without qualifications. It has been claimed that "Tetsusaiga" is just a "romanization," which I have, again, repeatedly challenged, and the only response, again, was a restatement that it was a romanization (if that could be called a response). If you say it's a romanization, show me a system which would result in a sokuon being rendered the same way as a "tsu".
• It is notable. It is the only principal name which has not been romanized correctly. It has a strong possibility of being a mistake.

Instead of addressing my supporting points, they have instead been ignored and the opposing stances restated.

The way that I'm being treated, as a fellow editor with a differing point of view, violates several aspects of WP:Etiquette.

• Work towards agreement.
• Don't ignore questions.

• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

• Concede a point when you have no response to it...
• Avoid reverts whenever possible...
• Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.

• Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive.

--Raijinili (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is not original research. When a challenge to a claim is made, the original claim should not be repeated. It has been repeatedly stated that the whole section is not original research, and the only supporting argument that was made is that it was improper to say "mistaken". I admitted that it was a mistake to use that particular word, yet multiple times after that acknowledgement it was used as an argument against the section, despite my offering to reword it. I challenged that any of the rest of it was OR, yet no one has pointed out any other parts of it as OR.

If you remove the bit about it being a mistake, then it isn't OR, but rather just a bit of information on why it's wrong. The page will eventually be merged (it lacks concept, creation, reception, or any third party notes), and the section would probably end up being lost because the article focus would no longer be on Tessaiga.

• It is not a correct romanization, and should not be called a "romanization" without qualifications. It has been claimed that "Tetsusaiga" is just a "romanization," which I have, again, repeatedly challenged, and the only response, again, was a restatement that it was a romanization (if that could be called a response). If you say it's a romanization, show me a system which would result in a sokuon being rendered the same way as a "tsu".

It doesn't matter whether whether it is correct or not--it's the official translation and Wikipedia uses those instead, even if it is not correct or Americanized, whether it was a mistake or intentional.

• It is notable. It is the only principal name which has not been romanized correctly. It has a strong possibility of being a mistake.

The article does not need a section explaining it, much like Sailor Moon (character). If anything, it'd be in the concept/creation section, which there is none. Unlike with Aerith Gainsborough, it never made much of a deal and caused anything significant to happen. That being said, you can add it, but once it is merged, the information will probably be lost; my guess, the merge will basically only carry over "Tetsuaiga is the sword of Inuyasha", especially because at this point, Inuyasha's character page seems merge-worthy. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Raijinili, this issue boils down to one simple truth: romanizing the sword's name as "Tetsusaiga" may be wrong, but many editors would rather perpetuate the English publisher's mistake out of fear of falling into original research. Unless Viz Media openly admits their mistake, or starts using "Tessaiga", you're not getting anywhere.--Nohansen (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the new version has fixed some of my initial problems, but he still would need a source - an interview with Takahashi sounding annoyed by the change, an interview with Viz admitting they goofed. Not because the information isn't true, but to establish notability and justify making more of a deal of it than the nihongo template providing the correct romanization already does. It just strikes me as being trivia; very interesting to a handful of people, but not to the majority of readers. A source like either of the above would establish that it of greater interest than it would appear. Right now, we're basically arguing notable/not notable (and sounding an awful lot like I Like It/I Don't Like It) but the burden of proof for notability is on the people who want to include it. Once someone challenges notability, insisting it is notable doesn't get you very far; you need to find a source and convince them. Doceirias (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WhiteArcticWolf: Regarding a page merge, until the merge is in progress, it's not safe to assume that it will happen. While the sword has its own page, the name change is notable enough for in-page inclusion. When part of a larger article, of course it shouldn't get its own section.

Regarding the officialness, this argument only works against retitling, which I am not advocating.

Regarding notability, I've outlined my arguments supporting its notability within the context of the sword itself. Both names are commonly used in English, and as long as the sword has its own page, the name change is more notable than what the sword can do, particularly because of the change's real-world relevance.

Nohansen: They don't need to admit it is a mistake. As I said before, we don't need to state that it is or isn't a mistake, only point out the main possibilities under NPOV. The fact that it's an incorrect romanization, and one which uses a common mistake (reading the sokuon as "tsu" and vice-versa), is self-evident. My rewrite of the section (second rewrite; I did not write the original) notes both possibilities, without bias towards either side.

