Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 62

*Rurouni Kenshin*
Rurouni Kenshin
Related
	Pootaro Bear; Yayyay! Anime Land; Tuesday Wide Special; Masahiro Nakai's We Are All Alive; Otoko no Ko Onna no Ko;

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Tenchi Muyo characters

I would like to request some help with mediation. There is an edit-war going on with another user, who I feel is being completely irrational, unreasonable, slanted, and immune to matter of fact logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Tenchi_Muyo!_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_A#Beyonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BeyonderGod

To clarify a bit, I have encountered this editor "BeyonderGod" previously in the Wikia community, where he got himself permanently globally blocked after 3 months of constant relentless completely unreasonable trolling, edit-warring, harrassment, long extremely vulgar homophobic slur insult tirades, sockpuppetry (HagoromoOtsutsuki, OfficialRikudouSennin, likely others), widespread lying plagiarism of a previously created community (the Outskirts Battle Dome), etcetera, and he has a massive fixation for both the character Beyonder and the term Omniverse, and almost consistently calls himself an almighty God who lives in heaven in his various handles. Most of his more severe stuff, including a written guide in how to successfully troll people, was deleted by Wikia staff, but here is an example of his usual fare towards my other handle name: http://definithing.com/100284/antvasima/ However, he hasn't yet performed his usual infamous behaviour here, beyond the misinformation-mongering, creating nonsense articles or writing minor threats.

He also has a major mad-on for Tenchi Muyo, strictly due to the fact that I love the franchise, and thus he has consistently attempted to hurt me by relentlessly attacking/slandering/inserting illogical and uninformed misinformation about the franchise, whether on several different Wikias, on ComicVine, on several other forum communities, or now here on Wikipedia. All of this has been done over the span of several months during thousands of different posts and extremely badly spelled article edits.

As I mentioned above, I would appreciate help with resolving this matter, as I do not wish to have to deal with his trolling, and edit-warring vandalism here for prolonged periods of time, as I had to do on Wikia. Just check up the discussion in the Talk page, and try to mediate and rationally analyse the matter, that is all that I ask. Thank you. David A (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to provide more elaborate information:

"BeyonderGod"/"HagoromoOtsutsuki"/"OfficialRikudouSennin"/likely otherswas first banned from several wikis that he has participated on for systematic multi-wiki trolling vandalism, harrassment, and continuously insulting unreasonability.

He was permanently globally blocked by wikia staff for several months of the above across several wikis, as well as plagiarising the original Outskirts Battle Dome wiki name and widespread systematic lying about his ownership across several communities (his wiki was deleted when the real owners complained), long disgusting homophobic slur texts inserted as insults on other people's user pages, singlehandedly edit-warring to extremes with entire wikia communities, and a written guide in how to successfully troll people, and another about the people who get emotionally hurt and/or exhausted from his absolutely relentless neverending trolling, whom he consistently call "butthurt", naming me by name.

In addition, he has already created various power listing wikis, and they continuously kept a very lacklustre quality with lots of apparently deliberate inaccurate information strictly to troll fans of different franchises.

After his global block, he has continued to spam several communities, including ComicVine, Spacebattles, Killermovies, and even Deviantart. Constantly spamming about the Beyonder and systematically slamming other franchises to cause hurt feelings for their fans over a few thousands of separate posts.

List of his trolling and harrassment on the Powerlisting wiki alone, back in mid-September, with lots more to follow in the 3 months since: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Antvasima#List_of_BeyonderGod.27s_trolling

He admits to doing lots of trolling vandalism to "get rid of competition": http://factpile.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:BeyonderGod/Admin_ship

His usual trolling homophobic slur insults, and comments about me being a "butthurt" systematic victim of his trolling (due to my severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is extremely taxing for me in the long run): http://definithing.com/antvasima/ https://imgflip.com/i/dio9g

Given all of the above, I would greatly appreciate if some members of the Anime and Manga Wikipedia community could please attempt to mediate on this page, as I am consistently mentally exhausted from having to constantly deal with him for over 5 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Tenchi_Muyo!_characters

Thank you very much for any help. David A (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@David A: - Ask Ryulong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for replying. David A (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ask him for reliable sources that say this character is whatever he is and if he can't provide them just say "Wikipedia's rules say it must have a reliable source".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was more looking for help with the List Of Tenchi Muyo Characters talk above, as we need help with conflict resolution. I am less interested in the Beyonder character, but the problem with it is that there are some sources that claim that it is omnipotent, and others (which I have linked to within the Beyonder page) that contradict this. However, to mediate, I already let his last edit to the page stand. I simply attempted to fix the grammar. David A (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter either way. You're both over analyzing and it is not a matter for Wikipedia to cover in the article. I don't know why ChrisGualtieri tapped me into this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I know from experience that he does not listen to reason, does not compromise, and does not let up, ever. He is a serious problem for me that recurrently makes my sleep bad when he has especially exhausted me from relentless trolling. I really need independent arbitrators to step in and find a permanent official solution to the problem, so I don't have to deal with him edit-warring, spamming, insulting, and harrassing me the coming 6 months or more as well. Help would be very appreciated.David A (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Then go to ANI and say he should be banned before he becomes a nuisance here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for being stupid, but could you please provide a link? Thank you. David A (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I think that I found it. Sorry about being a bother. David A (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Doraemon

I've started some rudimentary cleanup on this article because it was utterly dreadful considering the status this series has. Especially as the series is starting to become reasonably available in the US (and anywhere in Europe that might have it). At the very least I think it deserves a good go at a half decent article. If anyone wants to help it would be most welcome, any sourced information would be an improvement to be honest. SephyTheThird (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Lord Marksman and Vanadis

Hi. While I've created a separate episode list for the Lord Marksman and Vanadis article, I was wondering if anyone who is familiar with the light novels would help expand the light novel section as I am doing right now in my sandbox. I think we need to help translate the afterwords in the light novels. There's also an important discussion going on at Talk:Lord Marksman and Vanadis#Current Status - To do regarding issues that need to be addressed, if no one is aware. Input from members here should be appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: If there is anyone who is interested in the series, there's still a discussion ongoing at Talk:Lord Marksman and Vanadis#Current Status - To do. Someone needs to translate the afterwords of the light novels so we can get production information as well. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama and Dr. Slump

There is a discussion at Talk:Akira Toriyama about whether Dr. Slump should be included as one of the works Akira Toriyama is known for. More input is appreciated. (discussion) —Farix (t | c) 14:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What an absurd argument. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Korean manhwa with an anime adaptation

Over at A Simple Thinking About Blood Type we have a Korean manhwa that got adapted into an anime in Japan. How should the infoboxes reflect this, since the use of {{Infobox animanga}} assumes the whole creation is Japanese only? _dk (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it's not the cleanest method, but you could try what they did with Blade of the Phantom Master which is published in Korean and Japanese. If the Korean one is dominant (more volumes released) then suggest having the two infoboxes, one for the infobox manhwa and the other in the animanga style for the anime. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The Blade of the Phantom Master method works quite nicely for now, though it still refers to the original work as a manga... _dk (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked either articles but don't follow them word for word. You can always take the long term solution and adjust the Manwha template so it has an "animation" subheading (Template:Infobox manhwa). AFAIK, the majority of the previous edits were editors of this wikiproject trying to mimic the current template. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

The previous section was inappropriate, and I apologise. Again, as per Wikipedia praxis, I would like to request help with outside conflict resolution from the related Wikiproject on the following Talk page, as the page has been locked due to myself stupidly getting caught up in an edit war, and the Talk page discussion did not reach a solution. I really should have acted more wisely after all these years, but I am very rusty on Wikipedia procedures nowadays, and have been acting far too emotionally on this issue. My apologies, but help to reach a consensus would be very appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Tenchi_Muyo!_characters David A (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The "discussion" has started again. I would very much appreciate outside input to put a final end to it. Thank you. David A (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Help save an article?

