Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Anybody with good Japanese?

I could get some pages of the newest Naruto volumes (38 to 42) that contain notes from the author (probably conception of the series). However, it is all in Japanese, and I dont understand anything. Anybody who can help, just tell me and I ll show them the images.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach chapters

For some reason List of Bleach chapters has no received any comment since it was nominated in contrast to almost all the other FLC. Participate is very appreciated. Thanks. Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh, forgot about it with the New Years and being sick. Left some comments. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Someone has been adding quite a few summaries to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes. I checked for them online and didn't find them anywhere, so I presumed someone was writing them all. However, a new editor added a note stating that the summaries were from "Summaries from Funimation: Dragon Ball Z Uncut Season 1: Vegeta Saga booklet". While they have since removed it, could someone who has the Season 1 set check this to make sure those summaries are not all copyright violations? If so, they need to be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...from his edit summaries he is replacing the existing summaries with the Funi ones, so reverted and warned for Copyvio. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of The Prince of Tennis characters merges

The various individual character articles have been tagged for merging. Additional views requested at Talk:List of The Prince of Tennis characters#Merges of Individual Character Articles -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-English dub names

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I'm posting here regarding an issue that came up over at the List of YuYu Hakusho characters over November-December 2008 involving the characters' names in the Filipino dub of the series. The way I understood it based on this WikiProject's guidelines regarding character names and other editors' opinions/actions, I thought that dub names were not to be included unless there is a valid reason (e.g. the notability of the name/s) for doing so. However, fellow editor Sesshomaru pointed out that the articles for the Dragon Ball characters include some of their non-English dub names, and that there is no outright policy against the inclusion of such names in articles. What is the standard or policy regarding this matter? And if there isn't any, I'd still like to hear the community's suggestions/opinions for the sake of clarification. --SilentAria ^talk 05:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the English release names and the original Japanese names should be included. Fillipino, Tagalong, Spanish, etc etc etc shoudl not be included. This is the English encyclopedia, and, as far as I know, beyond a 1-2 sentence mention in the main article and appropriate episode/chapter lists that the series was licensed in those languages, we do not include details on those releases here. For here, its purely trivia and trivial information that doesn't belong unless, as noted, it is extremely notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions (use English) states that alternatives should only be included when they are common (in English). Should there not be any English publication, but say a Spanish one, we should still use the romaji of the Japanese according to it as well as that is the established practice for untranslated material from Japanese.じんない 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason we include the English language names are because those are the names that the English readers will be most familiar with. But we don't list the names used by other languages. Just how many names do the characters in Sailor Moon have? Tonnes, but we only give their original names and the names used in English publications. --Farix (Talk) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but SilentAria asked for a policy/guideline, so I listed one to back it up.じんない 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, everyone! :) --SilentAria ^talk 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Madman licensed Anime

I'm finding it hard to find reliable release info for the Australian dvds published by Madman Entertainment. I don't believe there is an Australian Amazon (if there is, I've never found it), and Madman remove discontinued products from their own site(such as individual volumes that they now only make in box set form). Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 10:07, January 6, 2009

Nope, no Australian Amazon and its darn hard to find good Australian sites for anime and manga in general. For Madman, I think for licensing, as long as they at least have the boxset, the Madman site can be used for the site. For individual releases and dates...maybe check the web archive? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Each 3 months or so, there's a small ad booklet that is released by Madman (called Madman Updates), which has what anime DVDs and manga are coming out in which month. It's coz anime isn't very big here, and that's why we have so little coverage. I've got a few volumes of Madman Updates, back till round 2006, and I've also subscribed to the Madman newsletter, and have it dating back to April 2007, so let me know if it can be of any use. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those Madman Updates can be used as sources, as it sounds similar to the current version of Animerica. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just let me know what you need me to do, and I'll have it done sometime soon. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time, maybe add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines with the lists of contents for the issues you have, so editors which series it can source to? Or, depending on how many volumes you have, you could run through add sourcing on those series *grin*-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see :D They're not really magazines, just ad booklets, so it doesn't really belong there. I'll go home and dig them up and see what's in them. When I have time, I guess I'll head over to the series mentioned and add a sourced line about when the first DVD was released in Aus. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These would certainly be helpful, but unfortunately both the series I'm having trouble with Love Hina and Chobits are both from 2003 or so. I think listing them in the magazine section is a great idea. While they may not technically be magazines in a literal sense, I don't see any reason to exclude them Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll put them up soon then. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put up the volumes I have at the moment. The contents will come soon (I hope)! -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 04:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One possible place to check is the Classification Board and Classification Review Board of the Commonwealth of Australia. I used it for sourcing the DVD releases of Tokyo Mew Mew. I found Love Hina[1] and Chobits releases there[2] (when searching, make sure to check the include adult/RC titles or they won't show up). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That will be great for referencing that they exist, but won't help with street dates (dates are classification dates). However as these are for episode lists I should be able to get away without street dates for individual volumes for B class (the Chobits list managed it). Thanks! Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That did the trick, found a page archived from 2006 :) Although wikipedia doesn't like the formatting of the url - any ideas? i think it causes problems because it appears as two urls in the same field. see here. I've added the dates but left it unreferenced for now. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Robotech characters should be renamed and reformatted

I believe List of Robotech characters should be renamed List of minor Robotech characters because if the main characters have sufficent information to justify a solo article it seems unecessary to put the same information on the List of Robotech articlces. I believe that this article should be renamed and reserved for minor characters.

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That would completely incorrect. Minor character lists go over to AfD quick fast and in a hurry. A character list should have ALL of the characters, not just the minor ones. Those that may have notability for a stand alone article should still have a short summary leading out to that article in the main list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. See WP:SUMMARY. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but a quick look at the individual character articles shows that none of them cite any third-party sources. They are simply regergitation of plot details, which is what indivdual character articles should not be. If there aren't going to be any third-party sources, then the character articles should be merged back into the main list. --Farix (Talk) 14:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 successful

Tag & Assess 2008 has officially ended. I would like to personally thank all of the participants. My thanks goes in particular to Goodraise and Juhachi, who assessed 1,080 and 1,000 articles respectively.
—G.A.S^talk 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So, when do we start the T&A 2009? XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, 2009 is for cleanup after the last round. Next T&A is 2010. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For the moment continued monitoring of B-class upgrades should do the trick:)

T&A2008 was necessary due to (1) the fact that we had no assessment department before and the existing assessments were sometimes quite optomistic, (2) did not use importance ratings before, (3) the introduction of C class, and (4) the fact that biography work group articles were not categorised as such. I do not expect such drastic changes during 2009 and as such, no T&A will be needed. Well, not unless someone wants to check if all stubs have the correct stub templates applied:P.

G.A.S^talk 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw none was planned a little while after posting this. :) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the Biography Workgroup, I'd like to mention that if anyone has an particular knowledge about Osamu Tezuka or Hayao Miyazaki, please feel free to contribute the the articles. The Miyazaki article in particular is close to GA, and both are Top Importance. Sorry for the plug... Thanks again to everyone who participated in Tag & Assess 2008! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

MangaCast

Should MangaCast (http://mangacast.net/) be considered a reliable source? I just ran across it today on some of the Aurora Publishing articles. It's currently being used as a reference in Broccoli Books, Vinland Saga, and Zombie Powder.

The impression I get from the website is that it is a podcast and blog by a group of individuals. I do not see any evidence that any of the podcasters and authors could pass WP:SELFPUB. --Farix (Talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...my first inclination is to say it is not a reliable source and is little more than a group blog. One of the contributers, Jarred Pine, is an AoD reviewer and I am almost certain Ed Chavez is too. However, I don't think that's enough to call the site as a whole RS, as the only reason I know it is being a long time AoD regular, and their reviews are already available on AoD, which is RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My impression is they're on the thin edge of reliable, if that makes any sense. I try not to use them myself, but leave references using them unless I can find a definitively better source. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Discographies

Something we should consider as part of our MOS, given the number of albums certain anime franchises emit: there's a proposed MOS:DISCOG in the works. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace artiste by anime_franchise.

Oricon gives freely the peak rank in chart while detailed sales & ranking evolution data are not but that sufficient for MOS:DISCOG. You just need to google the CD label & Oricon. --KrebMarkt 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)

I have nominated List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1) as an FLC. While I have personally copyedited the summaries (which I did not write myself), it has been suggested that I get another third-party copyedit for this series. Can anybody do this? Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to plea here, but I'm afraid this FLC will fail without a copyedit... I've been looking at this for far too long so I really can't see anything wrong with the summaries. I've asked around, but people have declined on the basis that they don't know this show. Is there seriously nobody who can spare some time to copyedit this? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This project has a serious lack of good copy-editors. That's nothing new. Hope you find someone, though chances aren't exactly good. :\ -- Goodraise (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Bilby (talk · contribs) has begun to do some... I'd be happy to trade with someone. I'm not all that bad at copyediting (if I may say so myself) so I'd be happy to look at someone else's list in exchange. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( m • t • c )} 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

animanga templates broken

There's an error somewhere in the animanga templates. It's killing the section headers for the various subtemplates. I think it's in template:infobox animanga/header, since the error affects the headers for templates that load after it... can someone look through the wikimarkup of the various headers? If you purge cache any anime/manga page right now, they'll show up with the errors displaying weird junk at the top of articles. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that's where the problem was. I don't know what exactly TheFarix (talk · contribs) attempted to change, but I've reverted it for now. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was attempt to deal with an annoying wikimarkup error with titles that have double exclamation points (!!) or any other wikitable syntax. Apparently, I forgot to make the same alterations to the components, which suffered from the same error. The components have now been fixed. --Farix (Talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh so that's why I see titles with bangs sometimes have <nowiki> tags around them. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Req picture tag & merge tag

Hi,

I browsed the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga and i found way too many Req picture tag along the merge tag. There is no point to get the requested picture for an article that will be merged eventually. Req picture tag should no cohabit with the merge tag unless it's the parent-article of the merge.--KrebMarkt 18:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can go through them and give a list without the merge tag; and/or remove the Req picture tag using WP:AWB. Which would you prefer?

(To everybody) Is there consensus to remove the merge req-image tag where it is is the case?

G.A.S^talk 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the merge has a clear consensus against it (or the merge is done), its merge tag should be removed. Otherwise, I think it should stay till the merge is actually done. Req image should be removed if the article has clear consensus to be merged or already has one. I suspect (hope) most with both are ones that have already been merged and the talk pages just didn't get updated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction above, inadvertently said the wrong thing. G.A.S^talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefere an automated solution. Maybe alter the template to put articles with both tags into a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga instead (perhaps: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga for merge). But that might just be the part of me that likes to code... -- Goodraise (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a elegant solution. G.A.S^talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to update the articles in question to remove the req picture tags. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important here to make the distinction between articles which are merge targets from other articles, and articles which are suggested to be merged to other articles. The first would be a valid use of the req image tag, the second would (probably) not. I've been meaning to split the merge tag to be able to distinguish between these (and to link to related articles), but haven't gotten around to it yet. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for catching that potential issue. But a second Merge-target parameter? ... Most target articles would be list of or main articles, so they should be relatively easy to pick out from a subcategory (per Goodraise) to remove the merge tag (and add the target article to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP -- remember our discussion a while ago?). G.A.S^talk 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a first merge-target parameter? That's news to me... The changes I have in mind would be the addition of merge-from and merge-to parameters, that would accept as input one or more article names, and would be mutually exclusive to each other and the generic merge parameter. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to filter Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga with the content of Category: Anime and manga articles to be merged so the number receivable request for picture will be low.--KrebMarkt 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's essentially what I suggested above. Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear enough. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it won't mess with destination-article of a merge & article tagged for merging-discussion then i'm for that solution.--KrebMarkt 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of those article are automatically included because the image parameter of the infobox was not set. I've thought about doing the same thing with {{Infobox animanga/Header}} instead of manually setting each article that lacks an image in the project banner. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, the talk pages might be a bit of a problem, but mainspace should be a safe bet to include images (since the category contains both namespaces) :) G.A.S^talk 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Crazy idea: new copyediting department

Whoever watches this talk page will know, that we have a certain lack of copyeditors. I'd like to suggest a new department to organize and coordinate copyediting efforts within this project. I have drafted such a department's main page in my user space. Reading that is probably the best way to understand what I have in mind. Anyways, this is probably just a crazy idea. Feel free to slap me around with it. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I would say that we definitely need a copy-edit department, I believe that we do not have enough copy-editors to justify another department — we can probably integrate this with the cleanup task force though; and split it off when/if there is a lot of activity.