Doceirias: My stance isn't just to insist it's notable. Saying that would be dishonest. I supported my claim that it is notable with the following points, which up to this point have not even been acknowledged, let alone countered:

• "Tessaiga" is popular in usage: about 40-45% of English results on Google which do not appear to discuss the difference use Tessaiga rather than Tetsusaiga.
• Of all of the principal names, it is the only one which was not romanized correctly. This uniqueness makes it notable. Certainly not enough to have an article about it, but as certainly, its inherent notability should place at least a mention of the discrepancy on the page.
• Transliterating it as "Tetsusaiga" is easy to do as a mistake, so there is an undeniable and significant possibility of it being a mistake. Ignoring this and leaving it implied that "Tetsusaiga" was intentional violates NPOV and OR just as much as letting it be implied that it was a mistake (as the page title of "Tessaiga" did).

Sorry that I keep repeating myself, but for each of my specific points, if no one concedes to or tries to disprove it, or (as is the case) even acknowledge it, I have the right to bring it up again. --Raijinili (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Popular in usage: irrelevant, like any other alternate name. Difference between official and alternative names is worth noting in the lead, but not worth having a section for. This one is a really common argument, which is why people might come across as dismissive of it, or not bothering to refute it; the guidelines address it directly.
• The uniqueness does not make it notable. This is simply your opinion, as is this mine. Not an argument that is ever going to lead to anything productive.
• The nihongo template in the lead provides the correct romanization. Anything above and beyond that is what violates NPOV and OR. Taking out the information does not; making a big deal of out of it by giving it a section does. I agree that it was probably a mistake, but the only thing that proves the issue is notable is a source. If you do not have a source, you cannot add it to the article. This is just how Wikipedia works. Doceirias (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, long argument over a rather silly thing. Rule of thumb - past noting the correct romanization, any attempt to put an analysis of why what the English version is wrong is original research. Verifiability, not truth is central. If you don't have a reliable source that specifically mentions this information, then it's not going to be included. That and why the hell do we even have an article on the sword anyway? It should be merged into the relevant character article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and merge it now. A discussion was brought up in May, and everyone agreed on a merge. Hopefully this will also put an end to this disagreement. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The merge has been completed. A little messy? Perhaps, but the old article was basically a bunch of in-universe information. I didn't see the point in carrying over everything. If you have any comment, feel free to leave it at Talk:InuYasha (character). Please note that the merge had been discussed at Talk:InuYasha. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just reviewed the policy on notability, and there is no notability requirement for content, only articles WP:NNC.

Also, again, since I challenged that it was original research, point out specific portions of the paragraph which you are calling OR rather than just saying "OR". And again, the policy is not Reliable Sources, it's Verifiability, so stop demanding reliable sources unless you also claim that the actual proposed content is not verifiable. A review of Wikipedia policies can do us all a good turn.

I fail to see how adding content which itself conforms to NOR and NPOV would violate OR and NPOV (and you have not shown that the content itself is OR and POV). The NPOV policy is for weight towards opinions, not for weight towards the importance of different aspects of a thing.

And again, I did not say it was a mistake. Nor, in my personal opinion, do I believe that it was a mistake any more than I believe that it was intentional. I only claim there is a significant possibility that it was a mistake. --Raijinili (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For weight, see WP:UNDUE. You might also consider WP:CONSENSUS, as no one seems to be being agreeing to your arguments that it is somehow not OR to clam it is a mistake, intentional or otherwise, r that it is even relevant. Viz chose to use the spelling they did and that is that. Without actual, reliable sources discussing why, all we can do without violating WP:OR and WP:V is note the alternative romanization. Also, WP:RS is part of WP:V and not something you can just dismiss because none exist for what you want to say. Without a reliable source there is no verification, and the onus is on you, the claimaint, to verify your statements as they have been challenged by multiple editors and found lacking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says exactly what I did. It's for opinions, not content itself. There is no NPOV policy concerning the importance of aspects of a thing, only viewpoints on the thing. NPOV applies if I say it was a mistake. NPOV does NOT apply if I add something which everyone else thinks is unimportant, unless it's about a viewpoint.

WP:CONSENSUS is not about the view of the majority versus the view of the minority. It's about coming together in agreement through discussion. As for no one agreeing with my arguments, when measured by how much people have disagreed with my stances, that is certainly true. However, as for people actually responding to my supporting points, that was disappointingly lacking.

