Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

DNA Media Comics

Looking for more views on this redirect deletion here. It currently redirects to Clannad. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How to determine Japanese title

I've been having several issues with User:Ryulong with one particular issue: Japanese naming conventions. For example, Ghost in the Shell japanese cover shows as "攻殻機動隊" with "The Ghost in the Shell" under it. And because of this Ryulong includes "The Ghost in the Shell" alongisde the kanji within the nihongo template. So it looks like Ghost in the Shell (攻殻機動隊 The Ghost in the Shell, Kokaku Kidotai Gosuto In Za Sheru) when using nihongo template. I've attempted to explain to the editor that there are no japanese reliable sources (or any source) includes "The Ghost in the Shell" with the kanji unlike other adaptations Ghost in the Shell (film) that has its japanese title as "Ghost in the Shell/攻殻機動隊" (despite the cover NOT having a "/" on the logo) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) in which its title is "攻殻機動隊 Ghost in the Shell". I know this sounds difficult to follow. But basically there's no proof that "The Ghost in the Shell" is part of the Japanese title for the original manga. Can someone help form a consensus on this?

Another is Ghost in the Shell: Arise, in which all reliable sources including the official site refers to the series as 攻殻機動隊ARISE but Ryulong insists on 攻殻機動隊ARISE -GHOST IN THE SHELL- because of the url title in google search for the official site.Lucia Black (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you still going on about this? If multiple sources close to the subject include these words in some form then it should be considered part of the Japanese title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, on Arise's title, I think the intent is fairly straightforward.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But logos and cover art is a stretch and you know that. The only source out there is the cover and japanese wiki (which also adds "control preferences to second volume). In that very site, they refer to it as 攻殻機動隊ARISE. No other source adds "-GHOST IN THE SHELL-" and no source refers to the manga as 攻殻機動隊THE GHOST IN THE SHELL unlike the film and video game. EXample: Hajime no Ippo apparently translates as "The first Step" but adds "The fighting!" under it. But its not part of the title despite the video games adding it as a subtitle because no sources add the english title as part of the japanese one. Both are in the exact same boat. Not to mention Kodansha USA renamed all of them as "The Ghost in the Shell", and its not like naruto where.primary.sources specifically refer to the series.with the english name alonside the kanji. Even bilingual editions dont sell it as 攻殻機動隊THE GHOST IN THE SHELL. Just 攻殻機動隊.Lucia Black (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the English words Ghost in the Shell, is just the translation the creators wanted for the Kanji. Anyways, amazon.co.jp returns titles without the English words in there. A strong source with commentary by a reliable source decide this discussion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the translation is different. However i know the first two kanji can be translated as "ghost" and "shell". Still, falls in the exact same situation as hajime no Ippo situation.Lucia Black (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

攻 is "attack". 殻 is "shell" in some forms at least. Nothing in the name is "ghost". Still, you have "GHOST IN THE SHELL" plastered all over the official website for Arise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So your willing to remove "the ghost in the shell" as part of the japanese title? And "plastered" everywhere is an exaggeration considering the developers themselve refer to it without the "-GHOST IN THE SHELL-" several times. All you have data info. Even production I.G doesnt add it in. See [1]. Its similar to how officially Dissidia 012(duodecim) Final Fantasy even though the names are interchangable.Lucia Black (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No matter what reliable sources I can dig up, I always see Ghost in the Shell as it's Official English/Romaji Title. If we put up a different title that's unfamiliar with the general view then that is going to mess up 18 years worth of knowledge about one title. So please do us a favor; use WP:COMMONSENSE and help us move on with our lives. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

For the longest time the manga was just with the kanji. Unlike the film and video games that have the english text as part of the japanese title and.is properly sourced. The english title wont change, the Japanese one is in question. No source adds the english title as.part of the japanese one for the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The collection for the original manga has on its cover both "攻殻機動隊" and "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL". Obviously, "攻殻機動隊" is the name of the manga when it was in serialization only. However, the first collection is clearly subtitled "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" so drop this nonsense already Lucia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why state the exact same thing? No source calls it that. You know better than to rely solely on a cover because a.cover says a thousand things but has to be confirned through reliable source. Hypothetically, even if the creator intended to call it that, there are other first party sources who make the final call. Example: Oh My Goddess!/Ah! My Goddess! Situation where the anime is known as Ah! My Goddess! despite the creators intention being closer to "Oh My Goddess". Its not "obvious" if the only thing you have is cover art. You have to bring a reliable source. Hajime no Ippo is a perfect example here. Address it.Lucia Black (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not the exact same thing. "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" is the official subtitle for the first collection of 攻殻機動隊, which got translated into "Ghost in the Shell" in English.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no real proof. All you have is a cover that only proves THE GHOST IN THE SHELL is under 攻殻機動隊, the same way "the fighting!" is under "Hajime no Ippo". Its the exact same thing. You dont have proof, its all original research to interpret the title as if it were an official subtitle. but if it were official, why hasnt a single retail site, not even the original publishers, add "The ghost in the shell?" they added "sleepless eye" onto the ghost in the shell Arise manga, so its not like they dont welcome english words in a subtitle.Yu have nothing but a cover and not even that helps your case.Lucia Black (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Missions Of Love article is up

I could use some help filling in some info here, if anyone here is a fan or has heard of the series, come feel free to help out =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Running time

Me and KirtZJ have used up our three daily reverts for Karneval over this. He removed the running time for the episodes, which I had added to the article sometime earlier. (I'd originally added it to each episode, but once it became apparent that each episode was the same length, I had trimmed it back to the one mention.) I'd gladly have left such information to the infobox, but {{Infobox animanga/Video}} doesn't support that for tv series tho it does for other formats. {{Infobox television}} has a runtime parameter. While I happen to think my favorite anime shows are timeless I don't mean it in that fashion. Just because some think it is useless infomation does not make it useless. Nor do I see any particular reason why anime shows should be treated differently than live action shows, the articles of which do include such information. Carolina wren (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should look in the template history to see who created the infobox and ask the person to add a runtime parameter. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, I reverted that edit twice, refraining a third time to avoid an edit war where it was most likely heading. I'll stick to my point about maintaining consistency. If you're going to take responsibility for an article, then you should at least be familiar with the layouts of articles under the same WikiProject Anime and manga. I wonder what would have happened if I had removed the terminology section as well. ーKirtZJ^Talk 22:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing from me. The terminology section predated my involvement in the article, which began when I started watching the anime, and probably could use at minimum a rewrite. Since I had never read the manga, I was hesitant to touch it since I was unsure how relevant it was to the manga. As for two or three reverts, that depends on how one defines revert. You deleted the running time three times from the article today, and I added it back three times. Depends on whether that first edit of yours counts as a revert. But in any case, the point of controversy is now here to be resolved. Carolina wren (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert as in I clicked undo twice, and with reason. My first edit was a legitimate edit on my part, following my experience with these articles. But we digress. As I mentioned on Talk:Karneval, I have no qualms about running time. It is just that right now as articles stand within WP:A&M this isn't seen definitely. Again, my experience editing numerous articles under this category, I am surprised this exploded into what it is now. As for the terminology subsection, I was hesitant to remove it since I only noticed it after this discussion on both pages, and felt that would have also been an issue with you, hence I left it. ーKirtZJ^Talk 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you say this revert was simply to avoid an edit war, then I think you should allow the addition next time. The info is encyclopedic. If you said it was your conviction, I would suggest you to start removing the running times from all the movies in Wikipedia. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe you're an experienced Wikipedian and yet you completely misunderstand. Of course, I expected you to check the article's history which you clearly didn't do. This was the one I didn't revert, to avoid an edit war, my good man. That information on articles related to WP:A&M is trivial. You and Carolina are taking this to incorporate the entire television series project on Wikipedia, when articles related to the subset of WP:A&M don't follow this. Emphasis placed on subset. In converse, to what you said "If you said it was your conviction, I would suggest you to start removing the running times from all the movies in Wikipedia."- why don't YOU take it upon yourself to edit every single anime and manga article on the English Wikipedia to include running times of the respective animes? ーKirtZJ^Talk 00:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that the next edit was your "-84" (removing 84 bytes) and I thought you reverted it too. I can't edit every single anime and manga article on the English Wikipedia, but I can add this info to 100 articles over some period of time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I referenced the broader set of television articles as support of the fact that while some personally think the information is meaningless trivia, there are others who do think it relevant enough for a brief mention, just as other technical factors such as aspect ratio or HD availability are relevant to some people. I'll grant that anime articles need not follow the guidelines of the generic television series articles, however I'd prefer some better reason than you personally don't care about running times. It's clear that while some find it useless trivia, others do not. Also, it would simplify {{Infobox animanga/Video}} if it were changed to allow the inclusion of the running time in any anime rather than everything except a TV series. That is something to not be sneezed at for a template used in roughly 2700 articles. Carolina wren (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This template may be a case of WP:BIAS cause someone thought that all TV series deserved their running times to be known, but anime did not. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And what of the rest of articles Moscowconnection? You'd basically be responsible for creating an inconsistency among all the articles within the scope of WP:A&M. Let me explain with imaginary figures. There might only be 2% of articles that include this trivial data within WP:A&M, you'd basically be upping that percentage to say around maybe 4% with the hope that others pick up the slack. This could very well take years. Carolina, how do you keep inferring that this is my personal opinion? "I'd prefer some better reason than you personally don't care about running times." Didn't I mention that I have no qualms about this information? <-- for the third time now? While this is true, I must support consistency here and you seem to agree with this within this subset of articles when you said "I'll grant that anime articles need not follow the guidelines of the generic television series articles." Now let me once and for all clarify. Consistency would be to follow the current norm and not include this data which isn't present in almost I'm sure 98% of articles within WP:A&M. I'm not sure you quite grasp the scale of what you're are trying to impose on this large amount of articles here. ーKirtZJ^Talk 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant. When the template was created, there were 0 articles that used it. For consistency, Wikipedia should not have used any templates whatsoever. There were many tags added to Template:Infobox Television since its creation. Like, "Distributor" and "Production company" (the first I've found). On the other hand, it you remove the running time parameter from it (for consistency, cause I'm sure some articles don't use it), it will only take a minute of your time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is if this is widely accepted within the English Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga I'm all for it. It's just that it really isn't the case right now. With that, I'm out of this discussion. ーKirtZJ^Talk 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is widely accepted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(Note) KirtZJ has just added "within the English Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga". An hour ago, I replied in general. It is certainly widely accepted to know the running times of anime series. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of strange that the Japanese "TV aniime" template doesn't have the parameter (could it be the reason why it wasn't included in the English Wikipedia template in the first place?), while the "TV show" template has "放送分". But the Japanese TV anime articles have giant tables (example) with all start and end times, so they don't need it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Anime News Network has the info (example), so it will be easy to find, nothing will need to be calculated. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Farix made it clear back in 2011 on the talk page for that template in response to a request form another user that he considers it useless trivia. More unfortunately, he has not edited the Wiki since November and his abrupt departure suggests he will not be doing so for the foreseeable future, tho I did leave a note on his talk page. Editing the template to include it would not be difficult, but since some editors are of the impression this is an unstated policy, I'm not inclined to be overly bold about changing templates without at least some discussion. Carolina wren (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the addition of a runtime parameter. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The Farix here I see runtime as useless triva as well, mot only that but some episodes in other series have longer or shorter runtimes per apisode than the others so it is impossible to cover all the episodes in one number alone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where did Farix make a comment here? I'm not seeing it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment he made was on the talk page of the template in question in 2011.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are generally OAV series, and oddly enough {{Infobox animanga/Video}} does support including runtime for those. The only instance in which it does not is in the case of a TV series which has episodes all the same length. In the case of a series with variable time episode, the running time for each could be shown in the episode list, with the infobox being either silent or mentioning the length of the shortest and longest episode. Carolina wren (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the info is very important. It is no more "trivia" than the number of episodes. The typical running times are 12, 25, 50 minutes. This info is essential for a TV series. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the runtime should only be specified if it is outside the normal 25 minute range that the vast majority of TV anime are in. There are some anime, more numerous today, which run in 5-10 minute short episodes, and at least one recent anime that was 50 minutes, but these are generally rare cases. Having the runtime for an OVA or film makes more sense since those are generally more variable.--十八 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is mostly about the infobox template, so if a parameter for the running time is added to it, we will be able to choose whether to fill it or not. I think it would be reassuring to see it everywhere. If not, there will always be the question of whether it is left blank intentionally cause it is 24 minutes, or not. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this would have been a non-issue if the runtimes were added with a source reference. Usually OVAs and films have that, but some official anime websites and published videos will list it explicitly (e.g. Romeo X Juliet season boxset: 24 episodes, 580 minutes[2]). Also, should it include commercials (time slot) or be pure programming time? It does not need to be precise to the particular episode; no one cares if it ran 23:56 one week and 24:11 the next, unless it's like a sports show where it has widely varying overruns that disrupt the next show's programming spot. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I support having it, especially as that brings it inline with how non-anime TV series infoboxes feature the information. We need to try to be as consistent as possible with how infoboxes present information as people will expect to find that on all TV series articles, regardless of where the series was released or in what format it was released (anime, live action, etc.) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Watchlist

I'm making a new section here to discuss one simple matter. Could someone please place a full article watch transclusion on the immediate pages and link to it. Manual additions of PRODs and AFDs are not good. I didn't know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga until I probed around the 'clean up' section. The fact that the current dispute about PROD and AFD going on alone serves to highlight the pressing need for bot transclusions and not rely solely on editors to manually update it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are suggesting (what are "full article watch transculsion" and "immediate pages"?), but I think the current deletion sorting page works well. If what you are suggesting is an automated way to identify anime and manga articles that have been nominated for deletion, how would it work? While sometimes articles aren't listed on the deletion sorting page for a few days after they are nominated, in general it seems that they almost all get listed in time for someone to respond to the prod or AFD, so I don't think there is a problem with the current system. I look at every daily prod log page, and always list any anime and manga articles I find on the deletion sorting list, so I don't think very many prods are being missed. Calathan (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is the delsort function as well that auto lists the discussions based on the categories or projects the page has. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The template you linked to looks like the one that is supposed to be placed in an AFD discussion to notify participants that the discussion was listed on a deletion sorting page. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what that template does, but I thought the template is just manually added to AFDs after the AFD discussion has manually been listed on a deletion sorting page. I didn't think it did anything automatically. Calathan (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. This concerns WP:AALERTS. We should cover all the work flows, especially PROD and AFD ones. This article alert system should be directly linked to one of the A&M pages. The bot will automatically provide a list of relevant articles that meet the criteria. The list is a simple wiki code transclusion and it already works at WP:HENTAI and is linked from the project page. Its actually how I found out about the PRODs instead of through WP:ANIME. Right now, the matter is obscured through the Clean up task force and then squirreled away in a link to another project for 'deletion sorting'. For transparency, the article alert transclusion should be right near the news and on the visible main page. I'm not even sure why it was only half implemented at the cleanup page either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If I understand what you are suggesting correctly, then I disagree. I wouldn't want the articles that are up for deletion transcluded on the main WikiProject Anime and Manga page. I like having them on their own page, as then I can watch that page and know that any time I see that page on my watchlist it relates to deletion. Also, anything that goes off of the wikiproject banner can't be an effective replacement for the deletion sorting page, since lots of times articles are nominated for deletion before being tagged as relating to the wikiproject. Maybe it would be useful to have some subpage to inform us when articles with the wikiproject banner are nominated for deletion, but I still think the current page would need to be the primary page for listing deletion discussions in order to have all of them in one place . . . we could just use such a subpage to help catch articles to add to the main deletion page. In addition, I don't think the page is hidden away. Whenever an AFD is listed there, a link to the deletion sorting page is added to the AFD discussion (unless the person listing the discussion on the deletion sorting page forgets that step, but usually they remember). Also, I know that AFDs get listed on deletion sorting pages, so if I was looking for a list of AFDs by topic, I would expect to find it on a deletion sorting page. While it may seem hidden away to you, to someone like me who views lots of AFDs it seems like the obvious place for deletion discussions to be listed. Anyway, now that you are aware of the page, you can just watchlist it. Calathan (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I still think there is some confusion. Where you place the transclusion doesn't have to be on the main page, but it should still be within A&M's pages. And the whole point of having the bot automatically update relevant tags like prods and afd's is to cover the cases where someone noms an article and doesn't report it. It acts as an extra fail safe while functioning as a better status update. The example one of VG is a bit much, but the information is bundled up nicely for easy review and it is not dependent on manually updating it. Place it where you want, sub-page, clean up page, news page; wherever. I am trying to point out we should utilize the function to its full potential. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I do not think we need it, the system that is in place works just fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'll just read the reports myself. I don't see why the link is so obscured or why you reject its inclusion, considering they already exist. It just seems weird to have to update them manually when its automatic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Incubator/Greenhouse#Closeout date 2013-06-02

Please help prepare Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bulma for return to mainspace or otherwise participate in the incubator.  One specific need is to set the Wikiproject parameters at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Bulma.  Unscintillating Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation group?