A comment on the draft: most of our B-class articles would be ready* for GA-class after a proper copy-edit. (*Subject to the main editor's judgement.)

G.A.S^talk 11:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, again, I go back to my original problem with A-class review: we don't have enough decent copy-editors to make this a plausible process. If anything, I dislike having to copy-edit material that I'm not familiar with, and I would think I'd be one of the people such a department would want to include ;-) If you need a copy-edit, check out WP:PRV. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to tap into the resource of sub-decent copyeditors. This project has quite a few people who can copyedit, just not good enough to pass a FLC or FAC by their copyediting alone. That leaves us with a lot of articles (or rather lists) stuck with everything ready for featured status, except for criterion 1a. If we could get these editors to copyedit each other's articles we might be able to make up for our lack of "decent copy-editors". -- Goodraise (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, in theory, but also agree with G.A.S that we just don't have enough in the project to support a whole department. A segment of the cleanup task force would be great. :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to be part of a copyediting team, but I tend to be picky about the copy edits I take on because I do enough of that for a living -- though more developmental/content edits than copy edits these days, as frankly I'm better at 'em. IOW, if I'm not familiar with a series, I usually shy away from copyediting its articles. I like the idea of making this a part of, or at least associated with, the cleanup team. Also, to be honest, I've never been involved in anything past GA except a single FL. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since that's two who said they tend to avoid material they are unfamiliar with, I'm curious as to why? From my perception, copy editing for grammar, etc doesn't require familiarity with the work, and I know for me, if I'm not familiar with something, I'll be more inclined to spot gaps in information that other readers unfamiliar might have that should be included (particularly in those plot summaries). Some of the best CEs I've gotten have been from those who weren't that familiar with the topic and therefore ask questions to get the gaps filled in.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of copy-editing (at least for me) is gauging the necessary depth of coverage of the plot summary, and I'm reluctant to do that with series I'm unfamiliar with (as I'm unaware as to what constitutes a major or minor detail). Yes, there are copy-editors who are more capable than I who are able to concentrate solely on grammatical issues, but they're relatively rare nowadays. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As Sephiroth says -- it's hard to judge what's undue weight (or lack of it) on a detail if you're unfamiliar with the subject. This is especially difficult with the sort of writing done for Wikipedia, as opposed to professional non-fiction writing. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about being more capable than Sephiroth, but I am one of those rare people who can copyedit an article focusing solely on grammatical issues. That being said, I usually only copyedit when it strikes my fancy, and then I don't usually touch plot summary. On the original topic, I'd have to agree with most everyone else here that a CE taskforce is interesting in theory, but at this time it would be better off as a part of the cleanup taskforce due to a lack of decent copyeditors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Futaba Channel Redux

Since it was noted here the first time, I figure project members might be interested to know that Futaba Channel has been restored and is now back at AfD a second time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futaba Channel (2nd nomination), however the original comments from the first AfD were not restored. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Kuroshitsuji characters

I'm having a problem, although when compared to the big picture is probably minor, on List of Kuroshitsuji characters. Mr.Grave (talk · contribs) and I have run into a disagreement about the headers. When I drafted the article, the headings were st up as seen in this revision. Mr.Grave, however, feels the page should be set up this way. The first time Mr.Grave wanted this page set up like this, he just simply changed it, no explanation. I undid and explained my reasoning. He reverted. I posted a section here on the talk page about the matter and how I wanted the headings set-up and my reasoning for it, as I was willing to discuss it and, as Mr.Grave has made no edits to a talk page even after I informed him about them, I alerted him to my message on the article's talk. As no comment or reply was made, three days later I stated I would be changing the headings as I outlined in two days if no comment of any type was made before then. Yesterday, after the two days were up, I stated on the talk page the two days were up, and I was going ahead. I made my changes and then alerted Mr.Grave to the edits and told him to direct any comments to the talk. Today, he has reverted my changes to the headings and told me to stop doing what I was doing. It is very hard for me to get anywhere with the situation as Mr.Grave refuses to discuss the problem with me anywhere. I am going to alert him to this post here as well. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

His refusal respond is not showing that he has any desire to edit in a cooperative fashion. I've left him a 3RR warning since a quick scan seems to show he has done it. If he reverts again, I'd file a 3RR report. Beyond that, your version is closer to what seems appropriate than his, though unless everyone at Phantomhive Estate is both a protagonist and a main character, I'd probably have Protagonist, Antagonist, and Supporting (and Minor if needed) instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Mr. Grave is trying to organize the subject from an in-universe perspective. While practically, its just changing the names of the headers; the naming indicates that the subjects are being grouped by their in-universe affiliations rather than a real-world perspective such as protagonists and antagonists, like we're supposed to be doing. I'm gonna watch the page and see we can't iron this out. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a WP:RFPP is in order so as to get Grave to actually discuss the issue on the talk page instead of using edit summaries (i.e. edit warring) to get his point across. --Farix (Talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units

This list needs to be split into series-specific lists in order to have any hope of being manageable. I would love to help, but I don't know the names of all the Gundam unit models, nor do I know which ones belong in which series lists. Anyone who can help with this is encouraged to do so. Discussion is here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there not already enough spinout articles for Gundam? Almost all those on the mecha are pure fancruft and it feels like this might be more creep to add yet more.じんない 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep the cruft-slinging to a minimum? Calling things you don't like "cruft" does not help anything and doesn't do anything to improve things. Having series-specific articles covering the mecha found in them (as that's what Gundam is all about, really) is just as legitimate as having a character list. The mecha are just as much characters as the human characters in the Gundam series. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I take offense to that. Gundam has been historically known for creating hundreds of articles when left unchecked. The term "cruft" is justified.--Remurmur (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As there haven't been hundreds of Gundam series, let alone Universal Century series, I think your concerns are unfounded here. I'm not advocating the creation of articles for every model of Gundam, but rather ONE list article per series which covers any of the models in that series. Hardly hundreds, and hardly unchecked. There is nothing to take offense at here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My offense is simply to your offense of the word "cruft". --Remurmur (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I said I was offended by the word "cruft". Rather, I was asking people to not start calling things they don't like "cruft" as it doesn't lead to a productive discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is your spiderman suit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't catch the reference, WP:SPIDER. --Farix (Talk) 14:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a list of mecha -- yes. Having a few mecha pages, giving the number of Gundam series, probably. Having almost every other gundam have its own page just to list its stats and completely failing to even attempt to ever try passing WP:GNG, no.

As for the list itself, size is not an issue for lists. See WP:SIZE#Occasional exceptions. If both lists cannot meet WP:N, then there is only need for 1 list.じんない 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the notability mudslinging, can we please see a good effort to make this list encyclopedic? It's beyond awful at this point, and I want some assurance that the quality of this list is somewhere past "X Gundam has weapon Y and armor Z" in-universe terminology. I don't see this as legitimate as a character list, and want to see how this is presented in a good encyclopedic manner before we give carte blanche here to create more of this stuff. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The first step is to go to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units and drop the dead weight. Then add descriptions of the significant mobile suits/armors featured in the series, beef up the lead, and then create sections about the model kits and other appearances outside the franchise, conceptual development, and influences. This is not going to be an easy cleanup and will take time. I just hope that people aren't going to get impatient and start sending things to AfD again like with D.N.Angel character mergers. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't this just be split/merged into the respective series articles or character lists, and then individual mecha lists (re)split when size becomes an issue or they can demonstrate independent notability? That seems like the best way to cut the cruft IMHO... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was suggesting. Something like List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile units, List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam mobile units, etc. It seems to me that would be the most intuitive way to list them, and the best way to prevent this "cruft" people seem to be so scared of. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that I like Farix's suggestions for content/sections:

• Major units (I think this section should include mention of any derivations, but not anything beyond a mention unless there is a significant reason for more info)
• Model kits
• Books
• Conceptual development
• Influences

Anyone have any further suggestions for sections of the page? How about the order in which they should appear? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find anything for reception or critique section on the models, that should be added. Merchandise section as well.じんない 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to present the current best mobile suit article (in my opinion): Gundam Mk-II.

This should be used as a baseline for how any article on an individual mobile suit should look. It's well-formed, doesn't list a zillion variations, has a nice infobox, and has info on real world stuff aside from models. Jtrainor (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Still looks pretty bad. Should have a completely separate "conception and design" section, an "appearances" section with all the in-universe appearances in various series under different headers and an "other media" section within the appearances section to detail the out-of-universe appearances. Past that, should have a reception section on any critical commentary. That and the prose is pretty bad as well. This is a start, but it's definitely not an ideal model for other mobile suit articles. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. That article is by far the best Gundam article on the wiki right now, and is better than easily 90% of fictional item articles in general. It's not FA status, I'll grant you that, but it's still pretty decent. I seriously challenge you to find a Gundam article that's better. Jtrainor (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be the best Gundam mecha article. It may even, as you say, be among the top 10% fictional item articles out there, but it still does not conform to the WP:MOS-AM guidelines and does not meet, at this time, meet WP:GNG.じんない 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would actually pick Gundam (mobile suit) as a much better example. However, the original Gundam is an exception to the rule that most of the mobile suits are not notable enough for a standalone article. --Farix (Talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Jtrainor) Uh, best Gundam article? That's hardly a big accomplishment. Within the top 10% of all fictional articles isn't even a big accomplishment either. Come back when you get something to GA, thanks. Part of the problem with these Gundam articles is that no one has written one in a decent encyclopedic fashion yet, and is the primary reason why they find themselves at AfD so often. That's why I'm very hesistant to support creating more lists on these Gundam mobile suits when no one has given an iota of hope that they will be encyclopedic in any fashion. We don't want to see them at AfD in a few months because of this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gundam (mobile suit) looks like it has enough to warrant notability and does seem closer to what such an article should be, however, it is hardly a stellar example. I would suggest useing the anime/manga character guidelines as that is largely how a mecha functions in the narrative - albeit with a human mind in the form of a pilot.じんない 08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that comment of yours to be extremely rude at best, Sephiroth BCR. You should be happy anyone at all is willing to put such effort into a Gundam article. Expecting everything to meet FA status is quite unreasonable. The primary focus at the moment should be improving Gundam articles in general to the point where they a) don't look like crap and b) can beat an AfD, THEN worry about making them perfect. Jtrainor (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth said GA, not FA. Frankly, I'd like to see a Gundam article at least hit a high C. That being said, if we want an example of a stellar Gundam article, why not just make one? Pick one that looks like it can pass GNG, and work on getting it up to snuff. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the best comment I've seen here so far.じんない 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• (Since it seems that all discussion is here) I support separate lists for the series, but it goes without saying that the separate articles should be merged into said lists. Further cleanup can be done from there. G.A.S^talk 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement on List of Soul Eater characters

I don't know if this is the right page to get help, but it is the project page. An IP has just marked List of Soul Eater characters for possible copyright infringement due to plot revelations and spoilers from the anime and manga series, which is licensed in the US, Canada, and Japan. I believe that Wikipedia allows this and Wikipedia:Spoiler says it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because it spoils the plot. However, I cannot edit the page until an admin gets to it. The IP felt the article is dishonest in its revelations of plot and character development and put the copyright infringement notice in the article just below where [they] believe material starts to spoil the plot. (Quoted from Talk:List of Soul Eater characters#Copyright Infringement) ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oy. Contrary to popular belief (on parts of Wikipedia and elsewhere), there's a substantial body of case law in the United States and other countries that a summary of a work's plot, even a detailed one, does not constitute copyright infringement (but is instead a derivative work). Spoilers exist on Wikipedia and are not a legal issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP is incorrect. If plot summary/character lists were copyright infringements, we would lose so much on this site, it'd be ridiculous. However, if those character blurbs are directly copied from some source, it would be a copyright violation. I'll try to talk to the IP now. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help! ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I'm the #1 contributor to the article, and I can tell you the information was not copied from another source.--十八 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Juhachi (talk · contribs) has reverted the IP and I'm attempting to start a dialogue. I doubt, however, that the IP will respond or be able to justify the tag, so Juhachi's action is for the best. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again. Thank you for the help; I had no idea what to do ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For future references, if you see an application of WP:SNOWBALL, or WP:DE, then be WP:BOLD and revert.--十八 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Juhachi, the IP's issue is that the page reveals substantial amounts of information about Soul Eater's plot. While this is not a valid concern, I don't believe it's disruptive editing. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the IP wasn't trying to be disruptive, it still is, since you and I and everyone else here already knows the IP's claim's have no basis, and the sooner we end it, the faster we can get on with your lives. No need to draw something out when the end result will be the same.--十八 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I take that back. It's quite odd how he notified other IPs but didn't notify Juhachi... The user also seems to be on a dynamic IP, having edited from both 203.218.85.229 and from 67.42.98.38. (My mistake, I misread the history). By the way, I think what you did was right; I just don't think it's disruptive... DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there have been people saying that an abridgment is enough of a derivative work to be a copyvio though per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Fair_use. ViperSnake151 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am the IP which originally marked the subject article for copyright violation. I had originally thought that the summaries of plot and revelations of the character personalities, abilities, etc. constituted a copyright infringement as stated in the Law of Torts or Public Wrongs, and 17 USC §106. However, the Law also states that should a plaintiff come forward and complain about the content, they must prove that the content is damaging enough to hurt sales, essentially, or that the work must be basically a colorful imitation of the original. Since neither can be proven, in this case, I release my concerns.