Hey, the article for Doraemon (character) is up for deletion via AfD. This seems like a pretty notable character (I've been told that he's pretty much the Japanese Mickey Mouse as far as popularity goes) and there should be sourcing, but it'd likely be predominantly in Japanese, which I can neither speak nor read. Can any of you help look for sourcing? I'd hate to see this get deleted because of a language barrier. I've posted this same thing in WP:JAPAN, but I figure that the more help I can get to look for sources the better. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I voted for keeping it in the discussion. David A (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of sources isn't the issue, there is no shortage of English language sources. The complete lack of work on Doraemon articles by experienced editors is a bigger problem. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I'd opt for a merger until the parent article becomes more substantial and receives a good cleanup by someone familiar with the series. Frankly, the project saves too many AfDs on a whim (or due to disagreement) and nobody ends up working on them. —KirtZ^Message 12:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on the parent article to either add sources where needed or to remove OR . Removing the OR has already made quite a difference, although there is some more I'll probably remove. Doraemon is already one of the titles I actively source as I come across them so future improvements to both articles are at the top end of my work list. Really these articles are just another reminder of how short staffed we are, but this isn't some random new series no one has heard of.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oretama

Oretama (or Will i save the Earth) is a Japanese manga created by Shigemitsu Harada and drawn by Takahiro Seguchi.

I need some help writing a page about this manga. Some details here: http://myanimelist.net/manga/447/Oretama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oretama (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this topic cannot get an article at this time as it fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search yields no notability as does a scope into the Japanese Wikipedia. If this page was created, it would likely be AfD due to aforementioned lack of notability. —KirtZ^Message 15:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with KirtZJ. There appear to be concerns about the topic's notability, so it's unlikely that it would survive a deletion discussion if it were created.--十八 21:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal discussion

There is a discussion regarding the season issue at List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes. Discussion is located at Talk:List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes#Season 2: Black Moon. More input would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Black Butler summaries copied?

I suspect all or most of the plot summaries on List of Black Butler episodes have been copied from other websites. Or maybe just the "Book of Circus" section. I don't have much experience in the copyright area of Wikipedia, so can someone please tell me if this is a problem? I think the summaries are mostly from fan sites. —Msmarmalade (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked one and it was a pretty basic copy/paste of the official blurb, just removing one small part. Quite clearly copyvio so it should be removed as you have. If I'm suspicious I always just dump the text into google and see what comes back, a lot of sites mirror/rip off wiki content to claim as their own but it should be fairly obvious when this is the case or a site has had their work copied instead. In no way should summaries be copied from anywhere. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the confirmation. I'll start going through them now. Any tips for how to tell if the sites have copied off Wikipedia? —Msmarmalade (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are they from a Wikia website? If so, you can see the history of when the summaries were added. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that USA-based companies which license and distribute various titles have also taken from Wikipedia without attribution. If at all possible, check the dates with WikiBlame. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes it more confusing :S. I didn't know about WikiBlame, thanks, that's a lot more efficient than going back one episode at a time.—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I googled text from all the Book of Circus summaries and they seem ok; they were mostly added by User:Exukvera. But they do often (not always) appear on these websites: tvmuse.com, fanpop.com. I think in this case those sites copied off Wikipedia. @SephyTheThird: Which episode did you check and where did you find the official blurb? I'm having trouble with the summary of OVA 5 of season 2, which appears on a lot of websites.—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked the one removed, it was used on Fandom Post (which like Mania uses the official promotional text), and ANN news item, directly attributed to Funimation. These were all posted last year, whereas the text was only added this week to the article. In this case the text was almost certainly taken from MAL, as a link to the MAL page was included with the text. Either way, the text had that certain promotional style about it, it clearly wasn't written by a random fan or blogger.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking requests for sources from 90's magazines.

I've gotten together a good number of magazines from the early/mid 90s now. I'm still checking the issue numbers but I have most of the first 5 years of Animerica, most of the first 40 issues of Manga Mania, 20ish issues of Protoculture Addicts and the first 20 issues of Anime Uk. While I have stuff from 2000 onwards, the 90s are my current focus.

Now is a good time for me to go through them and scan articles for people who need them or find release dates etc. Chances are that if it had a NA release during the 90s, I can help or make a note for the future when I fill in the gaps. Many shows from before than are also covered. While the Xmas holiday is a good time for me to do this, I plan to keep this as an ongoing thing so I will keep an eye out for any requests. Any I can't help with, or new stuff turns up later, I can keep an eye for.

Release dates I can add to the article myself, as well as any other small pieces of info as this is quick and easy for me to do. I do have some small rules; If you want a feature to use for rewriting a page and don't have a reputation for writing good pages, then it will be helpful if you have tried to work on the page already. Any requests for scans of an entire magazine will be ignored, no exceptions.

All requests for sources should go to this page so I can keep a list.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. I'm going to update the tables soon. That does't stop people asking on a per title basis, which is probably more common than asking for a specific issue. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. That's why I suggest creating the individual issue pages that some of them have and list the titles covered by the articles, people discussed, etc. This allows people to find issue covering the topics they are interested in. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

PA issues now listed on the magazine page. PA actually have the contents of each issue on their website which saves me doing it myself. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to copy the contents over here since tables of contents can't be copyrighted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a bunch of magazines and book sources of some really obscure nature. Like the Protoculture Addicts 0 and editor materials and some editorials from very rare publications from this period. They are in storage right now, but some of these magazines have had localized USA releases. I also have some masters and early VHS copies of things like Jewel BEM Hunter Lime and early 90s stuff from Suncoast-era publications. I also have access to the early 1900s Kinemas which I used to personally verify Litten's work. If its really niche stuff, I collect it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Space Battle Yamato articles help

I really need help with List of Space Battleship Yamato III episodes, List of Space Battleship Yamato II episodes and any help on any other related Yamato articles would be great. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If I knew more about Space Battleship Yamato then yeah I would but if its airdates you are looking for or reviews have you tried looking at our reference library? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My only question is why we have a list of episodes on a separate page if they have no episode summaries yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure, neither parent article is too large or well developed but even if the lists were moved back it would still have problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would think that giving the series a decent main page would be a better priority, especially considering how extremely significant the series is to Japanese animation history. I can provide sources to anyone seriously interested in working on the article, but it's not a project I can give serious time to myself (I'm tied up with Lupin). I might be able to help out a little though. Airdates are easy, and so are home release details. However this is not a small project and needs dedication, or at the very least some good experience in this type of project. I might do a quick "clean up". SephyTheThird (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I was looking at Star Blazers. Although I'm sure the Yamato article would still benefit from some work. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga)

There's a discussion over Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) and its importance for the project. Please join the discussion at Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga)/Archive 2#High importance?. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Nihongo template

Should the Question Mark in the Nihongo template be included only in the lead=yes parameter? (Template discussion link) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed to RFC found here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Kerberos Saga:

Whoever made these pages was a little too into the series, and the pages are pretty fancrufty and not formatted into proper Wikipedia Encyclopedic articles. The series concists of two live action films, several comic series, and one animated film. I've cleaned up the film pages but have not done much for the others. I don't know enough about the series, I don't know if some pages should be merged into other pages or what.

Images of the Last Battalion - This page I blanked and made redirect to the main Kerberos Saga page. It's a fan film that's only a few minutes long, and it really seems to lack any notability. But I don't want to bother with a deletion vote.

Pages:

Kerberos saga (contains links to all the pages in the series)

Films:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Avoid the singular term "anime"

Some pages will say that a manga was adapted into an "anime" with no further explanation. So does that mean animated movie, OVA, short film, etc. A lot of people in English speaking nations use the singular term "anime" to mean "anime television series". However, "Anime" is just short for animation. We should ensure that we're more clear.