This may come as a strange question, but is anyone here fluent or attempting to learn Japanese right now? I've been studying Japanese for several weeks now, I wanted to see if there was any interest in others learning Japanese and assisting each other in the translation processes or guiding one another on for the purposes of improving Wikipedia coverage. While I am new, I am about JLPT 5 with only about 300 Kanji mastered, but Jisho.org helps me make sense of the wordings. Specifically, I've noticed that when I attempt to translate materials the 'English' translation is well... massacring the deleterious nature of the Japanese language. I feel that this could help Wikipedia because sources not in English need to be summarized accurately. Is there any interest in forming a study group or team? Or is someone aware of the existence of one?

I do not think Wikipedia should have groups that are limited in scope (Wikipedia:Expert rebellion) while I do not understand Japanese I have been able to find character profiles on google japan in reliable sources as well as using the translater for others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Machine translation is not to be used for writing articles; but I'm not talking about a group in limited scope, I'm talking about but working with editors like those at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Japanese-to-English for articles since many are not active. I'm not talking about character profiles either, but newspaper reports and interviews, things that can be interpreted in numerous ways. I've already seen horrible translations in works; let's not forget what "official" companies like Funimation do to works. If we are going to work on Japanese-only sources, we shouldn't have "Englishized" names from fansubs on Wikipedia or "engrish" from some translator program. And honestly, Google translate cannot be relied upon at all for Japanese translation and probably never will because of the structure of the language. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about "Englishized" article titles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I do believe I was perfectly clear. We should not be relying on machine translations for media sources; at all. WP:TRANSLATION seems obvious about the community stance on it. I do not know why editors are even considering to use machine translations in any form for Japanese. It has no place on Wikipedia; either translate it right or don't use it at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Manga articles that are tagged for possible non-notability

There are a lot of manga articles that don't demonstrate the series' notability. I compiled them with WP:CATSCAN and pasted the result here: User:Brainy J/Manga articles flagged for notability. If anyone here can help out with adding sources or anything, feel free :) - Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well im not completely shocked as these also appear over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force, it would be great to get some help with those articles though yes. Right now I am in the process of taking your list and incorporating it to the list over there, my suggestion is for the clearly non-notable works WP:PROD and/or WP:AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs)

I will see what I can do about this. I'm waiting on a few matters, but in the future why not just use the template clean up listing from the toolserver for this? Seems a bit much to reparse everything with CATSCAN when the work has been done for you already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So many of these are notable. 2001 Nights and half this list have plenty of coverage at ANN to start with. A lot of Japanese sources are required for these works that never came to America, but doubt many of these need to be PROD or AFD'd. Some of the entries are archived at the Japanese National Library (there is only 1 btw) and that counts for something as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take my post as judging any particular series. It's literally just an automated list of articles in category: Manga series that had a {{notability}} tag on them. If you can show notability for some then go ahead. -- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all anime is notable, especially with manga as few reviews are out there. It might be good to start a AfD campaigne for articles that cant be above C-class.Lucia Black (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Just because we don't have detailed coverage on it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Most of the sources on this material is Japanese language only, but many have reviews listed under our RSes. Not every work is reviewed by the same group either. By trying to remove those that are not developed you will be reducing coverage and the likelyhood of them all improving later on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

you're quick to assume despite what little ive said. I'm saying we should AfD articles that "can't" make it to C class. An AfD campaigne has been done before. It takes more than news coverage to make an article notable. For media, it would need third party reviews too.Lucia Black (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit extreme. How do you make this determination? Do you have access to every possible reliable source in every language? As long as an article has at least one reliable source demonstrating notability, it shouldn't be deleted, but many of those may not make it to C-class. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of cleanup Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing's link to the toolserver is no longer working, can this be fixed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia: An article can have zero sources yet still be notable. I do not know what you think I am assuming, but I'm pointing out mere fact. It has also been seen to be disruptive to the process to mass nominate anything you feel can't get above C, just because it is foreign does not make it not notable. I'm fairly certain almost any series could pass GNG/N with a few hours of research on it. Putting fire under editors to do so is a bad proposition, I've done quite a bit of work on the notability tags before, and can safely say that a lack of content does not mean a lack of notability. Knowledgekid87, I've been asking about it since yesterday, but the toolserver does this regularly and I was a little disappointed because it's been down for so long. I cannot even get my tasks run through because of it. It will be fixed when the Toolserver goes up, so don't remove or alter the link, its just a temporary issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It can have several sources and still not be notable either. I'm going to drop a hint. Im saying we should Afd articles that cant be C-class. I'm not saying we should afd articles that could be C-class. Not all manga is notable especially when theres little reliable reviews and sources. This has nothing to do with me not being able to move an article upto C-class, its the fact that there is alot ofmanga article that arent notable. Mostpeople create them out of being their favorite manga by scanlations. Im not saying we should speedily delete them without verifying that it cant go any higher. If youre not assuming, then dont bother pointing out facts that arent being brought to question. And all manga and anime are foreign. I know that.Lucia Black (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That attitude is not helpful or productive, honestly not all anime and manga artworks/artstyle are Japanese only. The Legend of Korra and Avatar: The Last Airbender use the style. Kurokami, Dragon Hunter, King of Hell.. come on... Ragnarok (manga) Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy are all Korean examples of manga alone. They may be outside a&m's scope but the art direction and form is pretty obvious. If it wasn't for the country of origin they'd be classified as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"An article can have zero sources yet still be notable." I disagree with this, if an article has zero sources than it can fail WP:N I have seen it done many a time, and can not think of an example when it would'nt. As for it having several sources and still not being notable, this is true while there are sources out there each one adds different weight, for example a link to a fan forum or blog would be considered of little value. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Attitude is the same as yours. For once i wish you wouldnt derail a discussion. Why bother mentioning merican/korean based shows inspired by anime? If it doesnt fall in A&M's scope, then you have nothing to worry about.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I proved all anime and manga are not Japanese only (I assume by foreign you meant this). Secondly, I'm pointing out that your opinion is subjective at best because 99% of our sources are still in Japan. My Japanese is not good enough to make use of the National Diet Library, but part of notability is that the works are archived in the national libraries and I am sure the manga libraries count as well. Most of them are not self-published and instead have RSes for them and international publishers in many countries, far more then most works. Many manga works sell in the tens of thousands in these publications, with circulations of 100,000 being commonplace. Streaming and publisher websites reach millions more. I'm not going to argue with you about this, removing content because you think it won't get 'C' is a terrible idea and will be disruptive because of the burden that gets placed on the editors. I'm working on some things and improving others, but I really need to improve my Japanese to make it worth my while. I just started learning in fact, to improve Wikipedia's articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Things aside can we start working on the articles? I find it alarming on how many we have that are tagged here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree I didn't EC the last post.. not sure how, but since the Toolserver is down, I guess the notability ones are fine. And some of the tags were removed prior to this list going up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You provided an opinion, you didnt actually "prove" anything. Regardless, thats not what is being questioned here. Theres a ton of articles under the radar. Youre assuming all manga is notable. And thats fine, but even mangas exclusive to Japan arent notable either. Sales do help but it wont be enough especially if released in Japan only. 99% of our sources being Japanese is also a huge opinion. Other than publishing sites, ranking sites and the occasional news exclusive to Japan, we still need other third party sources such as reviews. Look at WP:ANIME/RS. Its definitely not 99%. You havent actually explained why it would be disruptive to find articles that cant make it to C-class. Stub-Start are more on size than notability when you read the chart. I dont know if you know this but WP:ANIME is a little. Low on members and high on fans who make manga/anime articles (mainly manga) with only covering anime episodes/chapters and plot. Obviously if an article covers both anime and manga. You're assuming we would axe these articles without actually looking for sources to verify they can make it to C-class. But if we look for the info and see if many articles cant pass to at leastC-class, it wont be a probem.Lucia Black (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is simple math, with more then 60 new titles released every day we do not go out of our way to label the untold thousands of manga that are not as notable. Hentai Kamen movie is notable and remember it recently hit 100,000,000 yen in a very small theater showing of around 27 screens. Anything which hits in the bestseller lists(as I suspect most of these international releases did) have to be given the benefit of the doubt, less then 1% of manga makes it to America and since Tokyopop went under even fewer releases do. Scanlations may be one major source, but the dearth of sources about them belies the simple popularity facts. Many of these ones tagged for notability have hundreds of thousands to millions of views, and websites that stream licensed content like Hulu and Crunchyroll count towards notability. Call it what you wish, but Comic Megastore is notable and doesn't even have an article yet. Many of the works here are proper publications and not doujinshi, they are stored in dozens of libraries including the National Diet Library. Even the obscure 2001 Nights is notable, GNG only requires a handful of sources covering it in depth and detail, but even uncited articles can exist because the assumption that such works exist. It would be extremely disruptive to mass AFD these. The last major issue I remember was the personal war over MMA articles, bogged down AFD and disrupted Wikipedia to the point that ANI had to be involved numerous times. An example is this discussion:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#MMA_AfD.27s You may not like having stubs or starts around, but you do not endorse mass deletions of content. And its not a polemic argument either, because there is nothing contentious about my position. My argument is rooted in simple policy and history. There is no requirement or suggestion that articles which are not currently C-class need to be deleted, it goes against the very tenets of Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That logic is flawed. Just because we get 1% of manga (which i higly doubt is lower than 5% ) that doesnt mean 99% of the sources are Japanese. You keep ranting on about how their sold in stores, and makes sales, but that doesnt help your case. Its like saying all books are notable, in which their not all notable. Your argument is based on your own opinion and you try to use policies to justify your reasoning when they dont help your reasoning at all.

Its like if i wanted to delete an article because i hate the series but i also say it doesnt pass GNG. Obviously GNG is a good factor, but the rest is affecting my judgement (this is all hypothetical to prove my point).

You have an obscure non-wikipedia way of seeing manga. For instance mentioning view count as a factor. GNG only goes so far and doesnt exactly mention how many sources one needs to promote to start. Subs and Start are mainly size related classifications, that dont involve sourcing and verification. If an article is at start size and has a handful of sources, it can be promoted to C-class. And again, you assume mass deletion without verifying if an article can make it to C-class. I made it clear that its not about the current status but verifying that it can be upto C-class. That means checking for sources and such. Mass deletion isnt even an issue. It doesnt even have to be C-class for the moment, just adding a list of sources in the talkpage would help. But stubs usually are heavily flawed articles that often need to be proven to have notability in order for them not to be AfD,by wikipedia's standards, a stub may be a short paragraph, start is barely better in size but doesnt need verification so it might aswell be a strong stub.Lucia Black (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Christ, I didn't know it would start such a shitstorm to just compile a list of pages that need work and bring it to the relevant Wikiproject.-- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is nuts, anyways I will look over the articles as soon as I can I dont have the time this weekend but im convinced some of the ones listed can be prodded that have had the tag up for awhile for starters (XXXX - May 2008) thats 5+ years as tagged with a notability issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There are actually more articles than you think or did with your scan (Although it was very helpful thanks =) ) Using toolserver which is up and running now and using F3 to highlight the word "notability" a total of 582 articles come up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Arguing with Lucia is a waste of time, but I'll state this one final time: Anime and Manga articles coming from Japan by definition, have the majority of their RSes in Japanese. Considering you cannot even get coverage of major awards, let alone articles about the works awarded, I think this Wikiproject has more pressing concerns then trying to prod or afd works without committing to research them in their own language and in their own country of origin. The National Diet Library alone could provide enough sources to get most of these articles past GNG, let alone media alone. Time with the tag or an undeveloped stub are not reasons to start a deletion rally. If you aren't fluent in Japanese and its culture, I doubt you will be able to contribute much to some of these articles. Considering the focus of this project, the anime article isn't FA and is a far cry from being a GA, I doubt it is even a B. This Wikiproject has lots of work to do and deletion is a last resort. How about you pick some articles to work on improving existing articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because I do not understand Japanese does not mean I have a hard time finding reliable sources, rather than blaming the project why dont you get to helping the articles as well, a-lot of the hentai articles I saw in the articles with notability issues are Hentai ones. Sitting here pointing fingers is not going to solve anything. Anyways some articles I have worked on include Akane which is all sourced, and Missions of Love to be more recent. The articles I PROD or Delete are articles that have no place to redirect to or have notability issues when it comes to the redirect target. Redirects are cheap and save the work for when better sourcing comes along. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I guess if I am going to be working with this group as much as I have lately, I guess I should formally take the tag. And I didn't mean to make it sound like knowing Japanese is a prerequisite, I was pointing out that much of that list requires searches in Japanese. Plenty of other articles have issues that English sources are fine for. Let me deal with a few issues, I was busy researching hentai in foreign sources... which are time consuming to translate for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents, if you refuse to get help from this project(insisting WP:Hentai being an independent project but not a TF of this one), why would you be in the position to complain about the people in this project not helping you at all? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 08:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I help this project a LOT as is. This is not about WP:HENTAI, its about Lucia trying to start an AFD campaign on articles because of their tags/assessment. I don't think it is right to AFD works simply because of it, it goes against the process. We do not even have coverage of major award winners, and we've axed others that have major awards behind them already. That is the equivalent of cutting your foot off because you broke a toe, unless you got gangrene I wouldn't even consider it! A notability tag or start/stub should not be purged by AfD, and lastly, I want Hentai to be likened to a taskforce, but it requires a Wikiproject on technical means alone. Call it what you want, the original plan was a taskforce and only because of Wikipedia's technical limitations was a full project required. Not sure why you think this has anything to do with that WPP either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Arguing with me is useless because you repeat the same stuff and i correct you everytime and you still say it again and again and again. When i say youre assuming something is because you are. Not all manga articles are notable, especially if what you claim about 60 manga coming out every week. Im not saying we should afd them before verifying if it can at least make it to C-class. Im saying articles that have no chance of getting upto C-class can be afd, merged or redirected. So not only is the stub-start class are being removed by afd, but their also some that are being upgraded to C. Its not a bad idea considering A) over 500 articles and most of them are in the dark. B) most of them are being added by fans which is only limited to volume releases and plot.Lucia Black (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, your argument is wrong, but your intent is correct. The majority on this list have international releases, many have anime or OVA as well. This is a sign of notability. Being held at the national library is another sign of notability. One that 'can't' make C is subjective. I do not think you know how much work it personally takes to clear one of the major backlogs, it took me months to do an easy one. I can't even do half my list because it will 'churn' the pages. There are over 250,000 different manga in circulation, we have a fraction of that, doujinshi are even more numerous. Let's test your theory. Let's pick one on the list that you don't think can pass C and let's give it a week or so. If it passes GNG, you reconsider my words. Let's find one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris, i dont care if its released in international library or that they have manga/anime/OVA adaptations or awards. Thats not whats being questioned, if that info helps it in notability, then fine. But what i dont like is how you try to use 1 of these things as sole reason for keeping an article from being afd. 1 award may not be enough to gain notability depending on the award and voting. It helps, but its not enough to prove notability. If it had awards, sales, and even OVA/Anime adaptation, then fine, its notable.i dont believe international library helps notability either. It would be too trivial to mention. why you derail the discussion to your ideas and argue against them. And how is it subjective for articles that cant make it to C-class? If an article cant pass stub or start no matter how much research, then it cant be lromoted to C-class.Lucia Black (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