HOWEVER, I must reiterate that the boundary between too much and too little information is a fine one, and I leave it up to Juhachi and other contributors to make that judgment . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.98.38 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation assistance pls?

Can anyone give a translation assistance at Aria (manga)#Manga? We have the complete chapter titles in kanji, but the English translations for the series have gotten only so far. Romanji readings would be an added bonus, but English is the higher priority. (Yes, we need to spin the list out -- we're still under construction here.) I should probably mention that existing translations through volume 3 are the official ones. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:TangentCube, we've got romanji. Yay. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped out -- we now have translations of all but two chapter titles and romanji for all but one. I appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Doraemon movie article spaces

The problem:

• The 1984 film Doraemon: Nobita's Great Adventure into the Underworld is an official English translation.
• The 2007 remake Doraemon the Movie: Nobita's New Great Adventure into the Underworld - The Seven Magic Users is not an official English title as far as I can tell.

The question:

• What article space should the remake film be at?
• Can anyone find an official translation?
• What is our formatting policy on titles with two subtitles? The current title seems to have the right idea, but I think that an em dash (—) with no spaces should be used instead of the current spaced hyphen (-).
• Doraemon: Nobita no Shin Makai Daibōken—Shichinin no Mahō Tsukai is the titlespace I'm leaning towards. Opinions?--Remurmur (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Chuang Yi reldates for Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle

Hey, I'm needing help finding the release dates for volumes 1 through 14 of Chuang Yi's English version of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle. Unfortunately, their list of volumes doesn't provide reldates for anything prior to volume 15, and some searching of my own failed to turn up anything useful. Any help or suggestions? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hummm.

Try with the Singaporean online bookstores. You can also drop a request in their forum, bolder you can fill a request in their contact form. --KrebMarkt 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any Singaporean bookstores myself (though I did try looking through Amazon, even though they don't have a Singaporean website), could you maybe point out a couple? I also thought of asking on the site, but I'm half afraid of hitting a language barrier. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They have en English part in their forum, plus English is an official language there.

I dibbled a bit with google for a web Singaporean bookstore with the information but not to avail :( --KrebMarkt 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Length of manga volume summaries

Okay, I know we talked about this at some point, but if we documented it, it wasn't in WP:MOS-AM or {{Graphic novel list}} or anyplace else I can think of. What did we decide on a guideline for number of words to use for a tankobon volume summary in a manga chapter list? And can we document this in our MOS already? (Along with the episode summary length guideline.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never did come to a consensus. Personally, considering they are at generally 200 pages (or more), I feel it should be higher than the episode range, though not quite at film length (400-700). List of Bleach chapters (current FLC) for example, has summaries around the 150 range, which I find too short and detrimental to covering the basic plot points. List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters is a recent chapter FL with fuller summary, averaging 300 words per, with first and last being a little longer. So I'd go with 200-400 words per volume, which is a nice number in-between. (for the curious, the novel MoS gives no guidance here at all, with TWO plot sections per novel and no length guidance on either) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was a bit higher than I was remembering. (And, yeah, it's reasonable for first and last volumes to have more to cover, what with intros and wrapups.) Is it time to reopen the discussion, based on data we now have from our manga FLs? (Lessee: List of Yotsuba&! chapters most are ~100 words, except the most recent which is ~200 -- but that's a notably plotless series and most chapters really can be summarized in a sentence.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably would be good to revisit at this point. Not sure what the others are averaging, though I think less is fine is the plot is simplier like Yotsuba&!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, looking at our 10 (ten!) featured manga lists, most of them have plot summaries in the 150-200 word range, with some occasional longer volumes, with three series outliers: Yotsuba&! running shorter at 100 words, Tokyo Mew Mew running longer at 300 words, and Marmalade Boy also at about 300 words. This includes mostly some rather plotheavy shounen series. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...me suspects the shorter ones were going by the same guideline as the episode list with the lack of other guidance. Guess we know which to FLs I did :P Alas, I think some of those plot-heavy shonen series are suffering from shorter summaries, as they aren't very useful and really make the series seem simplier than they are (IMHO). I know I've been withholding a support on the Bleach FLC because I could more easily see the major plot points missing that I felt were important due to the shorter summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm included to go for "between 100-300 words, with 150-250 words being ideal." Thoughts? Anyone? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Me still say 200-400 :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, setting hard limits is generally not a good thing. If the series is plot intensive, then you require longer summaries. If the series isn't (as most shōnen series are), then you have shorter summaries. It should be pretty self-evident when plot summaries are too detailed or too sparse. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard limits, no. Guideline targets, yes. Just there are guidelines for movies and television episodes. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think around 200 words is good (this is the length I write for the Black Cat manga volumes), so I think I would agree with Quasirandom. However, as Sephiroth points out, each manga (and even each volume) can vary significantly, so it really depends... Maybe ~200 for average plot development, and ~300 for significant plot development? -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself am currently drafting a chapter list, for Kuroshitsuji specifically, and my volume one summary is about 200. I agree with Quasi and disagree with hard limits, but agree with guidelines. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed draft

"When writing plot summaries for anime episode lists, follow the same length guidelines as you would for television series episode lists. For manga lists, the length of a single tankōbon volume's summary should generally be between 150–350 words, with longer lengths reserved for a series or volume with more complex plots or multiple self-contained stories. Remember, it should summarize the main plot points, not every minor detail and scene. For film articles, use the length guidelines for general films."

Going for a compromise with the word limits. I don't like "plot-heavy series" but can't think of a better way to word it right now. Any suggestions? Comments on the whole thing? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"series with more complex plot lines" similar to what film uses in explaining its upper limits? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there -- that's good. Thanks. Edited above. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like how it implies a hard limit ("should be"), but I can't think of any better way to phrase it... Other than that, it looks pretty good. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Made a few more tweaks as well, since we're really talking about lists rather than the main plot and that needs to be clearer. Also added reasoning. Smack around as desired :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good tweaks, both of you. More! Let's bang this into the ground a consensus! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have : more complex or numerous plot lines instead of just more complex plot lines that give some margin to summarize series with episodic nature where every chapter is a self contained plot+resolution itself. For the rest that draft have my support. --KrebMarkt 20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"more complex or episodic plot lines"? I can't think of a good, unambiguous, concise way to work in the idea of self-contained chapters. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"More numerous, self contained plots or is an anthology of multiple stories (not including side stories in a main series)" maybe with examples? Also, should we note that side stories shouldn't be included in the plot summary?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe "...more complex or multiple self-contained plots"? Probably want to either keep it shorter, and let the editor interpret it, or split it into another sentence with examples. With the side stories, it should depend on how much of the volume it takes up. Some side stories can be pretty long, while not contributing to the plot, and I think should then be included. Short ones spanning a few pages can probably be omitted though. Maybe add side stories after the main plot summary as an additional note? -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I confess I find most of this thread less than illuminating. That said, I'm currently summarizing a series were each volume is essentially five independent short stories -- episodic to dah max -- and finding it a challenge to stay under 300 words per. Possibly what we're aiming for is "more complex plots or multiple self-contained stories"? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go with that. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus on the above proposed draft -- it's a guideline. Thanks all for your input. Unless someone objects in the next day, I'm going to add it to WP:MOS-AM#Media. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, except I left out the film plot as that doesn't apply to a series article -- anime films should already be following WP:FILMPLOT anyway. Thanks all for the discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Manga chapter titles

Hallo! So, over here I've been asking about the titles given at List of Sailor Moon chapters. They're incorrect right now, and need to be changed either to the official TokyoPop manga titles or to some more accurate translations. My preference would be to include both the TP titles (which are official, but occasionally wrong or use the wrong names for the characters) and some translations that use the same names as the rest of the wiki.

Since the table already has a "Japanese" half and an "English" half, this seems like it would be easy enough--except that, where the Japanese side has the titles, the English side has the cover characters. Maybe it's just me, but who's on the cover just doesn't seem like very important information. Would it be acceptable to leave that off in favor of listing the two versions of the titles? If not, can we still somehow list the two titles? Maybe make a new, column-spanning row for the cover character(s) instead of using up all that space? --Masamage ♫ 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the official english titles should be used at all times, regardless of if they are direct translations or not. Differences in names can be explained in the lead for the article. I don't see the template being changed just to accommodate one or two "special cases" Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mayyybe so. But just because a template exists doesn't mean there are no special cases. Some flexibility is totally appropriate, even if not in this specific case. (And, on a side note, I do think it's genuinely silly to list who's on the covers.) --Masamage ♫ 08:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... Official English titles are to be used where available, but the template can already accommodate a certain amount of flexibility (considering the actual template displaying the chapter names is {{nihongo}}, which accepts more than just three parameters). As for cover characters... I really don't have any good explanations for why we note them, except for it being how we've always done it (while I've been around, at least). Could have something to do with visual identification or some such, not really sure. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the requirement to list cover characters came out of some of our earliest FLCs. I wasn't there at the time (someone involved should pipe in here) but I suspect it was a compromise to avoid all the non-free cover images that we had in manga lists at the time, and as a way of boosting the amount of out-of-universe content. It may also be influenced by American comic book culture. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With article titles, it's pretty much standard practice to include a more literal title of the translation as a fourth parameter in the nihongo template when the official English title is more creatively translated. Never really seen anyone object to that. I don't really see any reason why you wouldn't be able to include the fourth parameter in the chapter listings where deemed appropriate. Doceirias (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes sense. Should we just set it off with a "lit." or something like that? --Masamage ♫ 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's how I usually see it, if the context of the literal translation isn't clear. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hetalia Axis Powers‎

Does anyone want to weigh in at Talk:Hetalia Axis Powers‎#Character section. I'm getting some resistance after trimming the over 40 characters down to the main seven. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pop quiz

It's not terribly important but can anyone identify the artwork on the bottom of this toy? I'd like to include it in the caption. -- Banjeboi 03:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its actually from an anime or manga. The fingerboard art is generally from major skateboard companies. This one is from the Hookups and just looking at some of their other decks, they all appear to have some sort of a Japanese-style to them [3]. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For the clueless would it be appropriate to add with Japanese-style artwork? -- Banjeboi 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Clow Cards

User:Dream Focus is attempting to claim that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clow Cards, which closed as a merge of the bloated card list to the main article, had no consensus and is demanding the closing admin "reopen" the discussion. This is the same user who is still strenuously defending the Gantz equipment list, including some mild canvassing at both WP:FICT and the Star Trek weapon list (trying to claim that the lists are the "same" and implying that the weapon list is in danger of being deleted because the Gantz list has clear consensus for deletion.[4] See User talk:MBisanz#Why did you delete/redirect Clow Cards? for the ongoing "discussion". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I'm having a time with another editor over at the Shugo Chara! articles who is insisting on putting the romaji titles first and the translations last, where as the original order was the translations first and the romaji last. This isn't the first time he's attempted to switch things around. Since I haven't seen anything in the Manual of Styles about how the titles should be orders, I believe an WP:ENGVAR approach should be the default position. In other words, whichever order the titles were put in by the first significant contributor should be the order used throughout the article. However, the other editor's position is that the order that is dominate on other articles should be used regardless. --Farix (Talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are official, the English titles should generally be first in that case. If they are not, they should be at the end noted as "lit. " to better clarify that it is an unofficial translation instead of the title used in the English release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The English title should be first if there is one. It doesn't really matter which order was used first; the English should always be first if it exists. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's always been my understanding that {{nihongo}}'s input should be English-kanji/kana-romaji(-optionally, literal English), regardless of whether there's an official English translation or not (though I'm aware of some cases where unofficial translations are noted, mostly in the context of chapter/episode titles). If I'm wrong on this, though, then it would be an issue best covered with an ENGVAR parallel. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 05:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE redux * 1 million

The dust has barely dried on the newest discussion about whether Wikipedia:Television episodes should be demoted from a guideline (with consensus saying wait till WP:FICT is actually done and back to guideline status), when another editor has started an extremely length attack against the article and basically threatening to demote it himself. Right now, only three other editors are involved, and I got tired of answering because of his lengthy replies and constant personal attacks against responders and overall snarky attitude (IMHO). Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Laws are like sausages is the discussion and additional eyes/opinions could be used. While not generally as big an issue, it could have a trickle down effect so it is relevant to our sphere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanon Wakeshima's age

See Also: Talk:Kanon Wakeshima#Kanon's Year of Birth. Anyone have any reliable sources that explicitly gives her date of birth or at least year of birth? Right now, we have to conflicting reliable sources, one from February 2009 saying she is 19, one from an unknown date saying she is 20 and its causing edit wars over her year of birth. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM and Notability

In WP:MOS-AM#Notability, a summary is given nothing that articles must meet WP:N, with anime series also following the TV guidelines (though there actually isn't one) and films (WP:MOVIE. It also notes that manga must meet, of course, WP:BK. However, it adds: "OR the additional criterion: 6. Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan."