Do not do the following:

<Series name> was adapted into a 1998 anime

Do the following:

<Series name> was adapted into a 26 episode anime television series

<Series name> was adapted into an 8 part OVA series

<Series name> was adapted into an anime film

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I would assume that in general,this is already handled on quality articles as part of the process. The problem is that most pages are edited by people not involved in the quality side of things so grammar and correct phrasing is not on their list of priorities and those pages will have other issues. I don't think there is any need for formal handling of this, all you can do is correct it where you think it's being done. You are completely right, but like most issues its out of our hands to "fix". Just like how someone will always add unsourced statements (or not bother to the to post the source when it's clearly taken from the day's news) or when they write promo style episode listings instead of an actual Summary of the events that the table is actually for.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I need some help with the article A-Girl, which is currently up for deletion. The series was never released in English so sources are scarce in this language, but I get the feeling that there should be some sources in Japanese given that it had an OVA made almost 10 years after its initial release. Anyone here fluent in Japanese that wants to help look for sources? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has been through AfD two times already but I admire your efforts. I looked through what I could regarding Japanese sources but couldn't even find an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Other things I found were [1] (Somewhat of a review). I am not fluent in Japanese but can copy/paste the characters into google Japan to find what looks like to be results through enough information via google translate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am going through all of the articles under our scope and getting rid of the cleanup needed tags that do not address the issues the article has ("This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards"). Doing this will make it easier for future readers to identify what problems in particular that are at issue rather than editors guessing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, rather than removing the tags on sight how about just axing the ones older than a year? —KirtZ^Message 14:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the tags I removed were before 2011, the tag ("This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards") was adjusted sometime in 2011-2012 to include a reason for cleanup. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Japanese historical people in popular culture

What is this article supposed to be? It seems too broad in scope for an encyclopedic article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd send it up for deletion. Looks like someone's collection of "movie references to historical figures" DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts on it that it looks overly like fan-cruft, thanks for confirming it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this article was the result of editors on Japanese history being fed up with the pop culture sections in historical biographies, and decided to roll them all up in the same article. I suggest to take this issue with WT:JAPAN. _dk (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Having an article to dump everything into in my opinion isn't the best idea. Per WP:NOTDIR, wikipedia isn't a list or repositories of loosely associated topics. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Chi (Chobits) and its fictional history

There is a discussion here if whether or not there is excessive content on the character's fictional history. Join us. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gintama the Movie discussion

There is currently an argument about using Imdb and ANN encyclopedia as sources for the article at Talk:Gintama: The Movie#Sources. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Free images for seiyuus/singers

I've proposed this a number of times in the past, but these went nowhere, so here I am proposing it again. It would probably be a good idea to contact agencies and labels to donate images of their talents for Wikipedia to use. What do you guys think? Should we do such a thing? If so, what would be the best way to do this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Kenshin characters article

I started a discussion at Talk:List of Rurouni Kenshin characters#Clean up regarding the huge amount of articles in order to debate which articles can stay or be merged. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ongoing" vandalism

I'm sure some of you have noticed this, but recently, there have been a group of accounts all with the same MO: they change the end dates of anime/manga series to "ongoing" to make it appear a series hasn't ended yet. So be on the lookout for any of these accounts:

--十八 09:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Start an SPI report on these accounts. That way, we can see if they share a common IP that can be blocked. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Investigation opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BumpBoBmansw.--十八 23:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I had been noticing it, for some series its almost like a "really?" moment until you realize its vandalism alas. I hope the SPI results in something but I expect it to continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also throw in some user warnings, escalating if they persist in adding the unsourced material. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Listing previous works by directors:

009 Re:Cyborg is a 2012 Japanese anime film by Kenji Kamiyama (Ghost in the Shell, Eden of the East). The film takes place in Cyborg 009's future timeline.

I've noticed on a few pages editors will add in the previous works that artists/directors have done. This is not needed. Other works should be listed only if they are relevant to the topic directly in some way. If readers wish to learn about the careers of the people involved in the production they can click on their article and read up on them. Also, if there are multiple people mentioned in the leed, and editors try to list all their past works, it can become harder to read which is not needed.

Whenever I see this, I remove it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to remove since it's an article about a work of fiction not the director.--65.94.252.53 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

They should be selectively removed. For instance if an artist/director was asked to take charge of a project based on similar experience with their past works then listing one or two—providing you have a reference to back that up—should be no problem. —KirtZ^Message 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Need watchers

It would be really appreciated if a few of you could help watch Kantai Collection (anime) for regular insertion of fancruft and other unnecessary content. All too often intricate fan detail is added (e.g. "X character really likes to eat!!!") and it's really degrading the quality of prose. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "fancruft", but prose should be meaningful and useful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga and page categorization

I've started a discussion on how the infobox template is placing articles into visible (i.e., non-cleanup) categories. I don't think it should be doing that. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox animanga#Template:Infobox animanga and page categorization.

I forgot to sign what I wrote above. Calathan (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

content from wikia

I don't see anything on Wikia saying it's content can be freely taken and reused (compared to Wikipedia which does). Someone has dumped the entire episode summaries of a series from Wikia into an article. Setting aside the summaries being the usual poor one liners that aren't really plot summaries, is it copyvio or not? SephyTheThird (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Most Wikia wikis are licensed CC by SA. This is the same license that Wikipedia uses. However, this license does mean the articles need to attributed to those Wikia articles. (This can be done by comment in the history or an inpage attribution—I prefer comment in page history myself.) You will need to check whether the Wikia wiki in question is CC by SA or another license. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, it's more likely that the plot summaries are low quality however relative to Wikipedia's standard for writing about fiction, since it is content off Wikia. --Izno (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can they be rewritten? I've had to redo a lot of plot summaries that were copy/pasted from wikias. Also tweaked the wikia themselves to be different from here. -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

as much as i like Urusei Yatsura, it's 196 summaries. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced English release dates

Recently, 69.248.183.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been going through some of the anime airing this season and adding in unsourced English air dates, including Kamisama Kiss, The Rolling Girls, Yurikuma Arashi, Absolute Duo, among others, so be on the lookout for this and other questionable contributions.--十八 05:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you reported the user to ANI? If you see any more additions just place a warning template on their page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Are they wrong though? A well-meaning user not aware of citing sources should not be punished. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, upon further investigation, I found that these are the dates from Funimation's new broadcast dubs project. But either way, if we don't currently include Crunchyroll or regular Funimation streams as English air dates in the episode tables, then there's no reason to include these dubbed shows if they're only being streamed online.--十八 06:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's more a question of whether Funimation's new service is considered a legit network, or more of a simulcast localization effort like with Crunchyroll, Hulu, Netflix, Neon Alley and its minimally-added subs. I think it has to be on the level of a Space Dandy or Attack on Titan to warrant adding the English airdate column. Black Lagoon, for example, had been released on video in English years before it ever made it onto G4TV, Funimation Channel and then Adult Swim, so adding English airdates there was pointless. Knights of Sidonia is a trickier situation as Netflix did claim it as a "Netflix original series" but it isn't clear how episodes were released; if it were all in one batch, as with Orange is the New Black, there's no point in having a separate column for English airdate. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) updated 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An air date implies that the series was aired on television (either cable or broadcast). Streams, on the other hand, do not air on television, but to PCs and other web enabled devices. —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is going to become a contentious issue—because IPs are still trying adding the "air dates" for dub streams—perhaps we should consider pulling all English air dates from these lists. Articles, like Doctor Who (series 7) only list the original UK air date and does not give dates for US or other regions. So why should anime give secondary dates? —Farix (t | c) 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Back when {{Japanese episode list}} was created in 2006, it seems to have stemmed from this discussion, which in turn stems from this discussion, which is the result of {{Digimon episode}} having a FirstEngAirDate parameter from its creation a couple months before. And that comes from this original discussion which led to the creation of that template. So it doesn't seem like there was any real discussion as to whether an English air date should be included or not, but I assume it was probably added at the time because they thought it was a useful parameter to have on the English wiki.--十八 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice on Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) and foreign article links.