Again, it is brought up that it is OR to claim it is a mistake. This has been irrelevant since before this section started, as I have already said before that I intended to change that to "taken" and I've rewritten the proposal to remove the claim that it was a mistake. Once again, I am being ignored.

And again, I must emphasize that if you claim what I gave up there is OR, then show me where. And again, the policy is Verifiability, not Reliable Sources. We use Reliable Sources to assist in showing Verifiability. Reliable Sources are not required past the point where content is already verifiable.

As for RS being something that I can ignore, yes, yes it is. RS is a guideline on what reliable sources are, and say nothing about how they're required.

And assuming that the sources don't exist is bad etiquette. In fact, I haven't bothered looking for them past the Viz website, since I stand by my view that the information is verifiable and thus requires no additional sources.

Sorry, but I will have to start copying word-for-word my responses if this continues. When a claim is made, and it's challenged, back it up rather than repeating it. If you keep repeating that I need a reliable source, point out which claim would need a reliable source, or else I can't counter your claim. Someone intentionally keeping you out of the debate by not giving you anything to directly respond to would be pretty annoying, wouldn't he/she?

Every time someone did point out a specific claim that they called OR or unverifiable, it was the claim that "Tetsusaiga" was unintentional, something which I early on admitted should not have been there and something which I've (as far as I can tell, unless someone else can point out to me evidence to the contrary) removed from the rewrite. This leads me to believe that those that make the claims of OR, rather than having a specific and actual claim in mind when making the accusations, are instead misreading what I wrote, and the only way I can pinpoint (or disprove the existence of) such misunderstandings, this argument isn't going to go very quickly.

--Raijinili (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to refute your complaints, but instead of listening or arguing the points, you just got mad at me. I'm not sure I can avoid language that will upset you when the basic point I'm trying to make is that your argument is based on a misunderstanding.

We (or at least I) am not saying the passage is OR because of any aspect of the language in it - you've already taken the word 'mistake' out, for instance. The language is not the problem. The notability of this change is.

This is the way Verifiability functions, in my experience - someone adds something without a source, and if the other editors find any reason to doubt it - whether for accuracy or notability - a source must be provided before the passage can remain. We are not assuming sources do not exist; we are saying you need to go find them to prove this passage is worth keeping.

If you demonstrate notability with a source - and I provided several suggestions for what kinds of sources would do that - you could absolutely add the section to the article. But without a source, the consensus here is that the passage is not important enough to keep in the article.

Please try to understand that none of this is personal, and that experienced editors see this kind of argument every day. Many of us were on your end of the argument when we first started editing Wikipedia, but the more time we spent here the more we understood why things work the way they do, even if it can occasionally seem a little backwards. Doceirias (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to refute your complaints, but instead of listening or arguing the points, you just got mad at me.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't get mad at the behavior which was not directly relevant to the debate. I only got mad because of my perception that most of what I wrote was being ignored.

I claim that I did, in fact argue against the points you brought up, and I'll back it up.

• [15], in which you bring up notability and reliable sources. I argued [16] that it was notable and that information did not require reliable sources if they were verifiable already.
• [17] You argue notability again, but you neither acknowledge nor refute my supporting arguments on notability. You argue it based on RS, and I respond (to another user) that we would not require a reliable source to point out whether it is or isn't a mistake if we don't pick a side.
• [18], in which you respond to my points on popularity, uniqueness, and whether it constitutes POV and OR not to have such a section. You respond to popularity by claiming guidelines, and I can't respond to this because you did not provide the specific guideline pages, so I would have had to go through every guideline page until I found a page which I didn't believe existed if I were to respond to that point. (This is why it's important to back up your points.) Regardless, I responded with new information, that I did not need to prove notability because notability is not a requirement for in-page content. I challenged your claim on whether it was OR and POV to provide information that was NOR and NPOV (since no one had directly refuted all my points on the section itself being NOR and NPOV) and responded that NPOV did not apply here, as there was no opinion being promoted.

You claim that I refused to listen or argue the points that you brought up. I reviewed them for everyone to see, and I don't see any points which were not argued. If you want to continue this line of discussion, then, you would have to bring up those points of yours which I didn't respond to, instead getting mad at you.