Recently, this claimed notability requirement has been contested in various deletion discussions with the reasoning that the MoS is not the place to determine notability only summaries actual notability guidelines, nor should the MoS attempt to expand WP:BK to allow a greater breath of articles that are otherwise, unnotable. Rockin' Heaven is one such article. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, author is not particularly notable despite the gushing of a single fan who made most of the articles on her works, and otherwise fails WP:BK. However, it technically meets "Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." as it is licensed in Germany and Italy. During the Afd debate, again, the issue of whether the A&M MoS claim of a sixth criteria is valid.

I'm personally inclined to agree with those questioning the validity. If it is a valid claim for book notability, it should be a part of WP:BK rather than buried in our MoS. Now, I've also heard some try to claim that WP:BK doesn't fit manga well, but I disagree. If it can work for serial novels, it can certainly work for manga and the majority of our manga series articles easily meets its requirements.

However, given the contention over the MoS notability statement and a possible need for clearer guidelines, it seems to me that the best solution would be for the project (maybe with input from the comics project as well) set about writing up a proposed addition to book to speak specifically to serial graphic works (comics and manga), and formally propose that criteria 6 (or any additional criteria) be added to WP:BK and let the community as a whole come to a consensus on whether it is valid. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Having watched those AfDs, I even thought about bringing this up myself. I've always thought that the MOS is a strange place for such a notability criterion. Why not simply move it to WP:BK. Such an action would be sure to spawn a discussion there. (That's the place this should be discussed anyways.) -- Goodraise (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see why we might want slightly looser requirements, given that the lack of writing on manga on websites that meet the reliable sources criteria - and the tendency for coverage in Japanese to be superficial puff pieces at best. It can be hard to find a review to justify a page unless ANN or AoD happen to review it, and neither make much effort to cover comprehensively. I can also see why WP:BK might think any exception was best kept here, to prevent it spreading to things not meeting manga's apparent special needs.

I'd tend to say the problem is less with the sixth criteria than with the wording of it; surely, as this is the English Wikipedia, one of those two countries should be English. Just as the German Wikipedia might want to cover a book translated into German, the English one might want to cover a book translated into English; but a book only translated into German and Italian seems far less worth of an article, regardless of the book's other merits. Doceirias (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to reply to this, but I'll refrain from doing so, because this is going off topic. The issue is the place, not the wording. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

@Doceirias It smells WP:BIAS toward English speaking culture. I won't speak in length on how few translated works are published in English speaking countries every year.

@Goodraise Can you post a link to the right spot for discussion meanwhile i will furbish my arguments. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 09:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, the rarity is what makes it significant. Lack of translation into English doesn't rule out notability, but translation into English nigh guarantees it. Thanks, though - people have cited bias before when I made arguments like this before, and I never understood why. But I think they're assuming I'm proposing criteria for exclusion, when I'm hoping to allow things to included with less debate. Doceirias (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

the rarity is what makes it significant could also be interpreted as our culture is so mighty that we need rarely to import from others cultures so be careful with your wordings. The real issue is that language/culture as argument in Afd discussion is sending back to the ominous question is : Should Wikipedia only cover what matter for English speaking countries ? Guess it easily can upset people who are on the wrong side of those frontiers.--KrebMarkt 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, as this is the English Wikipedia, yes it should primarily cover what is notable to English speaking readers. Other language Wikipedia's are not intended to be mirrors of each other, but uniquely focused for each language. I wouldn't expect to find an article here on an obscure Russian novel that was never translated to English and never had any significant coverage in English sources, and I don't personally think manga should be an exception. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The project has been slapped down before for having rules about including information only about English releases. There is no general rule of "notable in English", any more than there's a "verifiable in English". —Quasirandom (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is, there are reasons why a focused project with a unique set of needs is able to add notability requirements that the parent project shies away from. I mean, why are we questioning it now? Because the guideline as worded is open to abuse. And the parent project would obviously be concerned about that abuse spreading. On the other hand, with a smaller focus, we can do more to prevent abuse - and a more tightly worded version of the guideline would do even more. Maybe we're making a mountain when we want to sculpt the molehill. Doceirias (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC, reply to KrebMarkt) Well, right now the proper place would be a new topic at WT:MOS-AM, because that's where the criterion is. But as (evident by the existence of this topic) the MOS as host for notability criteria is a controversial matter, I'd prefere to see a new topic at WT:BK. (Though I'd like to ask: Can't this wait until after we decide where to put it?) -- Goodraise (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way it would be great if someone remember how & why that 6th criteria was put in place so we could weight its validity in our current context.--KrebMarkt 11:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted this here instead of on the MoS page because more project members read this than the other. I also posted here first instead of BK as I felt it would be better if the project first worked out some basic framework to start with - do we feel 6, as written, is good enough to propose adding to BK, or should we work up something more formal that could be a subsection of 6 (similar to how Bio as subsections on creative people, entertainers, etc). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it myself here : How the 6th Criteria appeared good reading everyone --KrebMarkt 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Its interesting that originally 6 did limit to English rather than any language. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely support bringing this up at WP:BK, and meanwhile removing it from our MOS. If indeed it should be a guideline, it should be more widely discussed and agreed on and stated in a more public place. --Masamage ♫ 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to KrebMarkt above as to why I started here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who has been primary contesting the "sixth criterion". My view is that a Manual of Style should only cover things that are within its scope, how information within the articles is presented. Since criteria for notability are the domain of the notability guidelines, the Manual of Styles.

I also think that it is not acceptable for a WikiProject to sets its own set of criteria for notability separate from the notability guildelines. If they could create their own notability criteria, then we would be in a huge mess. If someone doesn't like how the notability guidelines are applied to a certain set of articles, all they need to do is convenes a small group of editors to form a project, then state anything they create is notable under their "criteria". WikiProjects that have attempted this in the past have found themselves into trouble.

Anyways, this discussion should be held over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) or at the village pump instead of here. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AnmaFinotera, for starting this. I've been meaning to for a couple days, but hadn't gotten around to digging up the link to the archives KrebMarkt finally did. Everyone, that's the place to start for the history. As the one who added this 6th criterion to the MOS, I can say the reasons it was put there is, we couldn't think of a better place.

What I think should be done is to go to WP:BK with a two-part request: first, to add that the guideline does apply to manga, which should not be contentious, and second, open a discussion about adding a 6th criterion along the lines of being multiply-translated, as an almost-certain indicator that notability can eventually be more directly established. (Personally, I'm against making one of the languages have to be English, as there is no such thing as "notable in English" as a policy, anymore than there is a "verifiable in English" policy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked though the archives of WT:BK and couldn't find any mention of why comics and graphic novels were excluded from WP:BK. It would be a valid topic to bring up there. As for the criterion about being published in multiple countries/languages, I've seen the criterion abused too much recently as a way to justify keeping articles on non-notable subjects. --Farix (Talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bring the discussion at the right place. My concern is different of your knowing how few translated works are published in the English speaking countries | The famous 3% of translated works in the US publishing. Notice it is hosted by the University of Rochester. I refuse Not published in English as an excuse for Afd It is where i draw my line for a stand and fight, the rest is widely open for discussion --KrebMarkt 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, any proposed language about English language release would have to be clear that this is a basis for inclusion, not exclusion - something translated into English is almost certain to be notable, while something not translated may well be notable, but would have to meet one of the other five requirements. Unless we disagree that translation makes something notable; the Aurora publishing deletions suggest minor yaoi manga probably still aren't. And in that case, we might want to abandon the idea of having this additional criteria altogether. Doceirias (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if i slighted anyone but the English language argument made me foul :(

The issue is that 6th criterion should whatever simply removed it and we stick fully with the WP:BK or should we change/amend it in that case Farix is right this is beyond our scope and should be discussed in the WP:BK discussion page.

We should be very careful to not fall into the Not published in english = Afd. I still remember that Übel Blatt made it just with criterion #6 until i put the reference of an award in France to make it barely fit into criterion #2.--KrebMarkt 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, consensus seems to agree that the 6th criteria is not appropriate within the MoS, not something the project can decide, and should be removed. As such, I have boldly removed it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I don't mess with notability, but I couldn't help myself with this. In my opinion, criterion 6 (why does everyone keep using the plural form for a single criterion?) should not be used as a separate notability criterion, but as a stepping-stone between nonnotability and clear notability - in other words, when a series shows the potential for showing notability via one of the other criteria, even if it does not at the time of review, criterion 6 can be used until such time as proper notability can be established. On the other hand, though, is the potential for viewing this use as a form of crystalballery, in that there would be no problem in recreating the article when it can clearly show notability, or moving it to userspace to be worked on further. The criterion itself, in whatever form it ultimately takes, should be moved to WP:BK, and this discussion should be moved to (or at least expanded to include) WP:BK. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pause
@AnmaFinotera Removing it from MoS:Anime is ok BUT that doesn't resolves the issue at all nor it could be implied retro-actively in currents Afd discussions. It is a point of discussion and contention that need to be resolved at the right place and the right place is already an issue by itself. (Read below)
@Dinoguy1000 Before discussing the criterion issue in WP:BK, we had first to be part of the WP:BK scope which isn't the case see here : Include us in WP:BK. When that is solved then we can put the criterion issue on the map again.--KrebMarkt 07:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As something of a note of interest, it appears that something similar to "criteria 6" WAS proposed to be part of WP:BK during its formation 2006 and subsequently rejected. It seems the original idea required 10 languages then 4 then 10 then dropped all together. Original discussions at: Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 1#note on sales, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 1##food for thought on sales numbers, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 2#Concerns about some of the criteria, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 2#, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 2#Additional criteria?. (using number of sales was also discussed and dropped) There has been no discussion since, so am proceeding to start the discussion with hopes of better responses than the query about reincluding graphic novels. :-P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Translations = Notability. I tried to summarize neutrally and clearly, but feel free to correct me if I didn't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is http://anime.excite.co.jp/ a reliable source.

I'm wondering if http://anime.excite.co.jp/ is reliable source.
That sub-part of excite seems to have real editor(s) running that portal and sign under the ex_anime tag.
Thanks.--KrebMarkt 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it say who those editors are beyond the username? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the news section seems pretty good about crediting the sources for the information, and is mostly regurgitating press releases. The interviews are pretty easy to accept as reliable. There does not appear to be a staff listing, with all posts credited to "ex anime". There are a number of blogs by people I've never heard of, and those are unlikely to qualify as reliable, but I'd say the rest of it probably could. Doceirias (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize news, interviews and post from the "ex anime" are likely RS but not the blogs ?