By definition part of the threshold standards include that. Wikipedia:Notability (books), states "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." So yes it does help. Your argument does not hold weight; you have to research them in Japanese and unless you are capable of doing that and combing archives, you should not be the one to decide whether or not it is up for deletion. Honestly, at the very least the serial works should be pushed to their magazines if they can't stand on their own. International publication and adaptations by definition lend credibility to notability. Arguments should be made with policy and proper research. I rather have 500/11000 articles have questionable notability then lose them because they didn't make 'C' class and that a native language search wasn't done. There is no requirement of X class for inclusion and consensus on that comes from the community itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A)im proposing every1 participate, not just me. B) obviously were going to be careful about it. And even if adding and you oppose you can fight for it if you find sources. C)partly that reasons against it are personal, you assume the worst and you have no room to make those assumptions.Lucia Black (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Notability in the Japanese wikipedia shouldn't mean notability in the English wikipedia. Shouldn't manga and anime for the English wikipedia involve some reliable sources in English? If not, it should at least be a manga series that charts, is mentioned by major media sources, or has a notable author. Or at least be WP:BKCRIT. There are tons of books in the Diet building (equivalent of Library of Congress in USA), but that only helps notability for the Japanese wikipedia and is considered a threshold standard. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

More fun at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as some of the discussion seems to head in that direction. WP:NEGLECT supports Lucia Black's position: "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential [sic] for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date." -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll make this as clear as I can. Wikipedia has issues with bias, WP:BIAS. There is no requirement of Angelo-centric notability or of a single English source for an article. The assumption of GNG alone is enough for inclusion. Pages from foreign language projects ideally should be translated and covered on Enwiki if they pass GNG, notability does not extend to your view or nationalistic or Angelo-centric, but to a worldview. In short, no English sources need be present for an article to exist in Enwiki, while they are preferred, native sources are enough to meet GNG and are acceptable, notability is not Angelo centric, Japanese views meet GNG the same as English views.

Lastly, if you read that essay WP:NEGLECT, the potential of these articles is already assumed to be Japanese focused. But NEGLECT also mentions, "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors to follow the improvement plan in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it." And the text below gives an example of what Lucia's intentions are faulty and disruptive, "A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process." Which is why I reject Lucia's arguments, even this essay points to the guideline which states such an action is disruptive and problematic. Lucia can make strawman arguments and distract or bloat out a discussion very well, her attempts to make things personal or call them as such is just a way to try and discredit and distract other editors from the simple truth: Her method runs afoul of policy and will damage the project as a result.

Wikipedia is ideally run by policies, WP:ANIME is not outside those policies. The damaging and disruptive ideals from years past should never have been fostered and clung to as a standard. Wikipedia continues to evolve; its never going to be perfect or complete, to back Lucia's intention is to throw idealism and future growth away, in order to improve temporary appearance of this little corner of the project. Wikipedia's editors bring with them a strong bias but they are largely unaware of it, but acknowledging it is the first step in challenging and overcoming such bias. Notability is not defined as English publications or English notability. China is very underrepresented despite a population of 1 billion, some Chinese governors are more notable then most politicians, yet they do not have English articles. Though they still meet GNG and N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem isnt where the C-class campaigne would be a disservice. Its the fact you dont trust me or other editors to fullfill such a campaigne.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. It is disruptive and against Wikipedia's core values. I'm not even going to discuss 'trust' or other topics, because this 'campaign' is disruptive. By its very nature it is disruptive and is WP:POINTy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

you find it disruptive because you dont want any editor speedily AfDing an article because they could not find a single source. Isnt that why you mentioned several non-related issues such as library, awards, sales. No one here said we were going to ignore that, so why bring it up? Because it wasnt the campaigne, its the editor youre more worried about. Its not that the actual campaigne itself is disruptive, you just dont think the editors can do it properly. And if thats not the case, then there should be no reason why you would be against it. The campaigne is to find and verify if an article cant make it to C-class, after that, the ones that do have the potential, we work on them until they are at least C-class. It only helps us find non-notable manga. Most of these are just brought by fans. Scanlations. They may not be notable. And stop misusing policy and guidelines. WP:POINT means.i must have a point to disrupt. But what point am i trying to get accross other than remove articles that dont meet notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 May 2013

From WP:V we don't really care if the sources are in English or not, but one must at least provide sources for WP:N. and if there are no sources in the articles themselves, and one cannot find sources on simple searches, it is hard to defend the notability of the articles. Wasting time debating here is not helping at all, but it is also WP:badfaith to just AfD newly created articles. While I support tagging them and come back, say, 6 months later and see if any sources are added, I also think that whoever created those articles should really include sources when creating them, it saves much more time for all parties. Make sure you establish enough notability in the article's draft before you create an article, this can prevent deletionists from nominating it for deletion. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Break

Adding sources is an easy thing as long as one has the kanji to look it up. Assuming good faith is assuming someone is editing in efforts to benefit wikipedia, regardless of right or wrong, so assuming bad faith implies the opposite. That being said it wont be bad faith if a new article is AfD, unless the person is deleting it because fans made them. 6 months is a lot of time. Im a pro-deletionists because their goals are to improve wikipedia, same with inclusionists. However, i will not support talk of it because i hate the whole debate. this has nothing to do with being an.inclusionist/deletionist. those views are flawed and only hurt editors working together. if you wish to call yourself an.inclusionist, than this campaigne shouldnt be an issue. just makes us work a lil harder.Lucia Black (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll let Él (visual novel) be the challenge! Lucia's arguments have no merit and are damaging to Wikipedia. Youre the one making it personal. several comments of yours are against the idea of me afding an article rather than the campaigne itself.Él already has a good head start at the Japanese Wiki. And the worst which COULD happen is that the article be pushed into Elf's page, there is absolutely no reason to delete the content. I do not care about Lucia's personal stances, her intent is on making things personal even when they are not. Forcing an artificial deadline is unrealistic, but this one doesn't have an RS on it, but it shouldn't be difficult to fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

youre so Japanese bias if youre going to base this on Japanese wikipedia. if its not difficult to fix, why challenge me to fix it? you dont want to make this personal? then fix the article yourself and dont challenge editors to do it just to prove your point. I have nothing to prove to you. Im not going to do anything for your approval. no one here is against the idea.Lucia Black (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Um Lucia is not even the one who placed the article up for AfD that was me because of it's notability issue, if you find the sources though by all means im happy for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but Lucia didn't provide one to point it out. Nihonjoe disagreed with the nature of Lucia's deletion campaign. And I did add some non-plot stuff and two/three reviews of the OVA. Problem, Nutech's site is totally dead and has been for years. Green Bunny went under and Elf's own webpage is horrendous as always. And I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives or the ability to read them anyways for the visual novel aspect. Sadly... the RSes which do exist are probably way out of my hands here and I don't want to rip the jibberish from a machine translation to fill the gaps. At minimum it should be merged to Elf's page and redirected, its been more then a decade since its release at least I got this much in an hour of work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nihonjoe is being unrealistic about it. 1source does not prove to be notable. it only proves plausible notability. When that article is being questioned of its notability, it has to be proven. with that said stub-start are articles that have little to no sources. Realistically stub-classes are articles that are far too short and no sources to have an article (some compared to them commonly being word definitions and redirected to wiktionary), and start are those that do pass the length threshold but often lack sufficient sources. It may sound extreme, but not damaging if you get a realistic view on whats notable. C-class is basically B-class with flaws. Unfortunately this wikiproject seems to set the standard a lil too high for B-class. And 0 sources absolutely does not mean they are notable. Notability has to be proven. I believe every article that has notability can be upto B-class.

So heres my compromise. ill scale down the campaigne to stub-class. So start-class be spared. Which makes it even easier for us to upgrade these articles to at least start. However, a 6 month period to prove notability within the article. once proven and new sources added into the article, it may be upto C-class. And ill make this even easier, we only do one AfD at a time. So every start class article gets a 6 month wait for editors to search for sources in efforts to expand the article.And incredibly slow process but even new series to have a better chance.Lucia Black (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, can we get a bot to tell us if an article under a certain project have no edit in the past 6 months and no source? That will make the process much easier. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the bot can notify the clean up task force page so it can be easier to manage. Now that you mention it, a section could be added directly related to bot entries. I'll have to re-propose this so it can be easier to read.Lucia Black (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This maybe a good thing for the whole wikipedia. All articles tagged as unreferenced will be listed by a bot in the related project page(s) and if no project is related, to a certain page for that purpose, it should also notice the article creator at the same time(but not before hand so people can game the system and make useless changes to set back the time). This way, all such pages are managed and we don't have to have articles that are tagged for a long time without any intervention. Someone might want to bring this to a bigger scope project to discuss about it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Straw man arguments again. We don't compromise. Stubs are allowed. Unsourced articles that are not BLP are allowed. Lastly, if you are nominating things for deletion you should execute a good-faith attempt to improve it prior to nominating. Wholesale deletion is a bad move, you also cannot impose a deadline per WP:POINT as you seek to do here. Rather then arguing, find and article and improve it. Japanese sources are perfectly acceptable and will be required for many of these articles, if you have trouble, ask, but don't prod things which can be sourced in 5 minutes of work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this is NOT imposing a deadline, but to make sure people actually get together to act on improving the article, and if no sources are provided, improve wikipedia as a whole. I said Japanese sources are accepted, given that you include them in the first place. If you don't include them, but keep saying there are sources, I'd say you failed the burden of proof and hence have no real grounds to support your reasoning. Having too much articles to work on is a very bad argument, you can always make 1 article very informative and with reliable sources before you start another one, which is much better than starting tons of uninformative stubs with little information that are attracting attention of deletionists. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What helps the article qualify for start? Infoboxes and basic structure? The manga/anime cleanup task force sounds like it could work. I know there's one for WP:AFC which reviews pages created by unregistered users for notability and decent starter sources; they sometimes review articles created by registered users. If, after some significant effort at verifying notability WP:BEFORE just isn't working out, then apply WP:AFD. The "unreferenced" tag according to that policy can be applied to sources that do exist and are potentially good for verification but are just not accessible anymore (old newspapers and magazines not online, websites of defunct companies not archived in waybackmachine) I am not sure about grouping all stubs; there are plenty of voice actor pages that have a ton of credits but close to zero biography; are those stubs? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

going to ignore chris. because at this point, only opposing for the sake of opposing. he does not know what a sub article is. As for the campaigne, this would only be for manga and anime. Usually easy to figure out for anime but manga gets trickier. Voice actors and manga artist are trickier because we dont have the right sources to look up their info. I dont doubt most of them may not be notable if they only published one or two, however, i doubt they cant make it to at least start class. But i rather focus on just media.Lucia Black (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC on this. Article quality is subjective, only GA/FA matter, to delete everything that isn't X is disruptive. Only BLP have a pressing need for sources and other pages are constantly being improved, this campaign will only destroy content, especially since non-English articles are required for almost every article on this Wikiproject. To harbor Angelo-centric notability as a requirement is a violation of WP:BIAS. Wikipedia is for all of mankind, it is not about the English speaking regions. Stubs are fine, starts are fine. Removing or trying to remove content without conducting a good-faith search is disruptive. The difficulty of translation is the only problem to improving the articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris there you go again derailing a discussion. for the last time, the issue has nothing to do with which sources we use. We keep telling you the exact same thing and you ignore it and continue to rant about issues that dont even exist. Didnt we tell you we were going to search for info before afding an article, and again Stubs are not okay stub classses are articles in need of expansion or else they will be questioned. The campaigne is solely fir improving articles and removing non notable ones.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was only suggesting that finding English sources should help notability; as you stated, they are not required per WP:BIAS. That's fine; it should not be a requirement. However, the English Wikipedia still uses WP:BKCRIT; if that standard is too Anglo-centric then discuss it there. Otherwise, I would like to see WP:BKCRIT adhered to. Whether Japanese wikipedia has the same standard or not, I don't know. The other information about appearing in national libraries, dozen or more regular libraries, still fits in the threshold section. I agree it's more difficult to research it in Japanese, but such a cleanup task force should have the resources to do so if need be. What I don't want to see happen is sourceless articles arbitrarily created and mirrored just because the Japanese wikipedia created them, as they might have the same kind of issues we are facing here. If an article is classified a stub, even after it's been proven notable, then it should stay. The assessment generated by the task force should justify its existence. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, the problem with this 'cleanup taskforce' is that they do not have any tools or special access that you don't already have. Its great to say 'oh they should have this or that', but it doesn't solve the problem. At the RFC I mentioned sites like ZakZak and Asahi which would fill out coverage. Even the English side of Asahi helps out, but WP:ANIME doesn't even acknowledge them in its links. The taskforce does not automatically assume fluency in Japanese or even a familiarity with the traditional websites and media, heck even the National Diet Library was turned down despite being Japan's ONLY national library. It is different to have a coordinated improvement campaign and a short-sighted deletion campaign by a bunch of editors who are not fluent and unfamiliar with the language. Aside from BLP matters, there is no pressing need to have cites for material that is not likely to be contested and most information in some of these stubs are obvious cites to the publishers. The differences in focus alone are massive, and Lucia still wants them at C or not at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

thats not the campaignes fault. all you can do is add those sources in there as long as its proven a reliable source. There are other japanese sources we use that are japanese and reliable that arent even in the list.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Other efforts

I noticed there is a Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga and Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime_and_Manga/Refused_Requests_Archive in case folks were interested in starting from scratch instead of the stub articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Chu

Can someone verify the entry I made and add the Kanji character for it. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

New campaigne

I decided to propose a new update-able campaigne to turn 25 or 75 percent of our manga and anime manga article to higher than stub. No AfD is part of the campaigne (but doesn't go against AfDs in general).

So the campaigne is just to improve the quality of an article. Not, AfD or proving notability (although eventually they will need to). All we need to do is add a goal bar (similar to video game wikiproject) with the desired goal. I dont see any reason why any would or can oppose it. Everyone can contribute and it would be shown publicly so even if there arent a whole lot of editors contributing to the campaigne, new members can always see it and try to help too. Overall theres no loss at all.