Hello! This is my first GA review of an Anime/Manga article (and in general), and I have a question about the necessity of providing the foreign link to articles within the paragraphs. In the influences subsection of the the Development section and the Film subsection of the Media section of the article, two links for each section contain an unpublished English article with the Japanese link in parentheses (ja) next to the article. I'm not so sure if it's permissible, so I've decided to ask for assistance in this manner. Would I need to suggest that the editor place the name of the person or work in its original script (whether it's kanji, hiragana, etc.) and remove the (ja) link to the Japanese page, request the Japanese script in place of the (ja) and keep the link to the Japanese Wikipedia, or do I need to do something else? Please respond as soon as you can. I haven't place my official review yet, as I still need to check the sources and reread the article for potential errors. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Should be okay. It just becomes a mater of preference. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see as much of a problem, so I won't request changes to it. LeftAire (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I would move the Japanese link to a footnote instead of having it inline. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The mechanism for such inline Wikipedia links exists and is implemented as intended in the Nausicaa article according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interlanguage_links. Why deprive readers of direct access to articles in the original language of a work, if, as is the case here, English language articles are not -yet- available? Already one link has been changed before this discussion was concluded. Why? At some point 沙漠の魔王 can get an article of its own in English, given its influence on manga and anime it is probably a good idea to write an article for it and Fukushima himself rather than purge references to his work even if it is in a different language Wikipedia article. What would be the reason for not leaving those links red with additional links to Japanese language articles - as they were in the Nausicaa article? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about not leaving redlinks? All I suggested was moving external links to Japanese articles to a footnote or a reference, just as any other external link used as a reference. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in the comment to which you are responding, one of the links was edited out of the Nausicaa article and in its place a nihongo3 template without linking was used for 沙漠の魔王. I asked why this edit was done and explained why I thought it would be better to leave that entry the way it was before - with a red link for the potential Wikipedia page in English and with the interlanguage wikipedia link to the corresponding article in Japanese. I have seen no motivation for changing the way it was originally done in the Nausicaa article - in which such links were implemented in accordance with the way they are described on the help page referenced above.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounded like my edit. I don't remember removing any red links, but some of the Nihongo templates weren't used right. Ex, the Naushika no koto in the influences is getting stylized as Japanese text. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case it sounds like the link removal was an unintended byproduct of your edit to to correct the way the Japanese text was entered - which means the link can probably be restored without objection and any other text display issues can be addressed. Thank you for clarifying. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:.hack chronology

Do we really need this? It doesn't bother me if this gets prodded or not, but if we're keeping it then someone should update it with the franchise's other works. I don't know anything about .hack's other media to update it. I'd imagine it would get pretty long though. —KirtZ^Message 11:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See also the WP:VG discussion on chronology templates and the discussions linked from there. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't prod that or any other template. Prod can only be used on articles, lists, and disambiguation pages. Anyway, for the chronology, I don't think it is very useful. I think a page like List of .hack media which has room to explain in words where everything falls in the chronology would be a better place to explain the chronology. Even if the template is kept, I think it would be too cluttered to add in everything that is happening at the same time (e.g. the .hack//G.U. games have a movie adaptation, a manga adaptation, and a novel adaptation . . . but I don't think it would be useful to list all of those next to the main GU entry on the template). Calathan (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion before I go away for the weekend but I feel that this template isn't needed, send it to WP:TFD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a navbox that can be used to lay out all the works in the franchise. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Made a TfD over here. —KirtZ^Message 00:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN involving fellow editor

A discussion about my editing is brought up in WP:AN. if you want to know more, WP:AN#Lucia Black Topic Ban Review> Lucia Black (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP Problem

We currently have 568 BLP articles needing additional sources articles lacking sources. To me this is not right and is something we as a project should focus on. I did a sweep here on some and found that there are many that just rely on one reference or have external links count as references. Another trend I saw was copy/pasted info from ANN's user edited encyclopedia. Does anyone know a way this can be tackled? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping we could convert the bulk of them to filmography tables sorted in chronological order that require sources for each entry. A lot of those entries can at the minimum have references to their primary source resumes and official actor websites until they are combed through with other RS'es such as BTVA (english website), anime convention announcements, and Hitoshi Doi's Seiyuu database website. There is no real loss for cutting or commenting out the unsourced filmography entries. Also External links will still have ANN and IMDb entries. One filmographies are built up cleanly, writing biographies can easily flow from there. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

: The problem I see with tackling these is that even if a filmography becomes sufficiently sourced to remove the tag, like what I've done with Troy Baker, it doesn't really improve the article to a higher assessment like a decent biographical writeup would, so it becomes difficult to get motivated to do the work. We need folks who like to write biographies and describe how the person is contributing to the manga and anime industry, highlighting their significant roles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry this rant would require a lot more than we have people to handle, so back to the task at hand.

Anyway, most of the entries listed are for the Japanese VAs so they can be checked against Doi's database or cite episode / closing credits where possible. We need to get them to the point where a good chunk of the filmography and article is sourced to get the tag off. -AngusWOOF (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that this project by itself is shorthanded and fixing 568 articles would be incredibly difficult. Most of the tags there might not even be warranted. That being said, the problem here is actually getting people motivated enough to tackle this issue. I've been meaning to restart a thread we had a few months back whereby we select a few articles to work on each month but I'm having trouble coming up with ideas on how we could go about selecting pages—taking into account our lack of manpower, and that there are pages people simply aren't interested in working on etc. That lack of interest is probably why so many articles get tagged in the first place. —KirtZ^Message 15:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Manpower by itself is one thing, it's manpower that is well versed in how to do things that we really need (or at least the dedication to learn). We have lots of people contributing to character lists in articles or perhaps episodes of currently running series but those people don't contribute to the rest of an article. Unfortunately it's this type of editor who is likely to drop by BIO pages to add roles (or if they feel especially bold, to start them). First I would deal with the BLP articles lacking any sources at all (9). Then pick out the more obvious names in the bigger list for examination. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to tackle this, here are some of my suggestions:

A. Focus on the oldest ones first (Lets start with the first 10 - 25).
B. Focus on actors/actresses you admire and/or like their work.
C. Focus on the articles that have the BLP problem as the only issue first. Multiple problems in an article can seem overwhelming.