It may give us one more avenue for references as we lacks badly in seiyu and anime musics departments. --KrebMarkt 14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters

There are three individual character articles for this series, which I've proposed be merged back to the list for lack of notability. Discussion started December 21, with only one response (today) from a new editor. Some discussion at Talk:List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters#Merging would be good. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Love Hina characters request

Anyone familiar with the series fancy helping me rewrite this character list? It's going to be more work then I originally thought, and having someone who can rewrite the information will mean I can concentrate on referencing it as well as helping out with the rewrite. I've asked Dinoguy, who can't help and I don't know of anyone else to ask who is familiar with the series, apart from perhaps Highwind888. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just gotten some stuff to do recently so I'm gonna be a little busy, but I'll see what I can do. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 04:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List of One Piece characters

Goodraise and I keep taking abuse about the mergers on List of One Piece characters, our most recent critic has suggested that we find more editors that are: "More intellectual speakers on one side so they don't sound like complainers, and more speakers on the other so they don't sound like a grumpy conservative select few." So I guess we're the grumpy and conservative few (there's actually like 4-5 of us, but nevermind that... just pick the easy targets).

I'd like to request some more people from the project voice an opinion at Talk:List of One Piece characters so we don't keep getting accused of hijacking the article. I'm sick of quoting WP:N and WP:PLOT.  :-( --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You have it :p --KrebMarkt 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think more voices are actually needed. There's a lot of people complaining, but none of them are willing to do any real editing. I'd like to note tough, that I predicted this. As for the abuse, I kinda enjoy the refreshing honesty there. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its funny that none of them will actually give a solid argument as to why they want the changes... I just got fed up with it, having the same conversation three times in one week >.> Sorry, I sort of spoke for you Goodraise; and KrebMarkt thanks for weighing in! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Age Ratings

The question has been posed at the infobox talk page regarding whether infoboxes should include information on the age ratings of series. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox animanga#age rating if you'd like to offer your views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters

I've proposed the reorganization of List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters as well as merging the stand-a-character articles. Additional comments are requested at Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters#Page cleanup. --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of television programs by episode count up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programs by episode count. Our own list has been mentioned in this discussion as a possibility for being packaged with this AfD (it sounds like the person who suggested it was unaware that the anime list just survived AfD as a speedy/snowball keep, so nothing against them). It's pretty late in this discussion, but some of you may want to weigh in because of the potential repercussions on our own list (I've already commented, albeit logged out, and withheld a !vote). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It survived. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Results of FACs

I've been hearing in passing that featured article and list reviews have been asking for changes that aren't represented in our current manual of style, but I don't know any details as I rarely participate in such rarified discussions. So I was wondering if those who do could summarize the results of experience. This probably needs to be broken into separate parts for discussion purposes, but for now, what I've been hearing is something like this:

• For series articles, having a Characters section separate from Plot is sometimes (but not always?) dubious.

• For character list articles, a Reception section is essential, showing that the cast in themselves is notable.

• For episode list articles, not only is Reception essential but a section of release info (DVDs et cet).

True? Is there more? What about for chapter lists? What kind of reception info is essential? And should we start summarizing our experiences of the various lists into WP:MOS-AM guidelines, so other editors know what to aim for? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those are true in that sort of sense. For series articles, having a separate character section is an editorial decision and depends on the series (see the discussion at the MoS talk page). We only have one series having gone through FAC in ages, though, so not sure where that rumor came from. Yeah, Tokyo Mew Mew has no character section, but its a relatively short series and its character section added no value to the main article, hence editor consensus to just have plot. That doesn't mean it will work for all series, though it is likely the best route for other similarly shorter works. For character lists, yes, a creation/conception and a reception section do appear to be desired, but again, we only have one FL character list to go by. It does seem like a good model, though. For episode lists, I have never, ever, ever seen one denied FL for not having any reception or release info, indeed none of ours (that I know of) have a reception section, and its a fairly even mix of those with sections detailing release info and those with just summaries in the lead. The only time I've seen reception info requested for episode lists are season lists, and even that's really optional. And, quite honestly, if someone is actually trying to demand that kind of thing, I think its something to argued against. The FAC/FLC isn't the place to attempt to overhaul a topical MoS like that, much less two (as ours really piggy backs TV's) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with AnmaFinotera. As for the episode lists: WP:WIAFL requires comprehensiveness. If reception information exists, it is required for FL status (compare Lost (season 1)). For most shows of this project, that won't be the case. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For series articles, it depends on whether you can explain the characters within the scope of the plot section. It's pretty easy to separate them into their own section above the actual plot summary or integrate them into the plot summary itself. If the cast is big enough that it's difficult to integrate it, then a separate section is probably warranted. For character lists, you absolutely need a reception section (and conception/development information if available) if you want to go through FLC. Now, character lists on series that warrant them but don't have a whole lot of reception aren't going to be deleted anytime in the future (pretty strong consensus for them), but you're not going to be able to bring them to FLC no matter how good the prose is. For episode lists, reception is not necessary. The only time other television series have full fledged reception/development/cast sections in episode lists is when they're an article on the season as a whole (for instance, Smallville (season 1)) and not simply a list of the episodes. As for a DVD section, it depends on the size of the series. If there's six to seven DVDs, then it's a bit of a waste, as you can simply summarize it in the lead, but if the series is 24+ episodes or stretches across multiple seasons, it's generally warranted. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with comments above me. A list of episodes is an extension of a main article and contains (mostly) release information, broadcasting, etc. If reception can be found, that's great, but I don't see how it's needed. For series articles, it all depends. If it has a separate character list, then it's easier just to link to it. But as long as the character section isn't messy, overflowing with in-universe information, or way too long, it doesn't detract from the article. The only thing I may agree with is character lists. I don't count them as lists in the Wikipedia sense. They just aren't the same as a chapter/episode lists, and that's why a lot of character lists go through a GA review instead. Characters of Kingdom Hearts and Organization XIII, for example, are FA and GA respectively. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the clarifications. It might be good to codify some of these on the WP:MOS-AM. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters

This describes the characters in modest detail, including voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}). The character section should consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. The character section should include voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}). There is no need to create a separate voice actor section.

Another option is to delete the character section entirely to prevent the article from looking like SparkNotes (rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry). Instead, use a finely crafted plot summary to introduce the characters to the reader.

• Character sections should not be divided into numerous sub-sections, as this makes the table of contents unnecessarily long.
• Minor characters may be included here, but article length should be considered.
• If the majority of characters descriptions consist of one or two sentences, a bullet list is most appropriate; if the majority of characters descriptions consist of one or more paragraphs, then a definition list is preferred; if a separate List of (series) characters exists (see below), prose is preferred (See also: WP:SS).
• If the character section grows long, please reconsider the amount of detail or number of characters included. Beyond that, a separate page, named List of (series) characters, may be appropriate.
• Separate articles for each character should be avoided unless there is enough verifiable, citable material to warrant a separate article.
• Regarding names:
  • Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work).
  • If there is no official title, Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Character names should be given in western order and, in the case of a dictionary list, in boldface.

(←) I included the proposed amendment to the manual of style above, as I believe that it is very relevant to the discussion above. More comments or suggestions at the discussion would be appreciated, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Characters section (again). G.A.S^talk 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We Gotta Power

I just resently ran across page for the We Gotta Power single showing that it charted on Oricon. Would that be enough to bring it back? Sarujo (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to start reading here. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And it did chart so that should hold some merit per what that section states. Sarujo (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the section in full; while charting does suggest notability, the song can only have an article if there is enough 3rd party coverage to make the article stand alone. If you can find that, go ahead. But if there isn't much coverage out there, it's better off as part of a larger article. Doceirias (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Doceirias.

You don't have enough materials & references to build a strong article for just one single even if it ranked.

I'm myself deep in anime related music article writing so i'm generally in favor off progress in the side of the WP:anime but even so i think that you have not enough ammunitions to create a new article :(

You may manage to get a pass for the whole anime franchise discography if you can gather enough references for every CDs and albums.

I'm working on something like that for Aria (manga). You can check the rough draft here Aria franchise discography draft 01.

Even with that much references i'm not sure that spinning-out the audio part from its main article won't be contested :( --KrebMarkt 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

@Sarujo Lucky you to have that host of album articles to deal with --KrebMarkt 06:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Experimenting with anime audio list/discography

Hi,

I must confess that i'm reaching my limit on how much, how far an anime audio list/discography can be developed. Burn out me :(
I decided to go for a mix of WP:Album and WP:DISCOG.
Now, I need feedback and rest.
Check my sandbox here please : User:KrebMarkt/mudpit
--KrebMarkt 13:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are historical picture scrolls under our scope

Saw that Chōjū-giga was listed with our banner and the scope doesn't really make it clear whether or not these illustrations are under the project or not.じんない 06:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Its considered one of the first "manga" I think, so maybe at least vaguely, though not in any big way. Seems like its more in the realm of Japanese history or art history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I ask, because these historical scrolls have been said by some historians to be the origins of modern day manga. Even if it were, I realize it would be on our "other" category.じんない 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise assessed the afore mentioned article while I had specifically questioned whether this was under the scope given that articles like history of manga do not cover images this old and the impact it would have for us to add a whole lot more indivisuals under our scope like Katsushika Hokusai and his work The Great Wave off Kanagawa along with other notable artists and works. This would massively expand what the scope of this project entails and thus should not be taken so lightly.じんない 13:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it probably isn't under our scope (though that doesn't preclude Goodraise from assessing it either way, since the general basics of the B criteria are likely the same). While it may be one of the first manga, I'm still inclined to consider it more under the auspices of art history and Japanese history first, with at best, marginal relation to our project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnmaFinotera on this one: the article in question has a few references to manga, but (IMHO) not really any more than most video game articles would have had. Now having the article under a shared scope is not a problem, though our assessment* really only goes as far as our scope is concerned, see this and this. (*The assessment in our banner, nothing precludes anybody from assessing the articles for the purposes of the other projects.) I suspect though that WP:JAPAN is the project with the most relevant scope, though you could argue for WP:ARTS as well. G.A.S^talk 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we add something like that to our scope then? Like "Pre-modern manga are better suited for inclusion with Japanese or Art history?"じんない 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Topics

I think that would be the sensible thing to do. Other topics I think should also be considered/more clearly defined are song singles and bands/singers (where they happened to sing the intro of an anime). See [5][6] G.A.S^talk 05:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I came across a number of them. Their level of inclusion seems tertiary at best. I'm all for including bands/artists who have had multiple songs, but one song seems very tenuous, epseically as that may be the only connection many times. For the songs, I'm more likely to agree they are fine since they are a part of the anime itself. The song in a compilation, not so much. May sound like I'm splitting hairs, but that's how I see it.じんない 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, they should be included if they could be merged to the main article, or a list of media. If they should be redirected to the artist instead (per WP:NSONGS), they are likely outside our scope. But how do we include this in our scope description? I agree about your statement about the artists. G.A.S^talk 06:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... How about we first state what is:

• Drama CDs/radio dramas, songs and soundtracks based on anime or manga are under the shared scope of WikiProject Albums.

• Comment I believe in practice, we are closer to the WP:DISCOG --KrebMarkt 10:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I know there are a lot that would fall outside of that and into albums, especially lists where related media plays a roll soundtracks lists of the media are common, however and i'm not opposed to putting and "or" statement in. EDIT: Actually radio dramas would likely fall under the broader parent category of WikiProject Music if they weren't released for CD or tape, etc, but those are so rare, perhaps it should just be removed?じんない 10:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Radio CDs can be sourced with references to the labels website but they are the hardest to develop. where was broadcast the show, when and with whom are difficult to answer and to provide RS to back those answers. Current anime radio broadcast mostly thought Internet and is a mixed bag of drama, interviews, fan letters answering, etc. It's a cost effective way to stay in touch the fan base --KrebMarkt 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps then, for the moment we should only specifically state we cover those that make it to CD?じんない 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• The answer is a moderate yes because it works that way to source them. For show no more web broadcasted, you start from the CDs & labels website and you try to backtrack to the website(s) who broadcasted the show. Usually those websites are freaking deletionists so what remains as proofs of a previous broadcast are posts in their news pages or the items referenced in their store pages (How great). The CDs is the most reliable memento of the existence of an internet radio show. However i hope people will be wise enough to not overuse is as reference. The extreme case would people baking the subjects and the broadcast dates of a show using radio CD As everything is in the booklet of the CD clear case of WP:AD.--KrebMarkt 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well it's only WP:AD if someone has a reasonable claim to question it with basis that the dates are disputed on the CD label themselves by a significant number of people, otherwise we'd not be able to use stuff like the company back cover as a source for who is the director of an anime, which meets WP:V and is generally considered okay, except special circumstances.
• Anyway, beyond that change, any other concerns you see listed here or with the other proposals for clarification?じんない 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, i think we made a full tour of the subject. --KrebMarkt 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Composers, bands and musicians based primarily around anime or manga are under the shared scopes of WikiProject Composers and WikiProject Musicians respectively.