Also we need to have some form of standard for manga artists. What makes a manga artist notable? Usually they make just 1 or 2 mangas. I think any manga artist under 3 mangas should prove notability on the spot unless all 1 manga is a hit or released in the US or collaborated with another notable manga artist.Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont mind the idea of improving articles but where on the stub articles do you propose to start looking for additional sources? We have over 5,200 Stub articles to go through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stubs are articles too short to be an article, so its not like there needs to be an extensive search just for one article to start class which is a class associated with covering the very basics. But also, just like wikipedia has no real deadline, the campaigne doesnt have one either. But we shouldnt put emphasis on how many stubs. It might discourage editors to even try.Lucia Black (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! The campaign will need a page for coordination. Here is my take on how such a page might look: User:Goodraise/WikiProject Anime and manga/Destubification drive. Goodraise 02:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

lol you have wikipe-tan working on the project as well? =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess a separate page can be done. But the goal should still be shown in the main page so that new editors can find it easier.Lucia Black (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else?Lucia Black (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a wonderful idea, Lucia, and I think that Goodraise's example page will do nicely. Great work, everyone! Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been learning Japanese, but I'm not at the point I can translate Japanese effectively, but count me in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess its unanimous. Goodraise can move the proposed page to the wikiproject space and maybe some expansion can be done to that page such as table of stubs and separating them by category such as anime, manga, voice actor, manga artist.Lucia Black (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. (Not that I needed anyone's permission...) Goodraise 20:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

well, we needed consensus to permit the campaigne to take place, and your page is linked to it. So its not like im saying my permission is needed, Im just saying consensus is reached to allow us to launch this proposal.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Well, we needed consensus" – No, we didn't. Goodraise 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Lucia wanted to hear feedback first before going ahead with what she wanted to do, the point is though the project is made and we should all go on without rubbing up against each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Being bold is mainly for fixing articles, the proposal is meant to be linked to the wikiproject. So yes, consensus is needed. Youve used consensus as a reason in the past. Im sure you understand why consensus to move this campaigne to WP:ANIME's main space needed consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not having another endless and pointless discussion with you. Have a nice day. Goodraise 22:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I can see a clear consensus here within the wikiproject Lucia, I love your idea and have linked it to the wikiproject =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone looked through the stub-tagged articles recently? At WP:MED, I've found that the fastest way to reduce the "number" of stubs is to re-assess them. In some areas, I've found that as many as 10–15% of alleged stubs were expanded long ago, and nobody noticed or bothered to update the assessment rating.

It should be pretty easy to use Template:Userbox to make a userbox for interested participants. The usual thing to do is to put it in WikiProject space, so WikiProject Anime and manga/Stub userbox or some similar name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the idea was for it to be casual. Which is why a goal would be added I. The mainpage of the wikiproject, similar to WP:VG and WP:SE. Technically everyone is a participant, but no one needs to say they are. The goal was this to be a long-term campaigne to gather more interested editors.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A big merger project

As I was stub hunting, and found a large group of stubs relating to digimon games and dragon ball soundtracks. I decided to merge the soundtracks together into Music of Dragon Ball and Music of Dragon Ball Z. But need some help before I make the actual merge. Does anyone like to help?Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

History issues

Could someone explain to me why Dekobō shingachō – Meian no shippai is not considered the first screened anime? Imokawa Mukuzō Genkanban no maki is by explicit reference the third such work. Given that Chamebō shingachō – Nomi fūfu shikaeshi no maki: or some unknown film premiered in January. The history is clearly wrong! Just because it is the only physical copy which exists doesn't discount the original creation. Someone please explain this to me before I take an axe to history and cause drama. I'm bringing this here because this - like a few other major concerns - change our concepts of "history". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the history section at Anime? Also, there might not be a reply from the wikiproject so it's probably a good idea to edit until an editor wants to discuss it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can source it by all means make the change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm building the missing aspects of the project up, so I will continue to do that, but since it will take a lot of time and I need a few more contacts to be sure of the Litten's work, but I do agree with Litten's stance because the "RS" about the first time is indeed wrong on several accounts which differ from contemporary sources of the time. Until I can figure out the date of which it premiered I'll hold off from re-writing it, but this is damningly misleading, "The oldest known anime in existence first screened in 1917 – a two-minute clip of a samurai trying to test a new sword on his target, only to suffer defeat." It is the not the oldest by any account, it is not the oldest to exist, and it is "the oldest work publicly displayed that has survived" - And I believe the first was shown at the Imperial Hall, on the first 10 days of February 1917. It makes no sense that "January 1917" would be a more professional film only to be bungled by three others by Shimokawa. So I am going to peer review Litten's work before advancing it here - I'll just contact Dr. Litten to be sure for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed it - I personally see the record myself. Yep; Litten has done us all a favor by pointing out this inaccuracy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

AM²

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:AM²#Cancelled?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)}

Necessary work

I've been working on expanding our coverage of anime; and the more I keep looking at it, the more missing content and poorly networked our coverage is. It is really awkward how we insist upon merging anime and manga together as a single page - covering neither in appropriate detail, and going so far as to avoid entire original works in the process or give secondary productions mere sentences on major popular works. This has got to change. I am proposing that a new undertaking needs to be done to address this. Inter-connectivity increases likelihood of improvements across all articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone bother splitting apart articles when that just makes each one that much more vulnerable to deletionists and minimalists? --Gwern (contribs) 18:35 14 July 2013 (GMT)

A manga/anime adaptation in Japan is more common and more faithful to a comic/animated tv series is in other parts of the world. When a manga/anime/light novel gain enough popularity they either adapt the exact story into a anime/manga/light novel. Different medium, but the same series.

However, I do believe over arching franchises such as Gundam, Digimon, and several gag franchises such as Doraemon are just too broad too not have a list of media. And we need to make a change for the sake of those articles. I dont agree with splitting manga from their anime adaptation and vice versa. That's unnecessary and will only cause problems for being too small. Being grouped up isnt an issue. WP:IDONTLIKEIT until you bring a good reason is brought up. So far your only making accusations, not enough reason.Lucia Black (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, you may not have been around way back in the day, but this was a serious issue from before this project was even started. It was realized that (in the vast majority of series) having separate articles on each media type just resulted in a bunch of low-quality, permastub articles that were rampant with WP:NOR and almost always focused on plot summary and in-universe content as opposed to real-world content. As Lucia said, there are series where having more coverage in a list of media, or perhaps some separate articles may be appropriate, including a franchise article, but these would be subject to community consensus before instituting, not after.--十八 20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lucia, Gwern, and Juhachi, overall it will create a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• And once again no one bothers to read my post in its entirety before responding... why do I even bother with this wikiproject? Actually; I'm almost certain its why I didn't want to join or have anything to do with it. If there is someone who studies the media, then by all means feel free to discuss things with me. For those of you who do not care about the industry and productions, I am sorry, but I do not think decisions should be made by you. I'll put one little hook out there... as a test, its not obscure, I assure you of that. Its a matter of visual literacy; especially on important animators, we don't even have an article on Nakamura yet. Name him and ten of his works. For anyone arriving after the easy answer is given... explain how it applies and how the matter is important for a work like... Dragon Ball Z. I haven't added that portion to the "anime" yet, but in order to understand why I want separate articles we need to be on the same page. I just can't say "production" and expect you to understand everything, but "production" IS everything. Alone it is the reason why any well researched anime deserves and demands its own page. Given the display at DBZ - which still less than half complete - I want to see who here cares about the subject and who just enjoys consuming it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Accusing us of not reading your three-line post is pretty insulting, even coming from your own sarcastic second post. I read your post; in fact, I had to read it twice because it was confusing, and you didn't go into too much detail about what you were trying to explain. Then you go and accuse us of not understanding? It's clear that you don't really want anything to do with this project, how it has operated for years, and how it is structured based on the consensus of other users. If you want to go off on yourself and do something against consensus, don't come back and whine when you get opposition. And while I'm at it, don't even think about whining about me or anyone else not doing your little "test", because I doubt anyone would take the time to do anything you said to do if you open up a post with antagonism and outright disdain for the project and its members.--十八 05:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The same way your "consensus" goes against greater Wikipedia policy and procedure? I'm sorry, but the sheer number of errors and problems on even core content is simply stupefying. If this group is going to purposely and deliberately hinder progress then by all means I am going to be making a big deal about every problem. Not to be confrontational, but I'm quite sickened by a few events in the history and how users blindly and willingly jump on board the bandwagon and claim "consensus".

I'm sorry if my first post wasn't clear enough for you, but it is laughable how much push back there is on separating notable anime from its "manga" page. Dragon Ball Z should never have been halted like that; period. It should not take 10+ supports, 2 3Os and over a month to recreate something improperly and wrongly removed. For anyone wondering why this group doesn't have many GA and FA, its probably due to the organization and operation of the whole. You ignore actual scholars; dismiss researchers and cannot even get anime or manga's basic details and history correct and include a pile of improper and unsourced (and incorrect) OR in your main articles. Just reading it shows how far off our priorities are; and I actually refrained from visiting and reading at first because I assumed that it was already well covered. I'm really sorry to burst anyone's bubble and I do not want to make drama - but we have major issues to deal with here on every aspect of the project.

I want to definitively find out where everyone stands, their level of knowledge and their focus. Hence the "test". I'll throw out an example; the animators of Dragon Ball Z episodes - should they be listed on the article? How about the cast list? The answers are both yes and should not require a fight about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, not even western animated series list animators at all. A) theres a huge list of them, B) Their usually covered by a group. Individual animators arent notable.Lucia Black (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Anyone else? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope I didn't misunderstand but here goes. For the production issues you brought up, I have not seen that happen. It's not as if production information was snubbed intentionally, as far as I know. I'm not going to search the history of DBZ but IIRC, the article was a mess full of trivia information and I have good faith that useful production information was brought in during the merge.

As for the anime and manga articles, most of the active edits were by people not of the project; the anime/manga wikiproject works is more like a consultation group than a collaborative team anyways. Aside from that, I doubt any experienced editor are intentionally ignoring reliable sources and adding OR to those articles. As for the low numbers of GA and FA, it's not as if the project is hindering itself. It's just no one has enough interest to bring one to GA; I mean, a week's effort is usually enough for GA anyways.

For the list of animators, do you mean something like at List of Buso Renkin episodes? I think it's fine if a writing flow could be made instead of a list of names. As for the voice cast, I usually let the character page or section handle that. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll give an example. Please look at this link. [3] This gives a detailed overview of different animators and their studios which change per episode. Different teams and supervisors result in VERY different character appearances. The second one is "Sakuga" a term which refers to key animation, but in fandom it often is used for entire scenes done by a single animator. Yutaka Nakamura is one who has a lot of credit for this.[4] He did some fight scenes of Cowboy Bebop, Souleater and more, by himself. He is a notable animator and has been the subject of numerous discussions, including a rather famous panel at Anime Central 2011. We should actually have an article off of "anime" that informs readers how it is made and how different it is from Western animation studios. Anyways. I'll do as I will, I rather not argue with anyone or lecture all day long. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The only criteria for inclusion for anything on Wikipedia is if there are reliable sources that indicates notability. You shouldn't have to argue with anyone if you have met that criteria. _dk (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just add the information, theres no one stopping you unless you add this information in such a way where its too specific and trivial. You argue for things that isnt exactly an issue to the way we setup the article but you blame it anyways. Its not too difficult to mention that 1 animator in those anime considering itll only take one sentence. Or that multiple animators throughout the dragon ballz series changed the art style. Theres plenty of room to expand as long as you expand it in a reasonable fashion. Both of what you provided takes up to two sentences max.Lucia Black (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this just more of your "franchise" article nonsense, Chris? Because everyone's tired of it. You got your way with Dragon Ball Z and with changing this project's MOS because it got in your way to make the DBZ page. There is no reason to keep splitting up articles into more specific and smaller forms just because someone decided to change a title somewhere.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've warned you numerous times about this. Cease immediately or I guarantee the next little quip from you winds up at the appropriate boards. I have better things to do then deal your grudge-mongering and constant complaining. I've been piled over too many books and papers to do as much as I want to, but I do intend on building a lot more content in the near future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh please...my.grudge has nothing to do with this. So stop with the empty threats. Go and add what you want, just dont blame the method WP:ANIME chooses to use. Youve mentioned issues that arent really issues.Lucia Black (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris I don't know what your goal is you are going on about mass changes with no backing whatsoever from this wikiproject if you mass change things from this wikiproject you should get consensus to do so. Wikipedia is about working together I have not seen you work with anyone nor have I seen anyone be supportive of your ideas, it happens when it does just roll with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I work with plenty of people in many areas; I am just frustrated by my own area of expertise being so lacking and finding that people continue to argue over pointless matters at every turn. I might take Caggy to GA later, but I guess I have to go put out other fires at every turn so I can't do what I want to do. I don't have infinite Wiki time and it seems that I get distracted by drama. So tell ya what - I'm done interacting at the project level - its pointless. I have been conducting a few peer reviews on non-Wiki anime related work. Some of my research (sourced materials) will appear on Wikipedia; the original stuff will not. Aside from that, the sources and material I am adding are good and proper - if I pick to update 300 series, then you can raise issues with those 300 articles, but I don't think the level of interaction and cooperation in this project is worth hammering out every detail in advance. It is ludicrous. I couldn't even get a decent answer on the "first released anime". Enough is enough; you do as you do, I do as I do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your expertise has nothing to do with editorial skills in wikipedia. What answer could we have brought to you for the first anime mistake? You had to go to the source themselves just to fix it. What could we have done? If your an expert, all you can do is just look for a more accurate source. Stop complaining. You've had no real issue whatsoever compared to other editors here in this wikiproject.Lucia Black (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, please calm down. Standard procedure: consensus can change and us Wikipedians must cooperate together to build an encyclopedia. I'm also siding with Lucia, Gwern, Juhachi, Knowledgekid87, Ryulong and DragonZero on this matter presented above, but I really don't want to get involved in contentious confrontations. I think we need an uninvolved third party to weigh in on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hentai article

The Hentai article was moved to Hentai (word) without discussion. Please comment on this at Talk:Hentai (word)#Hentai (word). 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Castle of Cagliostro

The Castle of Cagliostro is going to be another target for GA for me. I've personally gone through and put some of my own research into the matter to end that outright stupid claim of Spielberg and Cannes using the actual Cannes film website. Call me a bit sore, but Cavallaro's The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki should not have pushed a seemingly non-existent award and appearance over the actual award received for fiscal year 1979 films (granted in 1980). If anyone objects to this, please let me know... I'm trying to be nice and very transparent about it. I'd like to work with the community rather than hording such research and dropping it as a book before adding it myself. If anyone objects to this "OR" let me know, because I got piles more of it to dispense. Though the sources speak for themselves... as they always should. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and one last thing... Does the last line of the budding "Critical analysis" section need a citation? Or does that fall under WP:BLUE? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there would a problem since your additions are sourced. For the last sentence of Critical analysis it sounds like OR if it doesn't have a source. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to find a decent RS to point out the obvious for that... The Spielberg matter has one that bugged me for years. I just checked my collection and yes, I have a VHS tape which also claims Spielberg's comment in the 2000 VHS release under Manga Video... The 2006 DVD special edition release has it on the front cover. I doubt any official response from the company will count... as that is somewhat OR, but I'm going to see if I get their side of the story. Does anyone else care though? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would find a reliable source to confirm Speilberg's quotation. I also commend your efforts in improving the article. However, I think the plot needs to be between 400 and 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. Thoughts about that? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How on earth can I prove something that never happened? You do realize that proving the context of the quote alone and disproving a so-called RS on the history itself supersedes in this case? The film was not at the 1980 Cannes film festival, thus Steven Spielberg could not have commented on it and it could not have won an award or "dazzled audiences". Either way an RS comes into conflict; and I'm fairly certain that it isn't Cannes at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, even though I could find no sources about the Spielberg quotation, I found one source that can confirm that the film was awarded at the Cannes Film Festival, ("The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki" by Dani Cavallaro. The relevant quote is, "These qualities were indeed internationally recognized as the movie received the Award for Best Animated Feature at the Cannes Film Festival." But unfortunately, nowhere in the book does it mention Spielberg in that paragraph. However, according to the Cannes Film Festival's website, the film never premiered there. I am sorry, but I am feeling a bit puzzled on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Gah... As I point out that RS is dead wrong! Cannes doesn't even have that as an option for an award and the register does not even cite the film at all. [5] I'm sorry, but Cavallaro screwed up. My post above was in explicit reference to Cavallaro's assertion. Does that impact the credibility of the rest of the work? Maybe a little, because it is sloppy in places, but it is not bad. Lucia absolutely detests this "scholar" bit, but in all fairness these kinds of things are what I research in my free time... I just decided to fix it and cite it here because it bugged me that no one else has done so in any other "anime RS". I'm still waiting on a response though; I am holding out some hope that the official quote can be traced to another venue and not Cannes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why must you mention me? If youre a scholar, then great, more reliable sources for the articles. What I detest isnt that youre a scholar, and it would be inappropriate place to clarify. Just dont go stirring up comments about me if im not involved. I see no issue with this topic, if anyone can help out, then great.Lucia Black (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