I cant do it alone though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's move this project to WP:ANIME/BIO. I think we can organize and prioritize from there. A lot of the entries currently there are way out of date, it could use a makeover. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Any updates to this? We could try translating biographies from respective Japanese Wikipedia articles. The problem is that Japanese articles are full of trivia. At least some info has sources. Is this a good idea? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should send a-lot of the articles to AfD. WP:ENT is a good guideline but there are many articles about people who have had minor roles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I started with the "no references" or "only IMDb references" ones. Knowledgekid87 had already gone through and converted them from "no source" to "improve source with footnotes". Then I commented out all their unsourced roles, and started adding their roles as sourced by their official resume profile or other articles. That should be enough to get them off the list. When I got to Miki Fujitani, the actress who voiced Kaoru in Ruroni Kenshin, I grinded to a halt because she's in a ton of live-action television dramas. Surprisingly, her only real anime role was Kaoru, and Chun-Li in some Street Fighter video games, but that's about it. Translating her roles from her profile is a large endeavor. The other major task is that many of the English VAs were tagged for BLP sources because the editor did not like that the sources were primary or straight from the episode Talk:Michelle_Ruff#BLP_sources_--_overreliance_on_primary_sources. I disagreed though, in that "cite episode" and "cite video game" is good enough for filmography entries. Primaries are not appropriate for the bio writeup or notability though. If you're planning on writing the bio section, JA wikipedia would be great to see how someone's perceived their body of work, but would be difficult to find sources to back that up. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that Japan wiki has more sources regarding the BLPs but I can not translate what would be good sources or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If they look like they could work with cite web, go ahead and bring them over anyways. Someone's bound to figure out which of those are reliable and which are user-generated. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can do that on the talk-pages but if they aren't present on the Japanese Wikipedia then chances are that they aren't notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a terrible rationale which goes against GNG/N. If you cannot translate or read Japanese - please don't attempt to make decisions. Would you try the same in Urdu? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Chris, some of these articles have been un-sourced for years in some cases more than five, if you can get some from wikiproject Japan to help out then great. The way I see it is that deletion isn't forever if in the future someone wants to remake the article with sources then let them. Otherwise, having an article that is under-sourced just sitting around is potentially damaging to the person the article is about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, nobody is doing the work, and rather than just have the article's sit around with no help for years being BLP articles are sensitive then what is the use of having them when the bad outweighs the good? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP articles lacking sources (568) does not mean unsourced - it includes "needs more citations" and some of them are improperly tagged anyways. Deletion is not an alternative to fixing - start with a reasonable focus and move on. Do this too quick or make a big fuss and you will certainly burn yourselves out. I've been trying to tackle a few subjects a day, and it works for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Im not talking about all of them, just the ones that don't have articles over at the Japanese Wikipedia. Sources can be moved over but the ones needing more sources include ones that only have IMDB or ANN present. Leaving BLP articles with un-sourced personal information can cause WP:HARM - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is clear you do not understand. Make a list of these articles and follow WP:BEFORE. Then the people who can read and write Japanese can assist in fixing those issues before you try and AFD them, but do not be surprised that you will get push back because AFD is not a means to force improvement of notable subjects - even BLPs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris there are no people to fix them, they have sat as needing sources for years and it isn't just a few that have this. I understand the WP:BEFORE policy and I don't want to do it this way but unless somehow we get the work done the articles are just going to sit there. I can only do so much, if nobody is willing to help out then deletion is better than potentially wrong information in a BLP article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please make a list of these articles so they can be fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The list is above, over 500 BLP articles needing sources, right now I am going through them and the ones that have a corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article with sources I will tag as needing a transwiki done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I stated - many are not "unsourced" and many tags are unnecessary. Many sources "omitted" are mere credits which can typically be sourced with ease. I am sure that the vast majority of those articles are easily fixed with a little care and attention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For seiyuu articles though which are mainly composed of a filmography, are BLP sources tags even necessary? I know the BLP policy and all, but the policy is basically just a stricter implementation of WP:V, which states that everything in an article should be verifiable and that any content likely to be challenged should be sourced. Given that roles can easily be verified by clicking on respective article links, do the articles even need to be tagged in the first place?

Also, in a related topic, we really need to beef up our biographies with, well, biographies. Even some of our articles on the most popular seiyuu like Ayana Taketatsu are just glorified filmographies. I translated Kana Hanazawa's biography from the Japanese Wikipedia a few months ago, but there's still more work to be done.

Finally, in order to further improve our seiyuu biographies, I think it would be a good idea to contact seiyuu agencies and ask them if they could donate free images for their seiyuu. What do you think? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the tags are needed on roles that are WP:BLUE (Vic Mignogna as Edward Elric, Ikue Otani as Pikachu) but I do think the tags that do stay should specify the "reason=" as to why the editor thought it was important that it needs more sourcing than what has been provided. Also it is good to get the new posters into habits of posting the references on adding new credits to filmographies. This is especially important for roles that have been done under an alias. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC) updated 22:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Biography#Process_for_clearing_out_sourcing_tags. This should help categorize some of the work on "unsourced" bios. It also has a statement saying that the filmography section can be referenced using primaries. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And we're making good progress on these. This week's update shows 522. Many of the articles were moved to the Expand Japanese category as their Japanese Wikipedia articles are substantial, but others got some references filled out for filmographies. There are plenty of opportunities for people to write up biographies to beef up the articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Bandai Entertainment

The recent prod of AnimeVillage had me looking at our coverage of Bandai Entertainment. Bandai Entertainment was at one point one of the main companies releasing anime in the US, so I'm surprised that we don't have an article on it. Currently, Bandai Entertainment is a redirect to a section of Bandai Visual, listing Bandai Entertainment as a subsidiary of Bandai Visual. I might be mistaken, but I think this information is incorrect, and that Bandai Entertainment was never a subsidiary of Bandai Visual. Instead, both were separate subsidiaries of Bandai Namco Holdings (though Bandai Visual's actual US subsidiary did get combined into Bandai Entertainment at one point). So I think even the one paragraph we currently have on Bandai Entertainment is in an article where it doesn't belong. I think the best solution to the situation is to undo the redirect of Bandai Entertainment, changing it back into an article, and to remove that paragraph from the Bandai Visual article. However, to do so would require enough sources on Bandai Entertainment to pass the notability guidelines. I've very certain that Anime News Network has lots of coverage of Bandai Entertainment. Is anyone aware of any other good sources besides ANN that could be used to support an article on Bandai Entertainment (anything sufficient to show notability)? Also, about AnimeVillage, my understanding is that it was originally both the name and website of Bandai Entertainment, and afterwards was just a website run by them (which was at one point shut down, then brought back a few years later in a different form, then shut down again). I think if we are able to make an article on Bandai Entertainment, then the AnimeVillage page should be undeleted and merged to the Bandai Entertainment page. Anyway, does anyone have any opinions on this or know of any sources that we could use? Calathan (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth searching ANN (assuming you've not done so), particularly "Hey Answerman" as Justin mentions Bandai and their practices on a number of occasions. Outside of that I'll check with my 3rd edition of Anime Encyclopaedia to see if it gets more than a passing mention. I can also check Clement's "Anime A History".SephyTheThird (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

nothing in either of the books.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking for sources. I'll see if I can fine any more sources anywhere. Calathan (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice onNausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) and foreign article links Part 2

Hello, it's me again. I've encountered a mix of reviewers that feel that the article isn't ready because of the overlapping of material of the manga and the film, and other users who are taking on the process of fixing errors I noted. There were errors that I thought of fixing, but I wonder if the prose is truly GA worthy after re-reading the article. I wanted to ask for a second opinion, and see if it is GA worthy. Please respond when you get the chance, and hopefully I'll be able to respond sometime tonight. LeftAire (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My advice would be to shorten the film section a bit as there is already an article on it and get rid of the infobox in the manga section (looks better in prose). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep both of those suggestions in mind...LeftAire (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your comment above about the Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind_(manga)#Film section and the Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) article is based solely on my suggestions left in the nomination review summary on Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga)/GA1. If so I'd like to point out here -for people who may not have read that page- that my feedback left in your review summary isn't really summed up by what you wrote above. At the very least my remarks about stability based on potentially overlapping material -underneath the summary- weren't meant to be confined to the film section and film article but encompass the realisation that neither the manga nor the film article can be considered truly stable unless Nausicaä (character), List of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind characters and The Art of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind: Watercolor Impressions are all also improved to the satisfaction of all those previously involved in editing all the Nausicaa related content. In the past suggestions were made by other editors to split more material out to create additional lists and articles. I must also point out that my own suggestions are about expanding rather than about reducing content (I personally don't see the need to reduce the film section of the manga article, for example, but suggested that concepts touched on in that section of the manga article still need more attention in other parts of the article (Utopian concepts and Religious studies were mentioned specifically in that regard. I also wrote inside your review notes that the influence of Nakao should be expanded further rather than having the sentence pointing to Yoshioka removed and that the impact of Minamata should be explored in more detail etc). All this since available sources are still un-utilized and under-utilised, imo. Furthermore I explained why I didn't see all your suggestions for changing the way the manga article was written necessarily as improvements (see my response to what you suggested about Takekuma, for example) I also left comments regarding links and citations (based on your remarks about a link to a magazine home page in the references for what are essentially paper and ink magazines such as Animage and also Yomu).Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@LeftAire: - The differences in the manga and the film are great and the comparison and depth is warranted because they are so different in depth, plot, and themes. All articles are supposed to be able to stand-alone, and overlapping material or longer references to certain works are acceptable. This is under WP:RELART - Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork. In this case the "film" is an oddball, it is not a faithful adaptation and it is a small part of the whole work. Appropriately, these differences in themes should be given to the reader to not only understand these differences exist, but the context and differences themselves. It is comprehensive - at a Featured Article level - and to use the comparative analysis by showing the film's messiah focus with Miyazaki's animistic focus. So I believe the information depth is fine because of the necessity of giving this information to the reader. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Verso.Sciolto: I meant to respond yesterday to your take on my suggestions, but I had went to sleep beforehand to get ready for work. I think I've misunderstood you originally and for that I'm sorry. There's nothing wrong with the film section at all, and I had originally wrote during the review that I enjoyed how it was able to tie in the film in contrast to the manga without derailing the article. I was concerned about the prose being a GA level (given the subject matter and this being my first review, I was uncertain and just wanted to make sure). I did say that I'll keep the suggestions in mind, but that didn't mean I was going to change it just because it was suggested to me. I'll leave the article as it is regarding Takekuma. I would have to familiarize myself with other aspects of the manga through the sources to make a decision on recognizing its significance, and I trust your words on it. My apologies for not mentioning it yesterday...LeftAire (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: I agree with your assessment, more or less, and thanks for the WP:RELART info. LeftAire (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow up. Based on your previous comment about the film section in the GA review notes on the manga article's talk page, your first comment here surprised me a little so what you have written in response is reassuring to me. I don't think time is really that important either. Happy anniversary. 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed template