Then we should note on what the scope doesn't cover that "Composers, bands and musicians with incidental anime or manga asociation, such as having 1 or 2 songs on associated with an anime series, do not meet this project's scope." and "Articles on compilation albums with only 1 or 2 anime or manga related tracks do not meet this project's scope."じんない 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal

Any project members have the portal on their watchlist? It was vandalized three hours ago and went unnoticed until I just came back from a meeting. More eyes there would be good... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. Watching it now. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I only looked at it this morning and decided not to bother though :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to my short watch list. European time for me. --KrebMarkt 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Been on my watchlist for some time, but I can't do anything while I'm offline when stuff happens. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuses excuses *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Aurora Publishing review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I like an independent review of of the article on Aurora Publishing and it's associated sub-articles. I know that many of these articles were created by an employee of Aurora Publishing, Fujoshi sisters (talk · contribs), but I've also noticed a few other accounts that were created edited/create a few articles related to Aurora Publishing and its releases, then stop editing altogether.

I've put two of the articles up for AfD. The main article itself seems rather suspect since it covers the licensed titles instead of being about the company itself. I was able to find one article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and general title announcements about ANN with the rest of ANN's coverage based off of press releases or panel announcements. Based on what I could find so far, Walkin' Butterfly is the only one of their titles that could pass WP:NOTE and WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's been the trend with almost all of our company articles for licensors. I personally think they should all have such lists removed, with just a see also to their categories where they exist, and instead focus purely on the company per the company article guidelines and general idea that we aren't a catalog, however, when I've attempted this before not much feedback was given. Aurora is a relatively new company, I believe, from what I recall from AoDs recent reviews of a handful of their titles. Not sure the company is even notable yet, but in either case, the talk page should be tagged to note the COI, and I'd be inclined to check user on Fujoshi sisters, Mizuki0066, Nopocky4kitty, and Krestalve for probably sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) since Aurora seems to have employees cataloging there stuff here. For the titles themselves, almost all should be AfDed; maybe do a bulk one noting promotional actions by publisher, but all fail WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Walkin' Butterfly can definitely pass WP:N -- in addition to ANN's review, I've seen a couple others, including some mainstream coverage (which I'll have to track down -- it could have been PW, maybe?). —Quasirandom (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I Shall Never Return is fairly good to go for establishing notability (though article itself needs work). As a minor note, some of those with disambigs need case fixes if kept. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Annnnnd Walkin' Butterfly was a TV Tokyo j-drama this past year. Even aside from the reviews and being licensed by at least three foreign publishers, it's now passing WP:BK by a fast-walking mile. (I'll take on getting this up to at least a decent start.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By the looks of things, candidates for deletion are Be Honest!, Heavenly Body, Kirepapa, Love For Dessert, The Manzai Comics, and Queen of Ragtonia. The rest have at least one review, though the reviews should be scrutinized. I'm not really sure just how reliable Mania is as a review site post AoD's absorption. --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to be careful to make sure it's by one of the staff reviewers rather than a reader, but otherwise as best I can tell they're still reliable. AnmaFinotera? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and except for Love for Dessert and Kirepapa, I concur with those titles. But we should let the {{tl:notability}} tags attempt to bring up evidence first. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The ones that are http://www.mania.com/*title*.html should all be AoD staffers, and following the traditional AoD format. User reviews will have a URL of http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We should document that in our list of resources on the Project page. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, feel free to tweak the wording as needed :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Our most recent Aurora editor, Nopocky4kitty (talk · contribs) has been adding various reviews, many of them from blogs, to the articles. I currently don't have the time to sort them out. He/she has also restored the catalog lists back to the main article which I deleted for a second time. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted them all as sockpuppetry and advertising and send in an SSP report so they can all be confirmed, identified, and hopefully blocked. Rather shameful way for a company to act. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any particular evidence that Nopocky4kitty (talk · contribs) is affilited with Aurora, and is not just a fan of what they publish? It sounds like the user is trying to, like, improve the articles by adding third-party reviews, even if they don't live up the to ludicrous "reliability" standards. And is doing so actually "abuse?" 208.245.87.2 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article for Aurora Publishing based off of third party sources and would like others to review it. Hopefully, I've archived a more natural tone compared to the previous versions. It should suffice as a stub and survive any AfD attempts. --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good stub. Though I wonder about the definition of shoujo the article gave, as Walkin' Butterfly is marked on the cover as for 16+. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the discussion, but an interesting sidenote: I think Walkin' Butterfly is the first manga (or comic of any kind) serialized by mobile phone I've seen pass Wikipedia's notablity guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged the new sock to the report and removed out the excessive and obvious promo crap they shoved into Red Blinds the Foolish. Someone should check the refs to see if they are RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com notes it as one of the top 10 anticipated announced licenses from AnimeExpo 2008, and Tom Spurgeon gives it a short-take notice in part spurred by Matt Thorn being the translator but also the mangaka's previous titles. This in addition to being noticed in all the major yaoi blogs. Given all these things, and the fact that the English edition was published exactly a week ago, I think we should wait for a month or two for reviews to come out before deciding it's not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of the above, while Red Blinds the Foolish does not at the moment seem to meet the notability guidelines (at least in English), I'd hold off on AfDing (or even PRODding) for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: in reviewing the articles, can folks make sure to add in the actual original release info, since it seems the Aurora reps made all of the articles in such a way that it almost implies that they are the first publishers of the works instead of starting with the Japanese release first. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we ready to work out what to send to AfD next? And make some decisions on whether some clearly shouldn't be? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sending articles where the manga has only received one review or from one reviewer? The key here is significant coverage. It's unquestionable on whether the reviewers are reliable and independent. But WP:NOTE has a three prong test (Significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of subject) and I don't consider one review to pass the significant coverage test. --Farix (Talk) 03:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't we only have two websites that do reviews regularly and are considered reliable sources? Saying one review isn't significant coverage limits us to only covering series which both ANN and AoD have reviewed, and that seems unnecessarily restrictive. Doceirias (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com also regularly reviews manga, including BL titles like most of these, and so does IGN, though not as much as ANN or AoD/Mania. PopCultureShock is mostly reliable for these purposes, and per AnmaFinotera so is Comics Worth Reading. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some others that have passed WP:RS and are currently used in FA level articles: Animefringe.com (now defunt magazine published from 2000-2005 which continues to keep its full archives online-YAY!) and THEM Anime Reviews (themanime.org). Ex.org is another that meets WP:RS and does regular reviews (its another online magazine, published by a volunteer staff and is part of the Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Though their focus is American comics, The Comics Journal irregularly reviews manga and is solidly reliable. Tom Spurgeon was (is?) staff, and more regularly reviews manga on his The Comics Reporter website, and is as reliable as Comics Worth Reading for these purposes. And of course, if Publishers Weekly notices a manga, that's a good indication of notability; ditto School and Library Journal, Hornbook, and other children's/young-adult library-oriented journals. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we put all these in our resources list (like AnmaFinotera did before with Mania.com)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. I had no idea ex.org had come back to life.

My original point is badly weakened now, but I still think we want to be wary of insisting everything have multiple reviews. The number of reviews is less important than the quality of them. Fifteen negative reviews of some merchandising tie in piece of crap does not make it more notable than one A+ review. Just seems like a needless restriction that we don't want to go codify. Doceirias (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. If we can figure out how to organize/annotate it. Doceirias has a point too, but there's also the working of WP:BK #1, which asks for multiple. Also, if everyone trashes it, then it's notable that way. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed they should be added back. And also agree that having a ton of reviews of nothing doesn't make it notable (which would fail the significant coverage part, IMHO), but if does receive several full reviews and they all trash it, that's notable (maybe not watchable/readable, but notable :-P) Case in point, from a different media, Grizzly Rage, one of those wonderful Sci-Fi B movies. Trashed by every RS reviewer found, but still notable (and a GA LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, of the remaining ones below, it looks like I Shall Never Return, Love For Dessert (marginally), Nephilim (manga), and Seduce Me After the Show are keepers; while Kirepapa, Kiss All the Boys, and Hate to Love You should be AfD'd. I haven't had a chance to extended search for coverage of Spring Fever (manga), Tough Love Baby, Voices of Love, or Yakuza in Love yet, so no opinion there yet. If we do send Red Blinds the Foolish to AfD on crystal gazing grounds, I'll !vote to userfy, based on the quality of the advance buzz. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess: since I mentioned AfDing Kirepapa, Kiss All the Boys, and Hate to Love You, y'all are waiting for me to do so. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate them. I haven't since I got yelled at by an inclusionist during the last batch and I'm letting some of those WSJ related AFDs to finish up. --Farix (Talk) 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done one; time's a bit tight today, so I'll do this one at a time, rather than batching. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that all of the WSJ afd's have finished, I've put up Kiss All the Boys, Tough Love Baby, and Voices of Love for AFD. I accidentally prodded Yakuza in Love instead of sending it to AfD, but we will see how well the prod stands. --Farix (Talk) 12:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't contest the prod. :-P —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For Love For Dessert and Spring Fever, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. With two reviews by different reviewers, that's about what we can expect from any anime or manga article. Though personally, I would prefer to have more then two. That only leaves Kirepapa and Red Blinds the Foolish. --Farix (Talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I say AfD Kirepapa -- yes, there's an adaptation, but it doesn't seem to be notable either -- and wait on Red. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles to sort through

Here is a list of articles pointing to Aurora Publishing. Anyone willing to review these articles and see if any of them have reliable sources that may demonstrate notability? --Farix (Talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. N Be Honest (No JA article, no Mania reviews, deleted after AfD)
2. Y Flock of Angels (No JA article. Mania v1 review, Mania v2 review), (sent to AfD, kept after nominator withdrew)
3. N FreshMen (No JA article, no Mania reviews, deleted after AfD)
4. N Future Lovers (manga) (No JA article, no Mania reviews, deleted after AfD)
5. N Hanky Panky (manga) (No JA article, no Mania reviews, deleted after AfD)
6. N Hate to Love You (No JA article, Mania v1 review) (aside from mentions in passing as first of Deux line, not finding anything else; redirected after AfD)
7. N Heavenly Body (No JA article, no Mania reviews, deleted after AfD)
8. Y Hitohira (adapted into a nationally broadcast anime series)
9. Y I Shall Never Return - (No JA article, has licensed OVA adaptation, Mania OVA review, Mania manga v1 review, Mania manga v2 review, PopCultureShock v1 review, PopCultureShock favorite title)
10. N Kirepapa (JA article at ja:キレパパ。, no Mania reviews, has OVA adaptation) (aside from mentions of release, not finding anything else, sent to AfD)
11. N Kiss All the Boys (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, Mania v1 review, reprinted in bunko edition in Japan, deleted after AfD) (more blog notice than usual, not finding anything else reliable in English)
12. Y Love For Dessert (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, no Mania reviews, About.com review, PopCultureShock review, Licensed in France) (three french reviews of various length Manga news (critique tab) Manga Sanctuary Graphivore)
13. Y Nephilim (manga) (JA article at ja:ネフィリム (漫画), Mania v1 review, About.com v1 review, PopCultureShock v1 review, Comics Worth Reading v1 review, was reviewed by Otaku USA (text not online))
14. Y Nightmares For Sale (No JA article, Mania v1 review, Mania v2 review), (sent to AfD, kept after nominator withdrew)
15. N The Manzai Comics (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, no Mania reviews, cannot find other reviews, deleted after AfD)
16. N Queen of Ragtonia (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, not yet published in English, no Mania reviews, deleted after AfD)
17. N Red Blinds the Foolish (No JA article, no Mania reviews, About.com anticipates it, Tom Spurgeon short-take notice)
18. Y Seduce Me After the Show (No ANN entry, unknown JA article, Mania review, About.com review, PopCultureShock review, passing praise by Tom Spurgeon, PopCultureShock favorite title)
19. ? Spring Fever (manga) (No JA article, Mania review, PopCultureShock review)
20. N Tough Love Baby (No ANN entry, unknown JA article, Mania review, deleted after AfD)
21. N Voices of Love (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, Mania review, Licensed in France, deleted after AfD)
22. Y Walkin' Butterfly (covered by Honolulu Star-Bulletin, ANN v1 review, About.com v1 review, Mania v1 review, Mania v2 review, PopCultureShock v1 review, adapted as nationally broadcast j-drama) ; Licensed in France (Asuka editions)
23. N Yakuza in Love - (No JA article, had a copyvio plot summary, Mania review, deleted after prod)

Added my 2 cents. Some titles are licensed in France. Does the number of foreign licensors apply ? --KrebMarkt 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No. --Farix (Talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is such a thing as TOO out-of-universe

Because I am in a sardonic mode today, I would just like to point out that the current version of Purple Eyes in the Dark is nice example of what happens when you focus too much on out-of-universe information in a series article. Loads of release and adaptation data -- and exactly two words, one of which is wrong, that let you know the first thing anyone visiting the page wants to learn first, namely, what's it about. In our, shall I say, strong sensitivity to charges of too much plot, we can to go to far in the other direction. A sensitivity that is warranted, but also creates barriers to building start-class articles that can then grow organically. (This public service announcement has been brought to you by something that is, in fact, a supernatural drama with were-leopards and more intra-family betrayals than you can shake a SparkNote at, and not a comedy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ETA: Just to be clear, I'd made half the edits to the article, and the above includes no small amount of self-mockery. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the reader get a catalog of barcodes instead of tangible information.