We (or at least I) am not saying the passage is OR because of any aspect of the language in it - you've already taken the word 'mistake' out, for instance. The language is not the problem. The notability of this change is.

"Actually, I just reviewed the policy on notability, and there is no notability requirement for content, only articles WP:NNC." -Raijinili

• This is why I feel I am being ignored.

This is the way Verifiability functions, in my experience - someone adds something without a source, and if the other editors find any reason to doubt it - whether for accuracy or notability - a source must be provided before the passage can remain.

Notability is addressed directly above. Accuracy has been challenged (by calling NOR), but since no one will point out a specific claim that's inaccurate, I can't tell which part is supposed to be inaccurate.

We are not assuming sources do not exist

Only Collectonian did, which is who I was responding to. "Also, WP:RS is part of WP:V and not something you can just dismiss because none exist for what you want to say."

Please try to understand that none of this is personal, and that experienced editors see this kind of argument every day.

You shouldn't call someone inexperienced based on their edit history, and especially not based on their stances, in a debate. It's bad form. Besides, I joined Wikipedia before you did :P --Raijinili (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you weren't experienced, I said we were experienced. The discussion here is getting rather convoluted, so forgive me if I don't try and refute each of your points.

The passage you wish to add is not, in my opinion, notable. The arguments you have made for the notability of it do not convince me. A source like the ones I suggested would convince me, and I recommend trying to find one. Otherwise, consensus is probably going to remain against you.

We can argue the finer points of policy some other time, and with the article merged, the entire discussion is sort of a moot point. I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this. Doceirias (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By saying that I only believe what I do because you're more experienced is calling me inexperienced. I quote, "Many of us were on your end of the argument when we first started editing Wikipedia," which makes that implication. Analogously, I could say that the reason why you're not making yourself clear to me is because of <insert claim about your knowledge, logical abilities, biases, intelligence, affiliations with various cabals here> and that would be something which you might take offense to if you believe that the claim is false. This isn't good if we want to have a constructive argument about the topic.

You can't use "convoluted" to ignore points. You can use it to stop lines of discussion, but that's to keep things on-topic, rather than to dismiss specific points of argument against a stance you will continue to argue against. Reasoned debate can't work if people simply ignored points, and their opponents are not told precisely why each specific point is not being responded to.

Notability: "Actually, I just reviewed the policy on notability, and there is no notability requirement for content, only articles WP:NNC." This is the third time I've posted this. Notability does not restrict content, only what pages may exist.

Consensus: Consensus is reached in agreement, not in majority. Everyone disagreeing with me means nothing to me if I can respond to all of their points and they can't respond to mine.

Moot point: Oh, but this hasn't been about whether or not to add the section in since User:WhisperToMe first reverted me. This is about our understanding of policy. One of us is probably wrong, and I intend to continue until we reach an agreement, so that we have consensus. I would not be happy if you quit on me now (though I would certainly understand if you don't put priority into arguments about policy that won't immediately affect anything). After all, you've made personal accusations about my debate tactics, and I expect you to either back them up so that I can either respond or concede, or admit that I responded to each of your points relevantly. I believe, for myself, that a point should not be dropped, but either countered or conceded, so I take your accusation that I ignored a point very seriously. --Raijinili (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. from WP:OR. It's been challenged. Therefore we need a reference. The section should not be there and consists of original research because we do not know why that name, or any names really, are translated. The Tetsusaiga one for example could have been: a request, a mistake, an editor who thought it was a mistake, a translator/editor who liked it better than the original, etc. And I believe that the name had always been written in kanji, or it appears that way in the template. Doesn't that mean they could have literally translated that instead of the hiragana? Unless it was written in furigana on the side, but I'm not sure if that would help considering it's all small. Fact is, we cannot just assume how something came to be that way without a reliable source. We can assume that a translation mistake was why something's name was altered, but in reality it could be something else. That is why we only note the real name in the template, or say something along the lines of "--- in the Japanese version". Because we just don't know. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are seriously misinterpreting almost every policy you cite, and guilty of Wikilawyering - ignoring the spirit of the policies or guidelines in favor of a literal interpretation. Your claims that notability requirements only apply to the article as a whole rather than sections of this is a textbook case of Wikilawyering. Of course it applies to individual sections; this is how we decide what sections to include.

You refuse to provide any sources backing up your claims of notability