I have been thinking and rather than having the current templates that say:

"This article needs attention from an expert in anime and manga. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Anime and manga (or its Portal) may be able to help recruit an expert."

What it should say is:

(Proposal 1)

"This article needs attention from someone who has watched/read this series before to expand upon it's contents. (Optional add) -> "WikiProject Anime and manga (or its Portal) may be able to help."

(Proposal 2)

"This article needs attention from someone who has followed this series and has knowledge about it's storyline to expand upon it's contents." (Optional add) -> "WikiProject Anime and manga (or its Portal) may be able to help."

I feel here that the wording of "Expert" is a bit much and what is an "expert in anime and manga" supposed to mean? The focus of the template should be the cleanup of the particular article and not trying to recruit an expert in general of the broad subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am open to more proposals or ideas here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those changes would be good. Content that we are adding to articles should be based on reliable sources. We wouldn't want to encourage people to add information to articles based just on their own experience of watching/reading a series. I think the issue is more that the current template is being used in places where it doesn't belong. I think that template should be used in cases where it would be difficult for someone not already very familiar with the subject to go out and look up sources easily, either because the subject is so broad that it would require a significant time investment to become familiar with it, or because the subject is obscure and significant effort would be needed to find sources. For most individual series, I don't think that is the case. Among the articles currently in Category:Anime and manga articles needing expert attention, I see Children's anime and manga and Story manga as the sort of broad article that would actually benefit from an expert who has put a significant amount of work into researching manga (e.g., Jason Thompson). I think most of the other articles currently in that category really just need more sources, and shouldn't be tagged as needing expert attention. Calathan (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the "expert" method because it's easy for someone who thinks themselves a big fan to think they are an "expert". On the other hand, both of the suggestions assume that someone being familiar with the series makes them "qualified" to fix a page. I know when I started editing, I was drawn towards an article tagged for "expert attention" and it took some time for me to learn the system, and that was with advice. Really they are different versions of the same issue, articles need people who both know the series and also know how to edit a page to a standard, and often it's one or the other. I'm also wary of asking people to expand an article based purely on knowledge as this can result in too much attention being paid to plot and trivial character details and not other information like reception or media details. In my opinion we need more focus on non-plot related content and reducing the bias towards animated adaptions (it's not uncommon to see anime sections updated frequently but the manga section to be completely empty). No excuse for lack of reception when shows are being reviewed per episode as they air on ANN and Fandom post. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Date A Live

Is anyone familiar with this series? I have just created a character and episode list. If you have watched the series or are a fan it would be helpful if some sources were added from the episodes so it is not WP:OR. I will do what I can finding things for reception for the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, checking the websites:

In the anime, there are 13 listed in the main. HERE
In the first game, there are 9 mains and a bunch of subs. HERE
In the second game there are 11 mains and a bunch of subs. HERE
The Vita game has 14 mains and a bunch of subs HERE
Fujumi Shobo has 8 mains in some relationship diagram HERE

Looks like a pain to go through each of the iterations but at least there are descriptions under each character that can make up its profile. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I included those as external links for the characters, they can be used as references but I cant read Japanese. As for the anime, the series looks interesting and I might get it to watch but until then don't know the series enough to cite it by episode. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Excuse me for cutting in. If you want to create a "episode list", I recommend that you read this novel in English to understand a meaning or a situation. Also on:

Date A Live

I hope this will help.--Infinite0694 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Infinite0694: I didn't originally create the content, the main article had grown so large that I made two splits one for the characters and the other for the episodes as per norm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agency for Cultural Affairs Database

Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs recently opened an online database that they have been developing since 2010. As this is part of the Government Ministry of Eduction and not user edited this should easily qualify as RS.

http://mediaarts-db.jp

Should be useful for release dates if nothing else. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Government Ministry of Eduction would cover anime and manga. It may cover ones based off of historical figures or stories but I dont know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's actually Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [2], but that is some crazy mega department that is often shortened in (english language) coverage.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I Approve. That is an impressive source for airdates. Looking at it, episodes that air after midnight are counted as the day after, like normal time. Will be useful for future arguments. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay add it to WP:A&M/RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

At last, we now have a reliable source with the actual air dates and not those "faux" dates that gives the reader the impression that the series aired a day earlier than it did. —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Himari Noihara

Just a heads up, I have made and just need to include manga info for Himari from Omamori Himari. If anyone here follows the show and wants to help out, feel free. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

English air dates on series not broadcast in English

RisaPlayer88 is just the latest editor to add in English air dates to anime series that have not been picked up for any satellite, cable, or other TV network. While many of these series may be available from streaming websites, the use of "English air date"—which implies that the series was broadcasted on a satellite, cable, or other TV network—is grossly misleading. If we go with the dates the series is available via streams, then those dates should reflect the simulcast dates of the subtitled version. —Farix (t | c) 18:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a message or two on her talkpage, it would be great if she could join our project and make positive contributions rather than these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Is this[3] what you were talking about? I reckon that we should go with a coal-and-ice policy on that matter, so I agree with the statement that you said.--Infinite0694 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Simulcasts in English subtitles do not require English air dates to be filled out in the episode listing, as they are treated like a second network broadcasting in its first run but later in the week. This would apply to Crunchyroll, which also localizes subtitles to many regions. English air dates should be more for traditional broadcasts on channel. It should not include the video on demand services unless that is the primary method of broadcast as with a web series / webisode / ONA / YouTube series.

The recent plan of Funimation simul-dubbing for its members can be grouped with the simulcast one. They are usually produced and released soon after the original. On the other hand, if they had a world premiere on Funimation Channel, Anime Network, or Adult Swim, then they could be considered, again, as long as it's not a case where it wasn't already released straight-to-video. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm talking about. But as I said before when this issue previously came up, I'm all for removing "English air date" if what constitutes an English broadcast becomes a contentious issue. Does anyone know of any other cases outside of anime where secondary air dates are given? —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can base a decision on what other project may do, because anime seems more likely to receive english broadcasts than say, asian drama (this is a US/UK generalisation as I simply don't know how English speaking regions in say, Asia handle imported products). I also think removing it simply because people are using it for simulcasts to be akin to using a hammer to open a peanut casing. There are plenty of legitimate uses for it, the amount of anime broadcast on US/UK tv has been significant enough that the feature has a legitimate use. What if a series is broadcast after it's streaming? Either way I'm against removing it completely, but completely agree it shouldn't be used for streaming, which is subject to debate about it's actual release date anyway. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pocket Monsters manga deletion proposal.

There is a discussion regarding the deletion of a hand-full of Pocket Monsters manga articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga#Pocket Monsters manga deletion proposal. More input would be helpful. Thanks. —KirtZ^Message 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Animerica Vol. 8, No. 2 - Does anyone have this?

Does anyone have a copy of Animerica Vol. 8, No. 2?