List of attendance figures at anime conventions

Hmm... what to do. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not that bad... I don't like the prices, that is not really relevant. The figures themselves if sourced properly should be fine... but I'd expect that on their own article and not a table list here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont think attendance is really relevant, practically which one is more well known or more popular. Theres so many problems with how this is organized and what it focus on. Even if properly sourced most of it is by one RS. Itll eventually get too long to fit in the article namespace because its too wide.Lucia Black (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This list is kind of ridiculous. Many of these conventions started over 20 years ago, and yet the years for attendance start in 1998, and the odd-numbered years after that date are arbitrarily skipped; are odd-numbered years not considered notable? This information belongs on the separate convention articles.--十八 01:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Attendance can just stay on the individual page. There is no need to collect statistics for comparisons as this isn't a business ranking like the Fortune 500 or Nasdaq 100. WP:RAWDATA. There's no award for biggest attendance. The prices are not notable in itself WP:NOPRICES. It also reeks of travel guide like hotel comparisons WP:NOTGUIDE -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the convention names are not even right. Can this be speedy deleted or can it go right to AFD? Esw01407 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD, does not count as a speedy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am going to improve this article and add more varied references. you can see improvements here. all names should be correct because they were taken from AnimeCons.com if there wrong then improve it. @十八 , the odd numbered years are skipped because i did not want many columns and wanted people to see the bigger picture. the price is useful to show the affect on attendnace. there are already similiar types of articles like: List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues and List of sports attendance figures --Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That simply makes no sense. You're going to make an article that's incomplete just because you don't like it? And besides, like I said, many of the early years were skipped too. Also, that sports list doesn't try to list every single year, but the most recent year. I might agree to this anime convention list if you make it just for the most recent year per the sports lists' precedent.--十八 02:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to argue or get you to my point of view. But if you want to nominate this for deletion please do it after 3 days, allow me to add more varied references first. we can vote in talk page wether it should have most recent years or not. Before making this article i got peopels opinion on what would be more useful, listing the most ecent years or showing the bigger picture with 2 year gaps. the overwhelming view i got is that its better to show the bigger picture because it: (1) is the bigger picture (2)really shows anime conventions have grown and anime has gotten more popular.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I would place it up for AfD as trivial information, some of the things are noteworthy but those things can be found by looking at List of anime conventions and looking convention by convention what the numbers are. I have to point out as well that I have been trying to remove animecons.com from the anime convention articles over time as it is NOT a reliable source as the content is user edited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please give me 3 days before you decide nominate this for deletion. I will add more varied references. Then the community can fairly decide whether it should be deleted or not and not use the excuse that its not well referenced --Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay I will wait three days, looking more into it I found this about animecons.com [6] the website is user edited but claims that material that is not on the convention site will not be allowed so it can be considered a primary source I guess. I don't know though, when it came to AM² animecons.com has it listed as cancelled HOWEVER there has been nothing on the convention's website saying such information nor has any notice of it being cancelled appear in other reliable sources thus I feel it is dubious. Also per below WP:NOPRICES the prices have to be removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Someone is working on it... The effort is being made and this really doesn't have to be deleted and shouldn't be put up if someone intends to work on it. Why do you insist on jumping on every editor after they do anything? Why not help instead? I'd axe the price list of the tickets just because of the existing policy about it, and the fact it doesn't help too much, but a list of major conventions with attendance rise and fall could be encyclopedic with some work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually if you want it to be useful... and encyclopedic as a cross checking system have the number formats work better and do something with N/A to place them below 0. Then use a list of "highest recorded attendance" and have that as a sortable column. Use the last 5 or so years and move the others to their article space, keeping the first attendance record count as well. I'd remove the red-linked ones or ones unlikely to ever have an article. Do this and it won't break the page for small screen users and it will appear better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

the list is sortable. maybe i am misunderstanding what you mean. I am planning on replacing the ones that say nn/a and putting number, already did that for about 20-40 of them. my plan was: animecons references first (2) submit article (3) add second backup references. regarding small screen users i actually took that into consideration and asked small screen users to send me screenshots of what they see. the ones with 17 inch monitors or higher wont have much problems (only need to move to side a little to see full table), the ones with less will have to go to the side to see full table. f you have any views on how the article/table should be changed, i am sure they conflict with other peopels view, so its best to vote on hat in talk page and get consensus before making change. all my articles which are lists are made with the opinions of readers first, it was made that way because the overwhelming opinion preferred it that way--Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinions of people outside of Wikipedia? That's all fine and good, until you take into account that they may not know about Wikipedia's guidelines or policies, several of which have been cited in this discussion. And if animecons.com really is user edited as Knowledgekid brought up, it can't be considered reliable and would have to be removed. I'll also add that WP:NOPRICES states there should be a justifiable reason for listing the prices, but I don't think a perceived "effect on attendance" can be considered a justifiable reason, especially when there is no concrete evidence to show that the pricing has a direct effect on the attendance, and unless you can prove that it does with a reliable source, it'd be considered original research. I also find it laughable that this is a list of anime cons, and yet there is but a single Japanese con listed. WP:BIAS anyone?--十八 04:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Supply and demand, depending on wether you studied business or not. You would say price has affect on attendance--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my original research claim. Do you have a source to back that up for this specific instance?--十八 20:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

uneccessary article because wikipedia pages already mention attendnaces--Sinjanthu (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than having an extensive history of attendance, which isn't really notable that even the List of sports attendance figures only posts current figures and historical peak figures, why not just add better detail on the List of anime conventions, which already filters out the "major" conventions. Then you can make columns and charts for Attendance which needs interpretation on what the "figure" is: gate turnstile, unique visitors, "memberships", or revenue. The list of conventions page could also list which year the convention started. If the trending of overall attendance figures for anime conventions has been researched by notable media sources, then please provide the articles; that could bulk up the prose for the attendance section. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

temporary redirect

i have temporarily redirected the pagee to my userpage sandbox here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Misconceptions2/temp ,I realise 3 days wont be enough to add varied references for all conventions, i have spent 10 hours and only managed to add veried references for 10% of the content. i may need 1 or 2 weeks. i have also made the page an orphan so nothing from wikipedia mainspace links to it. after i have added all varied references and more description, i will cancel the redirect and it can be posted here again for discussion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Check June 2013

Is anyone interested in helping to check the project's Quality articles for issues? I plan on going through it soon. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

FLs

• List of Black Lagoon episodes No longer FL worthy. Sent to FLRC
• List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes unsourced airdates?
• List of Hitohira episodes Merge discussion yet to be resolved; unsourced airdates
• List of Gunslinger Girl episodes Dead links
• List of Kaze no Stigma episodes unsourced airdates
• List of Last Exile episodes Weak summaries that also break MoS with boldings and such. Sent to FLRC here.
• List of Night Wizard episodes unsourced airdates and multiple link rots.
• List of Oh My Goddess! episodes link rots, wayback machine unable to retrieve.
• List of One Piece video games Citation needed, should be easy to fix.
• List of Rental Magica episodes Questionable and unclear when I checked its story source.
• List of True Tears episodes airdates
• List of Vampire Knight episodes summaries and unsourced dates along with probably incomplete information

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Will need help from someone who has seen Black Lagoon: Roberta's Blood Trail. The summaries for those episodes need to be made about the same length as the earlier episode summaries. Goodraise 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just an update, I will nominate another list for FLRC at some point. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sent Last Exile to FLRC.DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cal.syoboi.jp as a source

Lots of old FL lists used this source but FL standards and risen and I doubt the source's reliability. Should the source still be used? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally never understood why it started to be used in lists a few years back. Was it just misinformed editors and no one ever called them out on it?--十八 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It just never seemed to be addressed back then. I don't think it should be used. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This always seemed like a consistent place to get airdates, although what should be used then? KirtZJ^Talk 02:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you know some Japanese then there is the official site of the show, and the sites of the channels airing it (for currently airing shows at least). Newtype Magazine has TV listings which can be useful for older shows. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting views at FLRC

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Black Lagoon episodes/archive1 DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Persona 3: The Movie

Here are my concerns.

• I'm not sure if this merits its own article since it is neither a spin off nor does it hint at telling a story much different than the Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 video game.
• It is a planned series of films with interconnecting plots which most likely may pose a problem with a repeat of the same plot in the parent article.
• It may spark more articles in the manner in which a new Pokemon movie gains a new article. Especially since the first film is called "#1 The Spring of Birth" and a new article maybe be spawned as "#2 Etc Etc"
• It seems to have been given the same treatment on wikipedia as the current Persona 4: The Animation article, which was pointed out to me, shouldn't have been.

Maybe since it is only an adaptation of the video game, its Production may only be noteworthy in the parent article, with the corresponding infobox parameters. The article had been previously redirected to the parent article, but another user felt the need to revert this change. I'm a little confused as to what should be done here especially since the article itself (currently a stub) is poorly written and what little information currently available can be included in said parent article, i.e. Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3. Basically should we treat this as an anime series or a film series and if whether or not this article should remain or be redirected. KirtZJ^Talk 02:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it's a film, with a theatrical release I think, it can have its own articles. Due to it's lack of information, you can redirect it if you want, but it's a better idea to improve it's current state since it will probably come back at some point. As for being a series, I think it's best to have the article include that information. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Theatrical releases get their own articles. The Persona 4: The Animation article was my doing and it evolved from simply the episode list into what it still is today, which is a location to transclude the episode list and also provide information on the soundtracks associated with it. Also, you can't seriously expect all media regarding a video game with multiple media spinoffs to be included all on one article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks DragonZero/Ryulong. Noted. And okay Ryulong, well forgive me if I was a bit confused about the creation of an article when there is currently little information available on it, no need to bite my head off. Sigh. KirtZJ^Talk 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to play devil's advocate, but not all theatrical releases aren't always notable or have sources that are easy access. So its best to expand the best you can, if it can't be expanded more and doesn't meet GNG, it could be merged. not saying this is the case for this particular article.Lucia Black (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

XXXX in anime

Is there a reason why there are lists like 2004 in anime made? These articles I feel are redundant to Category:2004 anime television series and also goes against WP:NOTDIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I habe no idea. Could probably get speedily deleted.Lucia Black (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the articles go back to 1907 and are just a repeat of what the categories already show so idk either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How about you actually help with working on them? I've been extremely busy as of late and have been working on various pages including 1917 in anime. I intended to get them filled out earlier, but something came up and I wanted to add the releases (at least pre-60's) to them in proper format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that you're probably going to be the only one who even cares about these articles, do we really need one on each and every year? Even if "1917 is the year of definitive firsts in the history of Japanese animation", was 1976? 1985? 2013? This seems like a good time to invoke the WP:Pokémon test rule. If a given year is not clearly notable because of some major event, and/or cannot be shown to be notable by reliable sources, the year should be deleted for lack of notability. Furthermore, even if you can show that 1965 or whatever was a notable year for anime, don't create the article before you can show notability. This is why each and every Pokemon does not have it's own article, though Pokemon articles continue to be created once notability has been established. Not to mention that these seem hugely redundant and contentforky to the XXXX in animation (such as 2000 in animation) articles. Why is anime getting preferential treatment? Couldn't you just put this content in those articles? I wish User:AnmaFinotera was still here.--十八 03:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't count the first production of anime with the three founding fathers as "a notable year" then we will never agree on anything. Chances are you never even heard of them before this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Back off a bit, will ya? I've been trying to deal with multiple issues in multiple areas. The pages are going to be more than just a primier on what happened and how it impacted the culture and production. The year in animation articles I did not know about before I made this and I disagree with the American bias. Before you go overboard, I just put up piece on four more of them, while it is Litten's work, I haven't gotten to notable births and haven't done much in notable events. The reason these articles should be kept are fairly obvious - the purpose is specific and not out of place with the other tabular lists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why even make such an article in the first place? Theres no strong notability toward them. Why follow a similar trend such 2000 in animation when that one is lacking aswell. If anime has a specific and well known age or era, then its best to expand anime in general. But making these type are pointless, provide no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and just not notable (especially for just 1 year).Lucia Black (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Im adding RfC, because this doesnt seem to be getting any approval and this is just arbitrary years of anime. Making "decades" rather than single years would be better off. And all of this based off of just one source (Litten, surprise surprise). And its definitely not a good idea to create over a 100 stubs at once if their not going to dedicate the time to build them.Lucia Black (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think decades would make more sense, and would reduce the number of permastubs. If we have 1950s in film, why not 1950s in anime? And then any single year which is particularly notable, i.e. 1917 in anime or the like, can get their own article.--十八 02:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Chris is considering notable births to add to these type of articles, are those even relevant? I'm still not supporting these lists, as their just arbitrary info to anime that occured within a time frame (sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS), but I am just looking for a compromise so that it would reduce the number of stubs.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are deliberately targeting me and my contributions; no matter what I do in the area. The type of article is fine and has numerous other types split off the main one. Leave me alone! I removed the RFC, because it's not a part of anything. I am done dealing with you and your professed hatred. You continue to attack me and my contributions and engage in disruptive and dramatic false claims. You do not even know what synthesis is. Leave me alone already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You posted them on the public domain, targetting you is a complete stretch. You created 105 stubs, and you admit your too busy to work on them, and the wikiproject isnt going to invest on these type because their arbitrary years that have no real connection to anime. So listing or mentioning any piece of work or notable birth or event that can possibly be related to anime under these years wouldnt make the topic notable. This isnt about you, whether you want to be involved in this discussion. You have no authority to remove an RfC. And stop using my "hate" as an excuse for every dispute. So far, its not just me, this entire wikiproject doesnt agree with this. My reasons are legitimate.Lucia Black (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on them! You assume and assert bad-faith. They still have the construction and the topic and type is perfectly acceptable. They still have construction tags on them and other editors are adding, editing and improving these pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats where I disagree, and mis-use of bad faith (if you knew what bad faith meant, youd know how hypocritical it is to accuse someone right after assuming bad faith themselves). You cant just make virtually empty articles, and I see the contributions are very minor. I noticed youve made these articles entirely based off of one source. But listing arbitrary events in history of anime at a yearly base? How many sources do you actually think youll find? And im not talking about "manga artist A born in 1999" or "anime B began development in 2008". Im talking about sources that cover subject A (year) in B (anime history). Do we have to wait until you prove that these type of articles are notable?

if this was something a little more concrete to anime, for example, "The golden age of anime" or the "dark age of anime" which ive personally seen in several books regarding to anime history use. (Example: many highlight dragon ball Z in the golden age of anime). But this has absolutely nothing to do with you, if the most recognized editor in this wikiproject did the same, i would still question it. And dont mention me in unrelated topics and say "see above". Thats a jerk move, and you know it. Im on topic here.