I think that putting items with references BUT without much development and explanation is pedagogic Fail. Your knowledge may increase BUT your understanding won't :( --KrebMarkt 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, as soon as you said that I knew exactly who created and was the primary editor of that article. That's all he does on almost any article he makes, sticks in a brief lead, infobox, and the volume/media lists, then moves on. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I bear some of the blame here, as I've been the secondary editor for several of his new articles this week. I pointed to this one in particular because we'd gotten as far as we had without ANY plotting. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least he's doing better than he was when he first started. I think he's got tremendous potential as an editor, he just needs someone to help him out (and now that I've said that, all eyes are on me ^_^;; ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Padawan Jedi vibrations here ? kōhai and Senpai is more appropriate ;) . --KrebMarkt 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@Dino: Well, I've been helping him this week. (In the morning, check his contributions log and clean up his overnight additions.) And, actually, if you engage he does stick around his articles and make improvements. Especially if you can point out things he misses, such as additional media and serialization. And he does learn -- make the same edits to some of his past articles, and he does start correcting it in his next articles. Some of the time. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the type of stuff I'm referring to. Unlike most new editors I've seen, he doesn't seem the least bit daunted by policy/guidelines, criticism, or the software (all in a good way, of course). If he sticks with it, he'll probably go quite far here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see what people are getting so uppity about. I myself find it infinitely easier to write the out-of-universe media information than the in-universe plot/character information, and frankly a lot of the time I don't add in the plot/character myself because I know someone else will eventually. A good recent example is Sora Kake Girl which I created, and already other users have added info on the characters. A good article is not built in a day, and frankly I'd rather have an article of all out-of-universe info than an entire article on unsourced fancrufty plot/character info.--十八 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not intending to be uppity, was trying to be good natured. Its certainly a refreshing change from the plot crazed fans who do nothing but plot and character stuff without any real world info. But it would be good if he at least put in a one line summary about what the series was about, if nothing else. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you should stop using the word uppity - I'm assuming you're unaware of the racist connotations to the word. Doceirias (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when does 'uppity' have racist connotations? I've never known about that. I was using the term to say the same thing as "making a mountain out of a molehill" basically.--十八 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, what the word actually means: [7] and some recent issues caused by other people ignorant of the implications: [8]. Doceirias (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Uppity" is perceived by many African-Americans as a word used by white racists to describe blacks who have grown too big for their britches and don't know their place. Either I've been sheltered all my life, or I just live in a part of the country which doesn't use it in that way. I meant no offense, and I doubt that congressman did either. Good to know though.--十八 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I have been too...particularly since I am of that supposed offended race (woops, not offended). That's just silly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a regional thing, which is why I pointed it out; people have no idea in many areas, while in others (like where I grew up) it's one step shy of actually using the n word. Doceirias (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary.com has an interesting usage note down near the bottom. (I don't think every usage of the word is therefore inappropriate, but it's always good to be careful.) --Masamage ♫ 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that people are taking issue with the word shows that they are full of themselves and are seeking offense. --Farix (Talk) 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the historical context of the word's rise to popularity (again, see dictionary.com), eh. I prefer to assume good faith on both sides. --Masamage ♫ 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem with it as long as it info on what it is gets filled in eventually. It's just a different approach. Instread of starting with in-universe info first, like most fiction articles, out-of-universe info comes first. Articles aren't created as final drafts after all, at at least those articles have met WP:V and probably WP:GNG.じんない 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue with Purple Eyes in the Dark isn't the lack of plot information but that the out-of-universe information is very poorly presented. Why do we have to include dates and ISBN numbers for every volume release? Why are track lists included for the music CDs included? Dido for the novels as well. These list-filled landmines actually interferes with the rest of the content on the article. And the worst part is the insane amount of unnecessary referencing to the publisher's website and to Amazon.com. --Farix (Talk) 03:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ISBNs and Dates are part of the template for any manga/novel list (though for the later, that needs to be switched to our usual graphic novel template instead of the book series). Track listings, I agree...do not belong in main articles period (or anywhere, IMHO, but a notable album article, but people disagree for discographies). There isn't anything wrong with the sourcing, IMHO. Everything there is stuff that is best sourced to the publisher or, lacking that option, Amazon.co.jp or similar. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The dates eventually have to be sourced (a requirement for FA and probably GA as well). Publisher's the best place for that, just as a movie's credits for a cast list. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT confirmation RfC

In case no one has noticed the notice on top of the page, WP:FICT is currently having an RfC to be confirmed as a guideline here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gave you my abstention :p --KrebMarkt 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow...haven't there been like 10 confirmations so far? :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to Goodraise --KrebMarkt 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the drama over whether to add a watchlist notice at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Add notice to advertise WP:FICT's adoption as a guideline... more than enough for me (and I have no opinion on the thing, anyways). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution for picture request with should/must be merged tag

I think, we could just put a standard image in infobox for article that should or must be merged tag.
Better would be an image with one text line this article is to be merged or something similar.
We could fix manually most of the article tagged to be merged with infobox this way reducing the absurd number of image requests.
I would have done it with the Example.png but i found it a bit too bold from my part.--KrebMarkt 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No answer does it mean i have the permission to be bold on that matter ? --KrebMarkt 07:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably more that people don't understand exactly what you're saying, than that they have no opinion (it's not your fault, English isn't your first language, is it?). You're asking about putting a default image in the infobox, which would request someone to upload a cover scan, right? I'm personally ambivalent on the usefulness of such default/example images, and feel that an auto-added category would prove much more useful. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Was my english That Bad :(

It is for article with merge tag which also request a picture.

The issue come from infobox, without image it generate request for image. We have two solutions one is make those infobox to stop making requests, the other one is to feed those infobox with a dummy. Solution one is too indiscriminate, i prefer solution two--KrebMarkt 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't currently add any categories if no image is present (see the source of Template:Infobox animanga/Header). Personally, that's what I think it should do, I'm not seeing how it's any more or less "indiscriminate" than using an example/default image. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but {{Infobox animanga character}} does. Can one not just pass a black parameter to the template instead? G.A.S^talk 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Black parameter? Do you mean blank? If so, it's already standard to include the |image= parameter for {{Infobox animanga}}, even if there's been no image uploaded (in which case it would be blank). I'm not sure on standard practice for the character infobox, since I don't make a habit of working on character articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose any image placeholders in the infoboxes. Not only don't they look ugly, there is little evidence that they actually encourage editors to add an appropriate image. But more importantly, the infobox image is not the place to "merge tag" an article. That should be the job of {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}. I see no point in using such image placeholders. --Farix (Talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...they were done for biographies and are still very controversial and much hated by many. Also yet to be shown they "helped" any for even non-free image, so don't think they'd help with our need for more specific types of images. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent>@Farix there is a contradiction, those are characters bio are going to be merged into a character list in 100% of time. The objective is to discourage people upload an image (save their time) and feeding those infobox will reduce the number of illegitimate picture requests. The point is why bother providing an image to an infobox that will be likely to be erased during the merging process.
@AnmaFinotera My focus is the articles characters bio which are going to be merge. Do those articles have the right to request a picture ? In its current state the image request part of the WP:anime project is impractical at best :( Gundum characters, Macross characters, Beyblade characters and so on...--KrebMarkt 06:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what the problem is. If the character articles need to be merged into a list, then merge them. You are actually wasting more time by adding image placeholders to these articles then you are saving by discouraging others from upload an image. --Farix (Talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i find it difficult to merge stuff that i don't know a single cent about.

Well i'm giving up my idea as it seems a bother than a solution. At least i tried ;) --KrebMarkt 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

cal.syoboi.jp

I have started a thread about cal.syoboi.jp being a reliable source on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and someone has commented that someone who speaks Japanese needs to take a look at it to determine its reliability. Is there anybody available who could do so? Thanks. Note: This has been posted on both the WT:ANIME and WT:JAPAN talk pages. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything on it that indicates who is running the page, and how the information is acquired. Doceirias (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for trying... I guess I'll have to find myself another source? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MÄR

Not being familiar with the series, should MÄR be renamed to Mär or Märchen Awakens Romance or to MÄR: Märchen Awakens Romance or is it fine as is? In related notes, the article, episode, chapter, and character lists all need serious attention (there is now a merge discussion regarding the character articles on the main talk page). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the full title is "MÄR: Märchen Awakens Romance", but that the second part is really just a subtitle... it's not very clear, altogether, so I've never touched it. As for the chapter list, it ended up on my watchlist at some point (maybe I was the one who tagged it, I can't remember), but I've never really done anything with it. I may get to it in a week or two, though, depending on what else I'm doing (and if I remember). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Officially yes, but the most commonly used one is neither. It is MÄR Heaven.じんない 22:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that used (not that I follow MÄR very closely)... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither had I until I saw the article on it (fictional world). Every place I've ever seen talk about it has either referred to MÄR or Märchen Awakens Romance Either way, we should use the official English name...whatever that is. The Viz manga has both on the cover.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can confirm that Viz uses both on the copyright page, that'd be good enough to show official title. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the website only refers to the series as MÄR (and searching for "Märchen" doesn't get you anything). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't MÄR Heaven the name of the fictional world which MÄR takes place in? --Farix (Talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, but I've seen reliable reviewers refer to it as that, or simply MÄR.じんない 01:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Trigun characters

We've have an IP editor just undo the Trigun character mergers. Since many of these characters where originally merged by TTN, someone should do an independent review. --Farix (Talk) 15:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There were in the list of character lists to merge in our clean up list too...for an IP editor, I'm inclined to just redo the merges (guessing he only undid on the character pages cause I didn't see anything in the main?) Would help if the main was updated to remove the links as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for ratings

In order to expand Case Closed to B-grade status, I was recommended, but User:AnmaFinotera, to include TV ratings. ANN certainly have Japanese ratings for most of this decade, how far does its ratings go to? We are talking a very long-running show here, so any source that can go as long as mid-1990s would be welcomed. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have miswritten. I didn't mean TV ratings (though that would be nice if the info existed), I mean reviews, as in reviews by critics, like AoD/Mania, ANN, etc. of the series (manga and anime). It already has sales and stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so, I would also ask for the same thing, in general. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resently I was told that sources from Daizenshuu EX and Kanzentai were consitered reliable. And another stating that they weren't. So what the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Daizenshuu EX contains copyright violations, so can never be added to anything. Kanzentai is closer, but also links to fansub sites, so no. Doceirias (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IOW, may or may not be reliable, but can never be cited. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can possibly use them as sources for their own sites even if they do have copyright issue, but nothing else.じんない 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Both are self-published blogs/fansites which fail WP:SPS. Neither group of the creators are established experts on the topic whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. And because of the amount of copyright violating material, they also fail WP:EL and can't be linked to. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With all that has been presented, I have taken the liberty and replaced the sources in the Son Goku article. The article sources shouldn't be a problem anymore and the tag can be removed. Sarujo (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it still has some self-published sources, like TV.com episode summaries (not RS) and are just user submissions without controls. #56 is someone's self-published Bachelor's thesis, which also is not RS. A lot of the rest could really use some formatting :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the TV.com sources, now all that's left is 56. Maybe the reception section can function without it. Sarujo (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What source does the paper use for the part the article uses? If that source is reliable and can be confirmed, you can use that source instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you lost me there. Could you rephrase that please? Sarujo (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the paper is a thesis, everything in it should be sourced, hopefully to reliable sources. So check the paper to see what source it used for the information being used in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The thesis sources everything except Goku and Vash's personalities. Which come off as first impressions of the writer. Sarujo (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the statement and the reference link. So there should be no more reliability problems. Sarujo (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball character list issues