See this 2004 listing of series starting in "M" referred to in Animerica (Archive).

(I am aware that Animerica was published by the same company that published Magical Pokemon Journey in English, so it may not count as an "independent" source, but I'd like to see what the magazine says anyway).

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No sorry, I am just subscribed to Otaku USA, but good luck in your search =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look around and see what I find! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

End of Mania.com?

There has been an announcement that Mania.com will "officially close our doors on March 31st". I am a little surprised this wasn't posted here earlier. – Allen4names (contributions) 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people actually use the main page as anime content hasn't been updated in years - I know I don't as it's always been difficult to find the content and I use google results whenever I use it. Going forward we should start switching to archives, but with any luck they will keep the site online for some time. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I just hope they keep the site intact. Lots of articles use Mania to the reception sections.Tintor2 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to generate a list of every one of our anime/manga articles that use Mania as a source? Mania as said above has been used as reviews and I feel these should be archived. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

not sure but it's probably safe to say all of our B/FA class articles will all be using it if we need a place to start.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You use to be able to mass archive using WikiCite. Ah, here it is. —Farix (t | c)

Fairy Tail English air dates

With regards to a previous discussion about the inclusion of English air dates, we have a problem over at the Fairy Tail lists. It seems as though some editors have been using the DVD release dates in place of actual TV broadcasts. Can someone take a look and include the actual dates when the episodes were broadcast on Funimation Channel or some other TV network? I don't have access to the the Funimation channel so I can't perform any kind of verification. Thanks.—KirtZ^Message 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Strip the dates that are obviously DVD/Blu-ray releases and leave notes on the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One Piece GAR

Link. I would appreciate a consensus before going through a GAR closing run. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I won't read the article too closely as I'm deliberately holding back on the series and don't want spoilers. However while it clearly needs some work with all those tags I strongly object to the conclusion of the GAR process until a reasonable amount of time is given to allow the article to be fixed. The complete lack of any discussion being started on the talk page of the actual article is rather concerning. Give people a chance to do it and then fail it if nothing changes or it still falls short.personally I find it disappointing someone started the GAR without at least mentioning their thoughts first.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably should've added "in the coming future". GARs typically last for four weeks, and the last time they I swept them was in December. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you guys have awards so we need help in

adding the award on this award which is located on that Wikiproject's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#About_new_award_does_it_look_good.3F

We tried adding it to Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject but during preview the layout fails, so we can not add the award, can you please help this wiki project get their award added to the list. Please help us!Doorknob747 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

never mind problem fixed. Doorknob747 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for revival of news letter service

I think the news letter shuold comeback who agrees. Doorknob747 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There was one? Why'd it stop? Tezero (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Its defunct. Apparently the editor who started the drive gave up on it. I don't see the point to be honest. Its the same information you find on the project's five main pages anyway. I was going to opt to delete the page altogether. —KirtZ^Message 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion as it gives a window on how things were at x date, good to mark as historical. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what you are trying to say, but that can be sent to the archives, in order for the page to be kept the page must be used, or there is no need for it and it should be deleted. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia kept for historical purposes.--十八 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we do it to the time line?

Here is what I mean, i have placed refs with it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam_Build_Fighters_Try#Relationship_to_G_Gundam

also this is what i mean on the time line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gundam_Build_Fighters_Try

What do you people think about it adding to timeline? Doorknob747 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section as the sources were searches on bing and would never be consistent or reliable, and it also contains references to reviewers by random bloggers. The only thing that can be concluded, assuming that this blogger is a reliable source (he only posts on Yahoo Contributor Network and other volunteer places) is that in episode 7 contains references to G-Gundam and Gundam Seed Destiny HERE. Fighters Try is already timelined as a sequel to Fighters. Why show that it should be intermingled with the rest? -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And please do not write messages like "DO NOT DELETE THIS" into the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

look this time there are no blogs!Doorknob747 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Facebook fanpage link on Anime

Doorknob747 has recently added a link to a G Gundam Facebook fanpage to Anime. The first time he added the link, he prompted readers to "go like the page and followit". Naturally, this is linkspam and the link has nothing to do with the general topic of anime, so I removed it. However, Doorknob747 insisted that the link is appropriate and qualifies under WP:ELMAYBE #4.[4] Despite an explanation that unofficial fanpages do not fall under that criteria,[5] he insists on keeping the link in the article.[6][7] Also note that this editor also edits under the IP 72.68.241.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and has attempted to add the link to other articles.[8][9] I would like a third opinion on this matter. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I have undone the edits, a discussion must be held before the undoing process happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion if the editor is using it as promotion then it is promotion and needs to be removed as spam. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Facebook borders too much on User Generated content and is not something I can endorse. Its also highly suspect that the user in question would request that people go like the page, perhaps suggesting that they themselves made the link. Additionally, point #10 of WP:ELNO clearly frowns upon Facebook as a external link. —KirtZ^Message 01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually have to talk about the rule #10, with my admin friend, some of the rules are old as 2006 before Social media was so popular. - Doorknob747 (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

. :( He said that the rules were edited already on 2011. he said that on the original 2006 rule was that not even official fan pages on Facebook were allowwed, but since the wide usage of probable official fan pages on social media, the rule was removed. He said to wait another 3 years for such a proposal to possibly be accepted.

The point, that you seem to be missing, is that unofficial fan pages on social networking sites will never be acceptable because they fall under self-published sources that have no reliability to their name, nor will they somehow gain it in the future.--十八 23:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK i understand,but I am just going to ask you something, if someone wanted to use a post on facebook that they made,BUT the post contains refs to back it up is it aceeptable?

Simplest thing to do is not post links to Facebook or use it as a source unless it's from the company with the licence, regardless of the text. If they use links to reliable sources in the text just use the original source.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Animage Grand Prix references:

Animage

Article contains a big list of citations that are formatted as raw urls. First it links to the google translation of it. Second, the pages don't seem to load. The references need to be formatted as proper references, and if needed to use the waybackmachine.

The page also mostly consists of a list of the Grand Prix award winners. The list is big enough to perhaps warrant its own page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the pages probably don't load due to changes to Google Translate as once you strip the url to the source, it works fine. I've made a test change of changing the 1979 entries to a single condensed direct ref, without translation links or archives. I don't believe the archive's are necessary but the need for a translation is up for debate. I haven't changed any more because I want to see if there is any feedback before doing a lot of changes that may need modifying. I don't see any need to split the list as it will simply make the magazine article too short and without sources. Perhaps in the future, but that would mean improvements to the article. SephyTheThird (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine. Keep going. References don't link to translation pages, specifically to avoid those types of issues. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

can someone help me find a verifyable proof for this huge anime industry suprise in gundam series

this is going viral on tumblr, tumblr is not reliable, so does anyone know where we can find a reliable source that proves this true!

ther is a lot more, i feel domon kassu is back. But, as per wikipedia rules say, need reliable resourses. :( so I was thinking can we put this for mid to high importance for this week?Doorknob747 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on, but if it's some plot development you can reference it with primary sources. Looking at your recent edits, you seem new at this, and seem to be adding your own opinions and speculations to Gundam Build Fighters. Don't. Look at Tales of Symphonia, no matter how many references it has to another game, it's been limited to two sentences at most. Confirmation it is in the same world, and released with intended connections to the prequel. If you really plan on improving Gundam Build Fighters to something decent, remove the Mecha section, and restructure the character list. An example. No Game No Life DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed your links, all of them. Here are my responses

I'm assuming you want to restore the Relationship to G Gundam, a section full of speculations people have about whatever's going on. No, WP:OR. Wait for something official. At best, all you can do is add an episode summary saying "with XXX making an appearance at the end". No you can't add "This reveals the series takes place after G Gundam" inside the episode summary." It's a plot summary, not a place to add your speculations
Calm down. You're acting in good faith but you are acting like a typical disruptive fan editor. Your edits have been rightly reverted. If you want to stick around, you need to write objectively. All your current edits have been unhelpful. Look at the recent GA articles for an idea of the prose style.
I've already told you how to improve Gundam Build Fighter. Information will most likely be cut, not added. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Doorknob747, let's get a few things straight:

Gundam Build Fighters and Gundam Build Fighters Try are metafictional series based on the Gunpla kit franchise. The addition of characters from other Gundam series is part of the series' Easter Eggs. Just because Domon Kasshu appears in the ending credits of episode 25 of Gundam Build Fighters Try does not mean the series is a direct tie-in to Mobile Fighter G Gundam. That's like saying both Build Fighters series should directly tie-in to Mobile Suit Gundam because of Mr. Ral.
As stated by other editors, Bing, Tumblr, and fan sites such as MAHQ are not reliable sources of information.
Quite frankly, your grammar needs improvement. A lot of improvement.