And even through all this opposition, im still pushing for compromise of making these into decades.Lucia Black (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith; you announced it. Now I got work to do, I've been improving the articles while you attempt to chastise me and my work. And oh yes... I have hundreds of sources about events in anime for each year; its not hard to go from A to B when the material is already on Wikipedia and entire books are devoted to such things. Excuse me if I demonstrate I know more than the "RSes", but I'm volunteering my time here and I do not appreciate the biting and attacking over something that is still under construction and is being worked on. Leave me alone. Period. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes anime special enough to require individual year pages anyway?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Many events occur in the industry, enough that if we went by decade it would be too large to make any sense. Since I am adding the notable works released during that year to the articles it tend to fill them out as well. I doubt we should have individual year pages for anime released by year, but these pages will perform multiple duties. Giving perspective, awards and events in total. I was trying to find decent commentary on the years for a bit, but I tried to do too much at once and got bogged down with issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

But why are we keeping it separate from "Year in television" or "Year in film"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

you made the claims of having hundreds of sources before (ghost in the shell). So dont blame me if im doubting your claim of having hundreds of sources now. And i still disagree with the method, for 1, it would be completely subjective to the editor who they consider to be notable moment in anime history. So obviously it will get too big if we add every arbitrary bit of info that is barely related. But what im more concerned is how many sources cover "year XXXX in anime" in its most general and broad form?Lucia Black (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I still have hundreds of sources for Ghost in the Shell, from production commentary to scripts to interviews to the making of. Then we get into critical commentary, some 40 pages alone in Tokyo Cyberpunk: Posthumanism in Japanese Visual Culture alone. Good sources lead to other sources. There is no single (ahem-published) Year in Review for anime or manga that goes through this like the Timetable of History. Events with a year can exist as a list form and the list has an intended purpose and use. I didn't know that 2011 in Japanese television existed, but 2011 in anime already is superior and is on target even when it is not complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have them, then post them on the talkpage for others editors to insert if your too busy. But the worst part is how arbitrary the article is. List of awards for a topic about a year in anime? These are completely irrelevant. These articles are ridiculous. Its a bunch of irrelevant info taking advantage of the one thing they have in common, year and trying to turn it into an informative article which in reality is a bunch of statistics and release dates possibly.Theress no doubt in my mind, the hundreds of sources are just awards, birth years, and any miscellaneous info relating to the year and anime rather than sources actually discussing how much anime has impacted within that year.Lucia Black (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Go to the library and get them yourself. Not everything is online; most are books (as I pointed out) and others come straight from the media on DVD. I cannot post them for you. And you do not understand the "year" types at all. Your "how anime impacted in year X" would be putting my research and perspective on Wikipedia, I'm not falling for it. It is like posting ICv2 and jumping to conclusions. Sorry, but that's baiting me into producing OR and I will not do that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

then theres no point in you bragging about hundred of sources if you cant share. For books. All you have to do is scan the relevant info. And its already on perspective if the editors get to choose what counts as notable info in that year. Its not encyclopedic at all to have something so arbitrary (in which this case your not denying).Lucia Black (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and commit copyright infringement in the process? No. I'm not going to the library and scanning pages and uploading them so you can work on it. The titles alone are fine and I'm not posting DVD materials either for your sake. We are done here. Do not re-add this pointless RFC tag again; what's done is done and your bad-faith attacks on me are annoying. If you have a problem, you are experienced enough to know the proper venue, but it is disruptive and pointy to do so. The under-construction tag applies and I am done wasting my editing time dealing with you. Go bother someone else, I'm running out of patience with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not like you're scanning the whole book. And im not sating for my sake, but for the sake of people working on them. The under construction tag is an excuse to leave stubs such as those for a long time without working on them. You still havent addressed the issue of arbitrary. Your just trying to make it look like this isnt a constructive discussion. And if you remove the RfC again, I will report you. RfC is requesting for comment, whether you find me disruptive, bad faith, or whatever lame excuse you can think of, theres no reason to remove the RfC.Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Look it up yourself - I am not providing you with a copy. Tough luck. And the RFC does not do anything to the articles. That is why this is very improper and disruptive. You know what to do if you have an issue with the pages. What on earth could the RFC do to 2012 in anime or 2011 in anime or 1917 in anime? I'm still working and trying to organize the material and assist other editors while dealing with your problem. I am continuing to work on the topics and your breathing down my neck is disruptive. I strongly suggest helping or leaving me alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

you just dont get it do you? These could be filled with over 40k of text and properly sourced, they would still be considered unencyclopedic. There articles are just listings of info compiled tofether for one arbitrary year. Look at LGBT themes in comics article. Instead of arbitrarily compiling LGBT themed comics tofether, they mentionn which ones affected most in comic history or mention it in a more generalized form. But these are articles are just arbitrary bits of info. How many sources are actually talking about the Year??????? How many sources do u have stating "2008 was a dull time for anime" or "1999 was the revolution of anime due to these animes given here"? Thats the heart of the issue, some of us just dont find it encyclopedic.

also, enough with the jerk attitude. It was a suggestion, im not forcing you to scan a book. Although you could, and it wouldnt be for my sake.Lucia Black (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the hostile one. The type of list here is perfectly acceptable and I am filling one of our top requested article holes. Check the feedbacks sometime, lists for anime are among the most requested comments. I was reading the feedbacks and noticed that the "List of anime" was redlinked. While I am not proposing a compendium right now, the "XXXX in anime" will serve multiple duties and one of them is the anime released by year type. You realize that the categories and other forms would totally mess with most readers; and that less than a fourth/fifth of all releases are even included on the list? I tried to pick the best releases with the largest showings and the most active fanbases mixed in with some more obscure works. No other page is doing the task or is up to it, so I made it. You just don't like it, but this is not radical or unconventional - its pretty standard and most of these pages are already better than the other article types. Best thing is that there will be no more "releases for 2012" and it should be stable and only continue to improve. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you wont learn any other way. You cant do things like remove RfCs or make edits despite having no consensus for it (4 times). And this is still, very unencyclopedic. And of course I dont like it, its a 105 stubs all at once and their going to be just pieces of arbitrary jnfo relating to anime. Its not informative, you just admitted this is to bypass category. But it doesnt change hardly anything. Categories may be overwhelming at times, but when it comes to years, theres hardly an issue of finding what you're searching for.Lucia Black (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Twisting my words again? This RFC is not an RFC capable of doing anything anyways, its bad process, I'll go ask for a 3O if you want, but the last time you filed an RFC to oppose my failure of your GA nom which was improper. Again, a list of notable series released in a year is an acceptable article form. Even a split as Deaths in January 2012 is a notable and allowed article. You really do not understand WP:STANDALONE and that's why you won't take the proper actions. And oh yes, we discourage linking readers to plain categories. Also, please look at Category:2012 anime, do you notice the three sub sections? Do you notice how not every anime is covered? Do you realize how BAD that is for readers to comb through? Your claims of "consensus" is silly, I'm improving the navigation and functionality of Wikipedia. Not having navigation is a major concern. Why can't you deal with the feedback of other users? You seem stuck with your grudge and your bias. This Wikiproject has navigation and functionality problems, but the systematic bias is blinds people who cannot remove themselves from it. You need a new perspective; I am one to provide that perspective. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats not an issue relating to the categories fault. Regardless, your not improving it in a very direct way. Youre creating an article based on arbitrary events of anime in that year. WP:STANDALONE has nothing to do with this unless your admitting these articles are "List of arbitrary events related to anime in XXXX". You cant force someone to follow your perspective, and an entire wikipedia disagrees, and if they disagree, its for good reason. My claims of consensus are real. No one here is supporting such a ridiculous article. This isnt fixing the navigation of articles. If you made List of anime released in XXXX, that woukd be a more acceptable list article, bur thats not what you makjng, yoyr trying to guide readers to more articles, unrelated to what their looking for. And thats not really an issue. The way other editors see wikipedia and the way you see it are vastly different. My "grudge" doesnt make me bias, it just makes me avoid you when possible. You ask me why cant I deal with feedback, I could ask the same thing. Your trying to fix a subjective issue.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

on an unrelated note, the RfC on ghost in the shell accidentally placed it where the GA review, not because the RfC wasn't appropriate. Completely different situation.Lucia Black (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You were told it was inappropriate and it was removed. [7] Placement did not matter. Again, you are caught lying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't inappropriate. You base it off of his text, he clarified in his talkpage why, and it was because it was under the GA. look for the discussion yourself. I dont make up anything.Lucia Black (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Again a lie. He said, "Actually a RfC should be filed correctly and not on a now failed GA nomination. I would like to go into more detail but my reverts and closure speaks for itself in this situation."[8] Which means the first edit I posted was right. Then you said we were in an alliance, a bad faith and personal attack. You also said I was abusing consensus (the review was my own to fail or pass) which is also an attack and false. Now would you stop digging yourself deeper? I really don't take any enjoyment in having to constantly prove everything you say is wrong or misguided and to have you dodge, redirect or make it worse. This RFC is out of process and unable to delete the articles which I am currently working on. Period. You know it, I know it. Everyone knows it. AFD is the proper venue, take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think I should hat this distraction above. Anyone else agree? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. but that purely based on your point of view. And i didn't lie. The comment you quoted does not prove me wrong. and accusing someone of lieing so blatantly and accusing of lieing multiple times is uncivil. i'm not going into that subject because, it would just start something you're so craving to start. And the RfC is meant to dedicate a more compromise, but despite that, you continue the fact that these articles are just list of arbitrary statistics. This RfC is to gain a larger consensus on whether these type of articles should even exist. it doesn't exactly classify itself as a list by title, and its too broad. And i don't see why "List of anime released in XXXX" isn't sufficient? It looks like you're trying to make an anime database of arbitrary events of anime, not for the reader's sake, but or the sake of accessibility, and thats fine if it was a list focused on one thing. You're making a database, not an article on a notable subject, nor a stand alone list. So it could easily be deleted if consensus reaches, hence the RfC.Lucia Black (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And your bad-faith accusations continues... I have absolutely no point in continuing going back and forth with you. Have your little "RFC", but they are perfectly acceptable by policy and cannot be "purged" without going through a process. RFC is a comment, not an AFD and my objection to it is paramount. The type of article is backed by policy, supported by convention. I had to request the unsalting of the list of anime for starters, and it was granted by an admin. I still do not understand why the project is unable to meet the needs of its readers even when deliberately requesting over and over again. Here you are once again actively supporting a campaign of deletion despite the continued improvements which make those articles more and more valuable with each passing moment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what bad-faith. I'm not accusing you of making data-bases intentionally to harm wikipedia. Bad-faith is about accusing someone with the "intent" to make edits against wikipedia. You can't hide against "policy" forever, especially when you're based on the idea of "there's no concrete rule against it". It's still not an article related to notable subject, nor a proper standalone list. This is borderline WP:NOTDIRECTORY under the first rule: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See WP:STANDALONE#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)" and just to go further, WP:STANDALONE states: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. if this indeed is a list. but you're not denying this article is just an actual "database". and you seem to imply that this is indeed trying to be a list. So, you have one policy that COULD be used against these, AND you have that policy linking to the guide.Lucia Black (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• You don't even understand to what "bad faith" issue I was referring to... Moving on. First of all, NOTDIRECTORY doesn't cover this. Why even copy paste it in? Secondly, its not general or too broad in scope, even by itself the listing of X (anime) released by year is pointed as a valid criteria. So it is backed as valid, you read it yourself. Why are you still creating drama over something that is perfectly acceptable and covered by the whole of LIST? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's divided by year, but the scope of the topic that can be covered is too broad. the only limitation is year, which is the only key factor to this list. nut the scope of it is still too broad. Why are you asking loaded questions? You know why, because its not covered by WP:STANDALONE at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you just being facetious or something? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further. The RfC is there for other editors to comment on the issue, and provide consensus on whether these articles are encyclopedic or not according to the policy of WP:NOT.Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are serious? How is this not under WP:DE is beyond me, you are willingly disregarding policy to exact your "justice", as demonstrated by your continuous examples of your grudge. I think this entire conversation is ridiculous because you are the only one who is trying to assert NOT when greater consensus says they are perfectly acceptable. And this RFC cannot delete them, period. So you are really disrupting Wikipedia just to spite me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

i don't joke ever om wikipedia. please stop trying to poison the discussion. this is about the database type article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you dodge the issue and continue with the attacks? I take offense to the dozens of attacks you made on me here and in other venues; you have repeatedly asserted your accusation of bad faith and provide absolutely no evidence. You make one almost every post, now with this "poison the discussion", which has the connotation that I am being malicious. That's a PA. I've warned you a many times already about that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

asking if I'm facetious is not a valid question nor is it related to the topic and considered malicious and uncivil. You're derailing a discussion over and over. You constantly remind me of how i feel about you, and use it as an excuse for dismissing the discussion and ask me questions you know aren't going to have a positive reaction to. So please, stop accusing me of something you know you're doing as well, and stick to the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You cited the very reason why the articles are fine under WP:STANDALONE and you ignore it, preferring to cite WP:NOT which does not cover this in any shape or form. I'm glad 2012 in anime is a lot better than 2012 in animation. Same with 2011 in animation and 2011 in anime. Such articles would be fine additions to the "See also" on articles like 2011 in Japan. Clearly the articles are fine and are a suitable form of navigation. Instead of creating a 2011 anime releases, I intend to simply use "2011 in anime" because we don't have to worry about Miku videos, hentai OVA, obscure OVAs, TV specials and dramas, and web-only content produced by companies. How many titles do you think got released last year? 100? 250? 500? Even a list of anime releases of the year would be appropriate per the criteria, but I intend to limit it to more notable entries and combine it with events, awards, births and deaths and relevant industry information. Making a useful summary of the year for Japanese animation. Once completed, it will be relatively maintenance free and fill a requested gap in our coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was on break during the Spring, but then I noticed this discussion and couldn't help but give my opinion on it. As far as I know regarding "XXXX in Anime" and "Category:XXXX Anime", they're different for sure. But I have to agree that there are a lot of notable events not covered by Wikipedia either by claiming they're not notable in their "personal" thought, or just out of WP:GF. It is probably this reason that the WikiProject couldn't get many Articles to GA status. The Stub Articles were usually unable to expand any further due to the lack of sources that could be claimed "Notable", but This is against WP:NOTJOURNAL as the Restriction on notability is too high for those Articles. Wikipedia Articles should be written for Common Readers, which should be Encyclopedic but Knowledgeable, but not solely for a Database Articles. The English Wikipedia is not restricted to only the United States or any other English-Speaking Country, but Worldwide. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I came upon this discussion because of an article in the incubator, and I don't know the difference between manga and anime.  But two comments, one is that the word "lie" is unconstructive in a Wikipedia discussion, and a second is that one of the bottom lines in a volunteer organization is who is willing to do the work.  Hope that helps.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is chris isn't admitting to whether these pages are meant to be treated as "articles" or "lists". If it's list it fits well with WP:NOTDIRECTORY and if it's an article, it fits with WP:NOTJOURNAL. And again, not denying the allegations because he claims that there is no rule against it. So which is it Chris? An article, or a list? Either way, there's more than enough reason to axe these permastubs.Lucia Black (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, no one is on board with it. The articles are not "permastubs" and your deletion campaign which you wish to undertake is destructive, disruptive and goes against established policy and global community consensus. Do not continue this farce any further, either AFD them or work on them. I've been very busy and I've just returned home after a fun/research trip. I do not like your obsession over me, my work, and my activities. You know policy, it was cited, and the IDHT responses is just drama that I shouldn't be needing to deal with. This is my final word here - AFD them or drop it. And leave me alone! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To do a mass AfD would be considered "vandalism" which is why this RfC is appropriate to show more approval to AfD or merge. And there's no obsession of you (really? don't flatter yourself.) And you only spout rules, you yourself don't understand. How does WP:IDHT apply here? You're assuming that you have more approval to make these articles, and no one here is onboard with what you've said. NO one has said "these articles are beneficial and meet policy", so your accusations of WP:IDHT don't apply (and looking back, every single time you've used WP:IDHT, it never applied. You saw one editor use it, and you decided to try to use it as a trump card for yourself). So again, if this is a list article, its against WP:NOTDIRECTORY because the broad is too large, yes, it has a limit, but still too large to be defined, and also incredibly subjective to make such a list because whatever is defined as "relevant" will be upto an editors idea of relevant.