Recently, User:Yami Takashi added some details to List of Dragon Ball characters regarding the various androids. It was removed by both Sesshomaru and myself for being excessive minor plot details and being unsourcable. Yami has since attempted to source some of it to two sites which we both feel fail WP:RS (and one fails WP:COPYRIGHT). User:Useight, an administrator, has attempted to help with the discussion, but as he isn't familiar with the series or the topic area in general, he's stated he can't decide if the information is minor or not. Discussing has drifted from Yami's talk page to mine, until I finally got tired of it, and has now moved to Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Andorid 16's bomb and power level sensing ability to see if others think these edits should be kept, in particular Yami's preferred version of Android #16 (viewable at User:Useight/Sandbox, and if the sources are valid. Project input at the discussion would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And, for more Dragon Ball fun, once again an editor has popped in to argue for resplitting the article (which has gone from three plot ridden starters to a single cohesive B class article that could be a GA candidate with some copyediting). Discussion, of a sort, at Talk:Dragon Ball‎#With all do respect, What the f**k are you thinking? and Talk:Dragon Ball#I dont really liek the merge (should have archived those things last month...blech) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Shōnen Jump review

Does anyone want to go through these templates and weed out those that would fail notability?

• Template:Weekly Shōnen Jump - 2000–2009
• Template:Weekly Shōnen Jump - 1990–1999
• Template:Weekly Shōnen Jump - 1980–1989
• Template:Weekly Shōnen Jump - 1968–1979

On a quick inspection, it appears that most of the non-notables are on the templates covering the more recent years. Which is probably a sign of WP:RECENTISM. --Farix (Talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest leaving them in the templates, but delinking them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not usually done with our navboxes. There's already a list of seemingly every series ever run in the magazine (contrary to its stated scope of only notable series), there's no reason to needlessly crowd the navbox by duplicating it there, even if the entries *are* unlinked. They can easily enough be added back in when and if they are ever able to demonstrate sufficient notability for their own articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lilim Kiss

I'm requesting a notability review of Lilim Kiss give this is one of the works that Mizuki Kawashita (Strawberry 100%) is claimed to be known for. So far, I'm turning up nothing in the way of reliable sources. But maybe I'm just not hitting the write search terms. --Farix (Talk) 04:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Meuhhhh for Lilim Kiss Fact no licensor in english, french, german, italian & spanish But but scanlations are plenties, epic fail :( KrebMarkt 09:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If it can be verified that Lilim Kiss is one of Mizuki Kawashita's most popular works, then there should be reviews for it. Otherwise, the statement should be removed from Mizuki Kawashita's article. --Farix (Talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lilim Kiss more popular than Hatsukoi Limited? I don't think so. Especially when the anime for the latter starts. Not to mention lasting longer and being more licensed. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that both Hatsukoi Limited and Strawberry 100% have been/are being adapted into TV series, I do fine the claim dubious. Add that to the fact that it only ran for a little over 6 months. I'm half tempted to reword that entire statement and only mention Strawberry 100%. --Farix (Talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. It's a statement that has all the hallmarks of being out of date: arguably true at the time of writing, but predates Hatsukoi Limited. You should also probably add that S100% and HL have been adapted as TV series, by way of supporting her notablity. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated and Lilim Kiss now redirects to Mizuki Kawashita's article. That effectively kills two birds with one stone. Now if only that one stray statement on her article about her "premier" work can be sourced. --Farix (Talk) 20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It had a cult following, but was a two volume early work that got canceled before it really developed much traction. Like Zombie Powder, what notability it has is largely because the author's later work was more successful. It's in that borderline zone between clearly non-notable and clearly needing an article. Doceirias (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Zombie Powder has been licensed in other countries and received several reviews as a result. So its notability can be establish separate from Tite Kubo. Lilim Kiss, on the other hand, has no such reviews that have been found so far. --Farix (Talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability can't be inherited KrebMarkt 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a truism often stated, and in the original, literal sense is true, but does not hold up in practice. WP:MUSIC C6 is one example of codified inheritance, as is WP:BK C5. The third bullet of WP:CREATIVE can be seen as an inheritance (multiple notable works makes creator notable) as can WP:MUSIC C2 (a charted song makes creator notable). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea i know but sometime people use badly inheritance to justify notability. I want article to be as autonomous as possible. The argument it's the work of the notable XYZ as primary argument to keep is lame

WP:MUSIC C2 is meeeuhhh with that rule i could create an individual article for every Aria (manga) franchise albums and singles that charted => 25 articles ? KrebMarkt 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But then, the notability guidelines only provide benchmarks for subjects that may have articles. It doesn't stipulate that they must have articles or that an individual article is the best way to present the subject. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Farix says. Besides, there's a difference between using WP:MUSIC C2 to justify an article on the performer and to justify an article on the single. The latter, the guideline goes on to say, shouldn't get an article until you can say more than "released X, charted Y". —Quasirandom (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, i'm a strong believer that anime related audio albums & singles should be grouped as it is obviously the best way to present them and with presence of charts you can have the evolution of the popularity of a franchise emphasized. --KrebMarkt 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of Mizuki Kawashita, now someone has undid the redirect of Akane-chan Overdrive. --Farix (Talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2000 - 2009

These manga will need further check for notability:

• Bakuman (this needs serious cleanup if it's to be kept)
• Y Blue Dragon Ral Grad (Apparent Blue Dragon spin off, three different reviews by two different sources, move candidate to Ral Grad as that is the English title.)
• Boku no Watashi no Yūsha Gaku (sent to AfD)
• Bremen (sent to AFD)
• Double Arts (sent to AfD)
• Y Gun Blaze West (two reviews by same source)
• Hitomi no Catoblepas (sent to AfD)
• Mr. Fullswing (24 volume series, likely notable but need evidence.)
• Muhyo & Roji's Bureau of Supernatural Investigation (three reviews by same source)
• Nurarihyon no Mago (recently survived AfD as no consensus)
• P2! -let's Play Pingpong!- (possible move candidate?)
• Y Pretty Face (two reviews by same source)
• Psyren
• Samurai Usagi
• Sand Land (one volume review, three chapter reviews)
• Sket Dance
• Y Steel Ball Run (an arc of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure)
• Toriko (too early, and perhaps premature, to have an article?)

I didn't include any series with a TV adaptation to them. Some of these on the list are fairly close to let them pass as notable. Others, I'm not sure what to really make of them. And then there are ones like Double Arts that appear to be good AFD candidates --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue Dragon Ral Grad has been reviewed by, for ex, ANN and IGN. Easily passes. Ditto Muhyo & Roji's Bureau of Supernatural Investigation (ANN multiply, for that one). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I can attempt a clean-up of Bakuman, but I can't find any reviews. Only sales info of the first volume, but sales don't establish notability I've heard. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Steel Ball Run is part of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, and easily notable. Boku no Watashi no Yusha Gaku, Hitomi no Catoblepas, and Double Arts were both unsuccessful flops. Bremen lasted about eight volumes? and was not a real success. Likewise for Samurai Usagi, which is a fantastic book, but seems to have collapsed in popularity suddenly, leading to cancellation. P2 had a strong cult following, but not enough to keep it going. Sket Dance, Psyren and Toriko all have some traction - more so than Nurarihyon no Mago, really. Gun Blaze West, Sand Land, Pretty Face and Blue Dragon/Ral Grad have all been translated into English. Doceirias (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel somewhat bit like a deletionist between these and the Aurora Publishing review above. But I'm sure this is just the tip of a huge iceberg of non-notable manga and anime. --Farix (Talk)

I know what you mean, about feeling like a deletionist. I think I've argued for delete more times than any one year on Wikipedia. Not to mention, submitting only my second AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure is split into seven parts, but SBR (part 7) seems to be treated more as a sequel series or continuation than just a generational story arc (as the other six parts are). Do you know if there is a reason for this? And while I'm on the topic, I'd also like to point out that all six parts have their own articles: Phantom Blood, Battle Tendency, Stardust Crusaders, Diamond is Unbreakable, Vento Aureo, Stone Ocean, and Steel Ball Run. As the chapter list cleanup continues (many thanks to Doceirias for taking the time to do it in light of my laziness), these will all probably be hijacked for the purpose of a chapter list split. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The why would be that, initially, it was treated as a separate, unconnected series. Only recently was it confirmed that main character is another decendent in the JoJo line, and this is in fact a JoJo arc. Yeah, on possibly eventually merging all the arcs back together, somehow, but for now, Steel Ball Run should be treated like the others. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I found something, but I doubt it meets WP:RS. I really doubt anything can be found at the moment because the first volume was only released last month. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a blog by some unknowns. But given the results of Nurarihyon no Mago and the popularity of the series, it may be futile to nominate Bakuman for deletion. Toriko also appears to be in the same boat. Even though both manga fail WP:N and WP:BK, it wouldn't be worth throwing the snowballs. --Farix (Talk) 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought so. You can bet that in due time, we'll get enough material to establish notability. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ANN appears to have reviewed the first three chapters of SandLand as part their overall reviews of the first three issues of Viz's Shonen Jump. I'm not sure how well that should count.[9][10][11]. Mania.com doesn't appear to have any reviews though. --Farix (Talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Went through ANN and Mania.com for the four that have been licensed in English. Only one, Ral Ω Grad, comes out clearly as notable. Sandland passes with the skin of its teeth, but the other two are far more sketchy. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

IGN settles the notability issues with Pretty Face and Gun Blaze West. There may be more on other websites, but I'll leave them for other people to find. --Farix (Talk) 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You all do relize that Hitomi no Catoblepas, Double Arts, Bakuman (keep), Psyren, etc. are just based off OneManga scanlations. Even look at the second revision of Bakuman, they even link to it. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The information for most series only published in Japan comes from scanlations, yeah. I use them myself for article building. As long as scanlation sites aren't linked to -- that is, other, reliable sources are found for the things that need citing -- this isn't itself a problem. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Get that cleared up

I checked up one of the Case Closed-related page[12] in TV Tropes, a user called Arromdee mentioned there [13], re the usage of the title Case Closed over Detective Conan in here: Actually, the rule (WP:MOS-AM) was introduced after the fact to justify the article name. Originally, the rule that applied was in the Japan manual of style, which said that names are romanized according to the most common usage, not according to the official name, up until June 20 2008. Likewise, the guideline in the anime style guide did not require that the official name be used if some other name was more widely recognized.

Hence, this is an allegation that part of the current WP:MOS-AM was written to tailor the needs on a single series, probably in the expense on other series. I hope someone with inside knowledge on the drafting of that guideline to go there and clear that up. Also, I hope the writer is not User:Ken Arromdee...--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even worry about that mess. Usual rotten apple throwing by people unhappy with our guidelines. The guidelines always justified the article name, the MoS was just rewritten to make that clearer because of the constant confusion and the inappropriate attempts to claim that MoS Japan justified non-neutral preferences by fans. That said, it probably is Ken Arromdee, going by the name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, I think I need to prevent any other other readers to be misled (The WhatItBugsMe namespace in TVTropes is not really a talk page, it is suppose to let people list about weird things (What it bugs me) in any fictional work, and a later editor can add on comments.) without causing an inter-wiki flame war.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee has been making comments like that since the heyday of rec.arts.anime (before it was split into a million separate groups). He's known for causing controversy where there is none. And, as AnmaFinotera said, just because he doesn't like something doesn't mean he understands the actual rationale behind it. If someone wants to find out what really happened, they are welcome to read the public archives of the discussions leading to it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By archive you mean WT:MOS-AM?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly the discussions found on the archives of that page. It's likely there are some discussions archived over at WT:ANIME, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He still rails on about the end of spoiler warnings from time to time. He never gets over it. --Farix (Talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)