Now if it's an article (which i'm sure where it's leaning towards to) is still against WP:NOTJOURNAL per #3 "wikipedia is not news reports". This is public discussion, not a talk page. So i'm not bothering you, i'm bringing up a case to the public, and it includes you. If you feel bothered, don't answer. Allow other editors to discuss.Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained it already. You do not read what I write. It is covered under WP:STANDALONE. Unless you want me to formally make Anime released in 2012 and list every entry and not list a collection of the more impacting and notable ones. Such a list of anime released by year is notable anyways, but you do not even define criteria for your arguments. You cite a list of potential problems and do not assert the problem, you instead make some lame excuse under "directory" when X in Y is perfectly acceptable, exclusive, limited or otherwise. Even without the details on awards, events, company closures and such the actual releases alone makes the page a useful list by itself. Not sure why you are disputing that. Or are you? You don't define any issue with any specificity, you are as general and vague as possible. You do not even use the word "vandalism" correctly. You also do not use "news reports" correctly either, I'm keen on hearing your explanation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the issue, it's trying to list ambiguous and abitrary events of anime given to that year. So yes, maybe "list of anime debuted/released in XXXX" is better off. I list problems, i already see such as 2012 in anime, and i am addressing the problem whether you believe it or not, because the problem is that these type of articles even exist. You haven't proven "X in Y" is acceptable in this case, when X (anime events) is too ambiguous. You're trying to make a database of events in anime you deem notable, but can't be made into their own article. Which is why WP:DIRECTORY applies, because as stated in WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. And you have not clarified how it doesn't apply, because from what i can see, it clearly does.Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Break

2012 in American television is not under NOTDIRECTORY. Hell, 2012 in animation is more "ambigious" that anime ain't it? It meets STANDALONE, and if you want I can list every TV, OVA or movie if you really want. Be prepared for about 300 releases, most which do not have articles and probably never will under N. The list includes ones which can meet N and already have articles, another of the criteria under okay. You can say NOTDIRECTORY all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Let's go through NOTDIRECTORY to end your assertion of it:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics - Not applicable. All are anime releases.
2. Genealogical entries - Not applicable.
3. The White or Yellow Pages - Not applicable.
4. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business - The key is "conducting business" not here. It most certainly not a Business directory. And it is not a Directory service.
5. Sales catalogues - Not applicable.
6. Changelogs, release histories or release notes - Not applicable.
7. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations - Not applicable.

So what on earth is your specific assertion? You are dodging the question. Clearly explain how this is under NOTDIRECTORY. Because none of these apply. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. what exist outside of this wikiproject is another wikiproject's business, and i do plan on mentioning it to WP:ANIMATION the issue, however, i don't plan on investing my time convincing another project for a horrible and flawed idea. I already mentioned the relevant entry in WP:NOTDIRECTORY and i never stated that it was "list of genealogical entries, The White/Yellow pages, Directories of bussniess current events, sales catalogue, or Changelogs". Only to List or repositories of loosely associated topics. And that is NOT true, and sorry for my BADFAITH, but denying that these list are solely about releases is trying to game the system, because A) it's not just about releases, it contains reviews and awards as well 2012 in anime B) the so-called list states the EVENTS of XXXX in anime. C) You've attempted to state several times, these type of articles aren't an issue. D) You've mentioned plans to add more than just reviews and releases, but deaths of notable people who contributed to anime history, and also some mention of companies aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from your "bad faith" - If you are arguing point #1 then I can clarify further. Here is the full quote:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)

In this case "loosely associated topics" is just completely untrue, the defined scope is "anime" so its not loosely associated topics. Now under SALAT this type is acceptable, heck its why we have these reference articles. You can say OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions invoking "An unrelated X exists, why not Y." You can say it, but given that these types of articles survive deletion discussions and have entire Wikiprojects to maintaining and improving these is really the crux of the matter; they are acceptable in Wikipedia. And that plus the arguments in policy is evidence that it is completely acceptable. I do not think you understand that my argument is not "X exists so should Y." Its more like "X is valuable to the project, survives deletion attempts per cited policy and has a group to maintain and care for it, Y is the same method applied to our project's scope with explicit parameters on its limitations and focus." But whatever, if you aren't able to extract the meaning from policy, then you have an issue I cannot resolve. I don't like arguing with you, but I am certain 2012 in anime would survive AFD and I don't think you want it as a precedent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep separating X and Y to make your point, but try to put them together, and thats where itr shows how loose it really is. It's loose because "anime" is being vague, not accurate. IN reality, it's events that happened in anime history organized by year. Which WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not condone, and i'm unsure whether "these type of articles" have ever been AfD, but thats not stopping the issue of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:NOTJOURNAL is also still relevant, as they aren't 100% articles, you just treat them as such.Lucia Black (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, no. You have to specify when your cite something that has bulleted lists at my request, but you seem to have no examples to provide or rational other than claiming it. That's not how things work. Anime is not vague, to call it a vague term is ridiculous for a project on anime and manga which goes into specific detail about what is and what is not anime. The criteria by year is also fine. Now since those two little issues are gone, let's get to where you probably will go next. List, article, who cares on the specifics, but the parts and not the assessment fall under a list. Now you might say "oh we have categories for that" and WP:CLN backs the usage of both categories and lists, so let's not trudge down that path either. This is taking too much time and you seem to like to argue because you don't actually bring up any points and just rehash the same flawed argument over and over again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

what kind of list is it? it's a list of anime in 2008? then why not name it as such? because that's not the case. you're trying to twist what these list articles really are. And, "flawed" is subjective. i find it to be valid, and i wasn't the only one who brought up WP:NOT. so unless another editor says "this isn't an issue of WP:NOT", you don't have much ground to say this is flawed.Lucia Black (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So you would drop this matter if I expanded it to 'all anime produced in the year? Think carefully about this, because we do not have articles on many of them. I probably drew too close to my research anyways... I don't want to have to rationalize why someone without an article, currently, is a major figure or what events are really important. ANN is one option for such matters, since I can bounce off the editorials. I am certain my coverage for 1917 is complete - or at least as much as records currently show. Obtaining complete lists prior to 1924 is probably impossible due to the earthquake - many records and films were lost. I've mentioned that this is a focus of my research... but I rather not go into too much detail at this time. But I ensure you that Wikipedia will have the most complete and extensive list of anime by year if you choose this "path". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly, it would have to be focused ONLY on releases/debut of anime. And be renamed to "list of anime in XXXX" or "List of anime debut in XXXX".Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I was planning on creating that anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

that would mean no "XXXX in anime" articles, just to clarify.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Those can redirect to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

sounds good. i'l get to it tomorrow.Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I will be the one to take care of this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion: Reliable sources

Notability has to do with satisfying WP:GNG, so if a reliable source can't be found to establish notability, that's not really Wikipedia's problem. Also, any perceived "lack" of GA/FA articles (which makes no sense if you take a look at WP:A&M/Q) is always proportional to the amount of interest a single editor has in getting any article up to GA/FA; we simply do not have as many interested (or experienced) editors as we used to back in our heyday of 2007–2009 (approximately). That said, I brought 4 articles up to GA last year, three of which were anime/manga related. And I currently have an anime-related article I nominated at WP:GAN too, plus another editor has nominated Shaman King at GAN as well, not to mention that Chris also has Hentai up at GAN, and Akira Toriyama and Eyeshield 21 were promoted just last month; we seem to be doing pretty good as of late. It all comes down to interest, experience, and time.--十八 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet we do not take third-party review sites unless their reviewer is of an established expert whereas this burden is not met by music reviews, simply that they have to be in-depth and make educated and insightful commentary. I do not think saying anything about effort matters for a GA here, because the actual community surrounding anime and manga are not considered an RS on their own opinions and actions, that's a problem. While I do not want to change the topic of discussion to our flawed system; I'm certain that a large group of articles simply cannot be improved under the current "RS" issue. Let's take Dragon Ball Z, I cannot cite verifiable information simply because Pojo's website is not considered a RS by the anime community; the result: No English translation or context for information not found online and requiring a very difficult book to acquire. Is there any doubt as to the integrity or reliability of it? No, but because it is on a non-RS website, it is removed without analyzing its value or importance. The adherence is stricter than even FA sourcing guidelines; even MedRS is comparatively tame if applied to our scope.

Let's put it this way; when you can "prove" a is RS wrong - no matter "recognized status" of the individual - that source and person who provides such evidence is unquestionably the proper source. What I did below with the Spielberg quote shows an example; my own research quickly disproves the account of an RS and my evidence is in numerous places including Cannes itself, and I cited the correct award in the process. Who's the RS now? This is why I find this Wikiproject so out of touch and backwards. Clement's stance on hentai is of the apologist type; the personal opinions of an expert are still personal opinions and should be placed in perspective regardless of the "status" of the other side. I'd be glad to push for GAs, but this project is a hostile environment with a demonstrated history of outright detrimental and unusual practices not shared by the greater community. Commonly this is called a "walled garden" and given the activity levels in a project of 10,000+ the changes may be responsible for the end of its "heyday". There is way too much conflict and kickback over even trivial matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and Juhachi, I'd put Dragon Ball Z up for GA if I can use sources like Kanzenshuu. I personally think Kanzenshuu is a RS for many things - but A&M seems to disagree. Also in other pages, if blogs of voice actors, directors and animators cannot be used for their own inputs the development and details surrounding many works will simply not be on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to but so much blame on this project and how it deals with reliable sources. If you think a source is reliable, take it to the WP:RS/N and have a discussion from editors outside the project; that's what it's there for. You mention music reviews that merely have to be "in-depth and make educated and insightful commentary" to be considered reliable (Is that really the case? Please provide me a guideline that shows this is true.), but who gets to decide what is and what is not "educated"? How you do you define "insightful"? Those two things seem to be very subjective, which is why this project has historically defaulted to already established experts since there is objective proof (via their use in reliable sources) that they are indeed reliable. How is that "backwards" as you put it? I really do want to know, because I consider that to be a reasonable level of criteria for any reliable source as set out at WP:RS: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (my emphasis on the italics).--十八 04:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, WP:RSOPINION perhaps? Also for the majority the context matters, and that is part of WP:RS as well. WP:USEBYOTHERS is also useful for weighing it. Let's apply this to Kanzenshuu, where visual evidence is given, (PRIMARY) and commentary on it is provided (SECONDARY). Now, for the purposes of using it on the animation styles [9] Kanzenshuu takes the primary source material and provides secondary commentary. Taking known facts from the original media and comparing them side by side is not "original research", but some of the conclusions gathered are indeed an educated synthesis of sorts. I can argue that the same can be done on Wikipedia directly even without Kanzenshuu because I can cite the production details and indicate the same differences as well between animators. In fact the production details not explicitly cited in this particular Kanzenshuu article would be the only leap to preventing inclusion of the same conclusion or sorts. Kanzenshuu's commentary (which is under RSOPINION) is the conclusion that I cannot reach without approaching a level of synthesis likely to be challenged... but it blatantly obvious to any fan or scholar worth their salt. Anime doesn't have a lot of "RS" sources as a scholarly matter, at least not in English sources, and Japanese discussions by the fanbase are typically on par or superior to our typical "RS". I don't think I need to bring up how it is simple and easy to disprove a "RS" with even basic journalism skills.

It is actually this "RS" matter that is the fault of the project; just because someone is involved in the industry or put out a book doesn't mean that they are infallible or even remotely correct about their assertions. You'll have to excuse my rolling around in recent examples, but if it took me all of two minutes to find that "The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki" by Dani Cavallaro is wrong. I am perfectly capable of offering that citation and answering the error and while I am not a recognized expert by A&M you can be assured that my citations (and not my mere word) is what counts. Even forum posts by fans (for now consider me one) have proven to be better examples of research and critical analysis which assembles the information in a straight forward way to arrive at a simple conclusion. An RS is all about the context of its reliability. Formalities are all good and fine, but if Kanzenshuu is not a "RS" in A&M's eyes we got some pretty big issues here. And RSN has been known to be a crap shoot before, where context is overlooked for this notion that the whole must be an RS by extension. And let's not forget that RSN typically has no one informed enough to even begin assessing the sources discussed, let a lone analyze them in detail. And quite frankly, as you go into more esoteric subjects you need perspective and knowledge before you can begin identifying what is accurate and what is not. Forget the notion of an "RS" because I've seen avid toy collectors surpass and correct the meager understanding of toy industry publications - whose information can only be verified by other knowledgeable individuals even if the object in question is provided. One last comparison; I'm sure everyone knows wood, but does anyone claim to be an expert on identifying wood? Even without Hoadley's Identifying Wood: Accurate Results With Simple Tools a knowledgeable individual will draw the exact same conclusions. Though the identification of wood is by no doubt something of importance as evidenced by other publications,[10] it is pretty clear that non-experts are capable of distinguishing wood with even the most rudimentary of methods. If some "expert" or an "RS" claims one thing and that is found to be incorrect by evidence of an amateur third-party, whose source is "reliable"? It most certainly isn't the previously assumed "RS". In this way it is far more important that the actual content and context be checked for reliability and not the status of the source itself.

Tldr and summary - Each case is unique and adhering to any notion that any comment from a person is an RS is in itself a stupid idea. If an RS is able to be proven incorrect than any source or sources which prove that fact is an RS (for that case at least). The concept of an "RS" as applies to media is really weak anyways, I catch Fox New's journalists routinely making rather major errors in their fact-checking and verification processes, let alone their critical analysis is often so flawed as be laughable. I'm certainly no expert on the Mazama pocket gopher, but this story has so many inaccuracies that absolutely nothing about the "gophers" is correct except that the gophers live there. The species is recognized as threatened by the State of Washington. The subspecies are all threatened with 2 (and possibly a third) of the subspecies having gone extinct already.[11] Good editorial practice should be advanced whenever possible; this Wikiproject included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply; I'll preface this by saying I read the entire thing. I understand where you're coming from with both RSOPINION and USEBYOTHERS, and overall I feel I understand you're need to editorialize any RS to make sure the information contained therein is indeed reliable (i.e. correct). However, those two sub-guidelines will determine if a cite like Kanzenshuu is a reliable source. First the latter (USEBYOTHERS): Is Kanzenshuu used by other reliable sources? If yes, then there is reason to believe Kanzenshuu is reliable; if no, it's less likely. Now the former (RSOPINION): If and only if Kanzenshuu's opinion can be considered an RS (such as by applying USEBYOTHERS), then you should be able to add in his opinion. For example, let's say Hayao Miyazaki was the one providing his opinion on the same content in the Kanzenshuu article you provided; as a prominent animator, his opinion carries more weight and reliability because I'm sure his opinions and analysis have been used by reliable sources in the past, thus satisfying both USEBYOTHERS and RSOPINION. If, as you state, Kanzenshuu's conclusions are "an educated synthesis", then they would be considered OR (from WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis...") and thus would not be able to be used. I'm also not entirely sure you would be able to "cite the production details and indicate the same differences...between animators" yourself like you say, because I feel that'd be a form of synthesis.

In short, I could be the world's foremost expert on toe fungus, but if my knowledge or expertise in the subject hasn't been used by other sources already considered reliable, then that information cannot be verified, and thus will not be considered reliable in itself. We have already spent a lot of time talking about reliable sources, but it really all comes back to verifiability. Can Kanzenshuu's opinion or conclusions be verified by a reliable source? This isn't a matter of WP:BLUE (which may or may not apply to your wood analogy, depending on the context) if it takes a least a minimal amount of research and/or background to understand. What may be obvious to someone knowledgeable person may not be obvious to someone who is less knowledgeable, and far and wide, Wikipedia should be written from the standpoint that our readers know absolutely nothing about the subject in which they are reading (WP:MTAU). You yourself have proven that at least part of "The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki" by Dani Cavallaro contains information that cannot be verified, meaning at least part of that book cannot be considered reliable. To say the whole thing is unreliable is a stretch, however, especially if Cavallaro is considered a reliable source per USEBYOTHERS and RSOPINION.

Lastly, I'll go back to what you said: "An RS is all about the context of its reliability." I am not disputing this; what I'm disputing is if that "context" (who is speaking and the information provided) can be considered verifiable, and thus reliable. Anyone can say anything about anything (WP:SPS, a subset of WP:V). Let's assume for a second that Kanzenshuu is an expert, or at least knowledgeable about the subject, in the article you posted. Taken from WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Is Kanzenshuu an "established expert on the subject matter"? Has his work in the relevant field (anime) been previously been published by reliable third-party publications? If the answer is no on both questions, he cannot be considered a reliable source, and thus the information he provides cannot be verified. I'm sure WP:RS/N would come to the same conclusions I have because those conclusions are objective and apply to all of Wikipedia, not just this project.

So like I said, I feel you're placing too much blame on this project when it comes to reliable sources. You cannot expect editors to check that a certain reliable source is entirely infallible. Reliable sources are "reliable" because they have been proven to be correct, at least most if not all of the time. If you can find that an RS is incorrect, then that's a good thing, but that is no fault of Wikipedia or its editors; this is why we have guidelines on identifying reliable sources: so we don't have to do that for every source. There may be instances where we have to do a little extra digging to find the truth, but are there really that many cases of that?--十八 10:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your viewpoint does not weigh the facts of the information provided. The whole RS topic is one that has specific need to prove whether or not the material consulted is reliable, without actually analyzing said material. RS is best described as the means of testing whether or not the source is of some integrity, without putting forth the integrity of the content. First of all, OR does not apply to secondary sources, OR exists to prevent Wikipedia editors from conducting research or drawing conclusions in a novel way. This would be under conducting interviews, lab research, thought experiments or other tests and putting them on Wikipedia as a method of publication. This portion of OR applies to A&M the best:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

In this case, the difference between the animation quality of Dragon Ball Z. The analysis of which is the conclusion drawn by the source. Kanzenshuu is allowed to make such claims, it is not OR because OR applies to Wikipedia editors and not published sources which can be consulted. So the topic moves to whether or not Kanzenshuu is a reliable source for those statements. While it contains a highly educated analysis, the analysis itself is rather plain and simple here. The pieces of knowledge about the animators and the episodes worked on are specific, but even if were cited from their sources would not be OR even on Wikipedia, because a source confirms the claim. The OR would be an unpublished and unverifiable assertion of the animators, which is not the case. It doesn't take a mental genius to say that Frieza and other characters are drawn differently between episodes. Even placing them side by side is not OR, for any person can verify this by the source (the media itself).[12] The conclusions advanced however require an educated analysis which is possible only with a lot of sources and a lot of analysis, but that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia and the "feel" and other commentary not backed by any source is not one which Wikipedia can advance by itself. It boils down to a simple manner of backing up said statements, the dramatic "this is the best anime show ever" is OR at absolute minimum, but citing with secondary sources can change it from "best" to "one of the best" without too much burden because enduring legacy, profitability, size of fanbase, critical analysis and other facets can show that the claim is not Wikipedia's own assertion. In fact a "RS" secondary source can make that claim and be cited, under policy, but it is not good editorial practice to do so. Most of the sources you will find are "questionable RSes" where caution is required. Note WP:QUESTIONED says such material is not prohibited, but use is limited. This is how a director's comments on his personal blog about his methodology is completely acceptable, assuming the identity of the blog is verifiable. We actually see this with blogs of IGN editors and such. Whereas at A&M it seems to be a no-no, even where it is permitted per SELFSOURCE. How does that make sense?

(courtesy break)

Going back to error in Cavallaro's book, barring evidence to the contrary, it is an RS and should be assumed accurate, but there is no requirement to avoid a verification to the contrary. Cavallaro makes a claim of an award that does not exist, Cannes itself is the source for that by the absence of the film's showing and the non-existence of that award. To say without citing a source would be OR, citing Cannes as the source is not OR and Cannes is a RS about itself. Similarly, if an unrelated and self-published source asserted the claim without evidence then Cavallaro's stance would win out based on the presumption of it being correct unless someone is willing to show verification without doing OR themselves or doing journalism by interviewing and posting the response on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not conduct journalism, it is secondary, hence why it cannot become the source for that information. The nature of validating a source for reliability for A&M is on its evidence for its information where following the sources can be perfectly acceptable to arrive at the same conclusion, but it would avoid giving credit where credit is due. The Kanzenshuu comparisons fall under this, but the barring the citation to the animators of the individual episodes (not on that page) the actual attribution would not be OR because reliable sources exist to say who produced what episode and the visual differences are often times obvious, which is itself the reason for the article. Whether or not Kanzenshuu is ultimately a reliable source wouldn't matter if a fuss is made, because the pieces (but not the conclusion at the end) are all verifiable - it'd just be a rather ugly method of doing so. Here is an example:

• Dragon Ball Z has numerous animators which has caused variations in the artistic style, this is visible between individual episodes produced by different animators and studios.(citations) The quality of the animation manifests itself in a number of ways, including the differences in proportions as seen in Episodes 28 and 29.(primary citations) (Include picture for visual reference, Caption: Studio Junio's animation is visibly different from Last House's animation.) The work produced by the different studios resulted in quality and model differences that is visible with Studio Junio's work on episode 28 and the differences in Last House's animation on episode 29. The animation supervisors were also different, with Minoru Maeda on episode 28 and Masayuki Uchiyama on episode 29. (citations) ....

Note that I used something NOT mentioned in the source, namely Studio Junio which provided the key animation in the DBZ credits for episode 28. With that being said, everything is verifiable in the credits of the media, so Kanzenshuu's reflection on the artistic quality is the only real issue able to be asserted about its usage. Every instance in the example above is sourced from the credits itself, yet no OR is being conducted and the material is used in accordance with PRIMARY. At this junction would Kanzenshuu's actual comparison be in doubt, of course not. Citing the individual components or Kanzenshuu will not change its production team and thus for detailed analysis of who produced what can either be sourced by 30-40 references to the credits of the show or Kanzenshuu's summation of verifiable visual material. As there is no dispute about the comparisons or their origins, Kanzenshuu is a secondary RS and a secondary RS is preferred over primary sources. This would actually be my argument on this particular page if it were to go to RSN. And of course, at this point my own educated status and analysis about this matter it probably itself indicative of something... but I cannot note in the article as to why this source is a valid shortcut to a much more difficult form of verification and provide credit where credit is due. That is in essence why the matter of editorial practice to verify the statements made of any source's claims, to prove or disprove the conclusion, is itself valid.

(courtesy break)

Despite Cavallaro's publication, the error is still an error and going to the primary source to disprove a secondary assertion and that primary trumps a secondary. Good scholarly works are secondary or tertiary anyways, using primary sources (the material) to analyze secondary sources (commentary) and validate or challenge a popular assertion made by that secondary source. Provided that the work is verifiable from its components, that work is itself a RS for its claims. This differs from the traditional account of RS as in news media or other publications where the sources are not explicitly given or verifiable by readers. Something has to be said that if any person would arrive at the same conclusion with the same material that the source reporting the obvious conclusion is a reliable source for its mere statement. While complex on its face, by breaking down the matter to its core components, you get a BLUE statement being relayed by a "questionable source". I don't need to have a degree in meteorology to identify the clouds in the sky, let alone the clouds in a picture whose verification is visual and identification is based on education obtained in secondary sources. If you want to split hairs, yes the "identifying clouds" RS can be used to circumvent or validate the claim and can be done so if challenged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. First of all, whether Kanzenshuu's statements are factual or not, or are OR or not, is beside the point. He falls under WP:SPS, a policy, while WP:RS is a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. So if you can't prove that Kanzenshuu is a reliable source per what I quoted above from SPS, it fails as a reliable source because it is unverifiable. No amount of arguing at RS/N will change this fact. Questionable sources are not prohibited, but only in extreme circumstances are they permitted; I do not believe this to be an extreme circumstance, especially when there are other sources available to cite the information (primary sources).

Next, if anyone challenges on you using a director's (or other creator's) own words as a source per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE, just point them to those two links. I've used many such primary sources in the past without incident.

Also, you're repeating yourself needlessly. I already agreed with you about fact-checking reliable sources, so you don't have to get into it even further.

Now for BLUE. Your words: "Something has to be said that if any person would arrive at the same conclusion with the same material that the source reporting the obvious conclusion is a reliable source for its mere statement." (my emphasis on italics). BLUE is there to point out that anything that does not need any additional material or information does not have to be cited. Using the two examples on that page: the sky is blue and most people have five digits on each hand. You merely have to exist to know those two claims are true. So if you have to bring in any additional material in order to draw a conclusion, however "obvious", it is not subject to BLUE. That said, I see no problem with you adding in the paragraph starting with "Dragon Ball Z has numerous animators which has caused variations in the artistic style, this is visible between individual episodes produced by different animators and studios." baring you have the citations to back it up (primary is okay) and are not using an unreliable source (especially a self-published source with no secondary verification from other third-party reliable sources as in Kanzenshuu's case).--十八 20:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So even if the material is unquestioned you would rather open it up to a dozen citations under primary sourcing instead? I seem to recall ANN having issues with being an RS despite the material cited is often a better archive for the 404 happy nature of Japanese publications, and they provide English translations and links to the source material which does not 404. Excuse me, but sometimes Wikipedia's adherence to high quality sources results in a deeply New York Times slant and rides credibility on the perception of a source when academic publications (self published or peer reviewed) are better off axed without so much as weighing the content. Taking another's research and advancing it without providing a citation is plagiarism and it is even worse to attribute your source's source in its place. Just seems dishonest to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "adherence to high quality sources" is what sets it apart from other similar sources of information. I don't know about you, but I'd rather an article have high quality sources, than potentially unreliable ones. Academic publications are fine as long as they satisfy WP:V or the criteria at WP:SPS, and while this is not really an issue for other topics which will often have a wide variety of such sources, the animanga community doesn't have as many, hence why animanga articles tend to rely on (non-academic) reliable third-party sources. It's not as if academic publications are axed on sight; they are weighed by the verifiability of their content, not the content itself; this is the defining principle of WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (bolding not mine, but Wikipedia's).

Even if it may seem dishonest to apply Kanzenshuu's (or another source's) previous research without attributing it to them, there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it. It's not like you're copying his words verbatim; that would be in violation of WP:C in any context.--十八 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

True. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Translator needed... again

The Garden of Words is getting a lot of traffic, and like Hotarubi no Mori e, I feel this anime has the potential to reach out to people unfamiliar with anime and pull them in. I am willing to write another article like I did for the latter, however, I will once again need some serious help with references and translations. If anyone can direct me to a person who can help, I would greatly appreciate it. All I need are the full citations from reliable sources and the translations, and I can put together an article worthy of this great film. Best, – Maky ^« talk » 01:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Same issue thats plagued this entire year. Ghost in the Shell manga/franchise page

Chris (after giving up on the issue) reopens the same issue, to have Ghost in the Shell (manga) and franchise separate pages. you can find it here ->talk:list of Ghost in the Shell chapters. I've grown tired of it, the same issue all the time, and it will never end because it's only upto me and ryulong to confirm there's no consensus on such thing.Lucia Black (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are blatantly canvassing again and misinterpreting my intentions, I intend to fix the misinformation, the errors and expand the content that you continually axed out. You don't even understand the policy or the information provided. Ryulong hasn't even seen, let alone researched the work and you, my dear Lucia, have deliberately inserted false material into these articles. If anything "giving up on the issue" was putting it aside to prevent further damage and work on what needed to be done. Dragon Ball Z was your "proxy war" and that meets N and GNG, and anything on there is still fought it tooth and nail and its only halfway to GA now. The same argument for the mangas. It is a lot easier if you let me work on these things and stop making every thing so difficult. You think everything is bad faith, and you stopped believing my actions were in good faith over 7 months ago, as your second response to my critical GA review. I'm an expert in the Ghost in the Shell media. This is the sole problem that you have with me and once it is resolved I can go back to working on other things, but I intend to get (at least) the mangas to GA level (nommed but not passed) by Shirow's birthday and FA (maybe main-page) by the anniversary of Toren's passing. The stubbornness I exhibit here is because I care about the work, am knowledgeable in it and I have a goal which I want to meet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris I've fucking watched Stand Alone Complex and 2nd Gig at least 5 times don't say I haven't watched it just because I said "I've not read the original manga".—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you two engaged in forms of dispute resolution other than filling up talk pages with massive amounts of discussion nobody will ever read? Goodraise 02:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN has been done. and yes, you're GA review was BIAS. You wanted a character's section in order for it to pass a GA when there are several Featured A&M articles that don't have one, and are GA. And please stop calling yourself an expert, i've corrected you multiple times. The problem is that this time you're admitting to how much of a fanboy you claim you are, rather than actually proving that you have any skill at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing but bad faith and attacks. And I'd love to see where you corrected me on a GITS matter. Any editor viewing this section will go "Not again." But seriously, you are twisting my words to your own ends. You can't even tell the difference between Shirow's Motoko and Oshii's Motoko. And you were responsible for axing out the majority of the content on Motoko's page. Sorry, but I think your insertions and alterations at these pages speak for themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it hipocritical of you to make such claims. for example: when has it ever been brought up the difference between Oshii's representation of Motoko and Shirow's? I never once brought it up. Their the same character despite being interpreted by different people. And, yes, i did remove alot of content from Motoko's page, and i'm damn proud of it. Did you actually look at the page? it was a direct copy of the one in ghost in the shell wikia. most of it was FAN interpretation, and unsourced. I did what i could to standardize the article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are proud of it, I'm done dealing with you. You are not fit to edit these articles anymore. Just like you said there was nothing on her sexuality, or covering her mentality, you are incapable of doing due diligence before you mess up articles and undo my revert to reinsert it.[13][14] Not to mention you actually asserted you knew more then the creators of the show itself. When proven wrong, you change to launching personal attacks, saying I called you a troll, assume bad faith (which I did not), said you know more than me. It is not I who has a problem with the material, it is you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And you have called me that. And i'm perfectly fit to edit, the issue is, if there's no source that can be found, we don't leave unsourced info there, especially if it's questionable. And, you can make claims about my debate method all you want, it doesn't make them true.

And again, that's still not proven to be false. I just rather NOT argue with you, over something thats so painfully obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You put those words in my mouth when I proved your insertion to be wrong.[15] I actually defended you against a troll and you attacked me at ANI under the same circumstances. Do not make another single accusation against me, I'm done dealing with someone who assumes bad faith, makes drama and requires this before working together: "Admit youve wronged me in the past and ask for forgiveness (not even beg). All you have to do. You cant deny your destructive behaviour or at least the destructive behaviour you had in the past" and when another editor said that was adding oxygen to the fire you replied with, "What I ask is completely reasonable, this editor doesnt want to? Why should I work woth that editor? im done! Ive been pushed around too far with this editor and now he miraculously changes and expects me to work woth that editor!? NO!!!! GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!"[16] This is why we cannot work together, this is why the problem exists. Do not make another accusation of bad faith or personal attack on me, I am sick of this. DRN then Mediation then Arb Com if that gets this resolved. Outside editors do not want to touch this because of the drama. I'm not dealing with you outside of DRN and other processes from now on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

you don't want them to! you're debate method is too blow things out of proportion and bring up unrelated topics to mkae them bigger than what they actually are! and i'm not going to stand for it. this comment you said WILL get removed.Lucia Black (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)