Let that sink in before you decide to reply. - Areaseven (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a note on Door's talkpage, hopefully it helps to clear up any misunderstandings. I hope he will be a constructive member but there are only so many things you can tell someone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So sources from Turrner Brodcasting and the news📰 are not considered reliable?

Given your history of posting false information on other articles using an IP,[10][11][12](on my talk page) we are not going to take your word for it. —Farix (t | c) 21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Scans

If anyone is interested in working on the following articles, I can give you scans from AnimeUk for them.

As well as Gundam in general. However as the Gundam content requires some experience in distinguishing between useful content and fancruft I will only give that content to experienced editors. The rest is open to all who want to work on it. This list will increase as I go through the scanning process, and if anyone takes up those series I will give you more scans in future from other sources as I come across them. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any articles that cover the Gundam mecha designs in any details? I would be curious as I am anxious to resurrect some of the list of mobile suites articles, starting with Gundam 00 (which was in the best shape before it was deleted) and then the original series. —Farix (t | c) 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gundam is split over 3 issues, consisting of general science, in-universe history and a more general terms+production on the series. I'm not sure there is much on production and design of the individual mechs. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Animage Grand Prix references:

Animage

Article contains a big list of citations that are formatted as raw urls. First it links to the google translation of it. Second, the pages don't seem to load. The references need to be formatted as proper references, and if needed to use the waybackmachine.

The page also mostly consists of a list of the Grand Prix award winners. The list is big enough to perhaps warrant its own page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the pages probably don't load due to changes to Google Translate as once you strip the url to the source, it works fine. I've made a test change of changing the 1979 entries to a single condensed direct ref, without translation links or archives. I don't believe the archive's are necessary but the need for a translation is up for debate. I haven't changed any more because I want to see if there is any feedback before doing a lot of changes that may need modifying. I don't see any need to split the list as it will simply make the magazine article too short and without sources. Perhaps in the future, but that would mean improvements to the article. SephyTheThird (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine. Keep going. References don't link to translation pages, specifically to avoid those types of issues. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

can someone help me find a verifyable proof for this huge anime industry suprise in gundam series

this is going viral on tumblr, tumblr is not reliable, so does anyone know where we can find a reliable source that proves this true!

ther is a lot more, i feel domon kassu is back. But, as per wikipedia rules say, need reliable resourses. :( so I was thinking can we put this for mid to high importance for this week?Doorknob747 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on, but if it's some plot development you can reference it with primary sources. Looking at your recent edits, you seem new at this, and seem to be adding your own opinions and speculations to Gundam Build Fighters. Don't. Look at Tales of Symphonia, no matter how many references it has to another game, it's been limited to two sentences at most. Confirmation it is in the same world, and released with intended connections to the prequel. If you really plan on improving Gundam Build Fighters to something decent, remove the Mecha section, and restructure the character list. An example. No Game No Life DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed your links, all of them. Here are my responses

I'm assuming you want to restore the Relationship to G Gundam, a section full of speculations people have about whatever's going on. No, WP:OR. Wait for something official. At best, all you can do is add an episode summary saying "with XXX making an appearance at the end". No you can't add "This reveals the series takes place after G Gundam" inside the episode summary." It's a plot summary, not a place to add your speculations
Calm down. You're acting in good faith but you are acting like a typical disruptive fan editor. Your edits have been rightly reverted. If you want to stick around, you need to write objectively. All your current edits have been unhelpful. Look at the recent GA articles for an idea of the prose style.
I've already told you how to improve Gundam Build Fighter. Information will most likely be cut, not added. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Doorknob747, let's get a few things straight:

Gundam Build Fighters and Gundam Build Fighters Try are metafictional series based on the Gunpla kit franchise. The addition of characters from other Gundam series is part of the series' Easter Eggs. Just because Domon Kasshu appears in the ending credits of episode 25 of Gundam Build Fighters Try does not mean the series is a direct tie-in to Mobile Fighter G Gundam. That's like saying both Build Fighters series should directly tie-in to Mobile Suit Gundam because of Mr. Ral.
As stated by other editors, Bing, Tumblr, and fan sites such as MAHQ are not reliable sources of information.
Quite frankly, your grammar needs improvement. A lot of improvement.

Let that sink in before you decide to reply. - Areaseven (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a note on Door's talkpage, hopefully it helps to clear up any misunderstandings. I hope he will be a constructive member but there are only so many things you can tell someone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So sources from Turrner Brodcasting and the news📰 are not considered reliable?

Given your history of posting false information on other articles using an IP,[13][14][15](on my talk page) we are not going to take your word for it. —Farix (t | c) 21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Scans

If anyone is interested in working on the following articles, I can give you scans from AnimeUk for them.

As well as Gundam in general. However as the Gundam content requires some experience in distinguishing between useful content and fancruft I will only give that content to experienced editors. The rest is open to all who want to work on it. This list will increase as I go through the scanning process, and if anyone takes up those series I will give you more scans in future from other sources as I come across them. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any articles that cover the Gundam mecha designs in any details? I would be curious as I am anxious to resurrect some of the list of mobile suites articles, starting with Gundam 00 (which was in the best shape before it was deleted) and then the original series. —Farix (t | c) 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gundam is split over 3 issues, consisting of general science, in-universe history and a more general terms+production on the series. I'm not sure there is much on production and design of the individual mechs. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

hey guys look what i did

GO to main page of project and you will see this link : Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/doc1

This is a wikipedia essay and you will understand why I placed a link there on the part of this project's main page based of what you read after seeing the essay. Doorknob747 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I put it up for deletion, we don't need an essay to differentiate anime from other media, the main article itself should've done a decent job of that. Door, what do you want to do on Wikipedia? If you want to do something useful, I suggest you ask someone here to mentor you, and that you actually try and listen to the advice they provide. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Although this is not part of this Wikiproject, but another, when you say something helpfull you mean like this? link Doorknob747 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll review your edits to LaFerrari and provide you with various advice.([16]).

You're gathering all the rumors of the upcoming new model. Not useful nor helpful since they are just unconfirmed rumors or speculations as far as I could tell. I didn't review all the sources because you've added too much for me to bother. Wikipedia:Citation overkill. You should use citeweb templates also, my user page has an empty template I often use.
Exclamation mark, are you serious? I'm starting to think you're just trolling now. Your edits and edit summaries also seem to suggest this. What you should do is look for a mentor, and start posting on their talk page instead of project pages for basic Wikipedia guidance.
Next time I see a silly edit summary, I'm ignoring you. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

One way to get sources and/or check notability: Lists of past magazine issues and their contents

One way that editors may use to check for notability of individual manga series is by going through lists of past issues of magazines about manga (in other words they are third parties writing articles about them).

Some possibilities:

Animerica had a list here, Example. This was published by VIZ Media
Newtype USA (I haven't found a list for that one yet, but it would be crucial)
fr:AnimeLand had a list here, Example - AnimeLand is a French manga and anime magazine (if you wish to consult this list, please get the French title of the series that you have in mind as it may differ from the English title)

It would be important to know about the Japanese manga magazines. Having such a list and/or having contacts over at JAWiki who know how to get back issues would be very important. Getting good secondary sourcing from these magazines may "rescue" articles about individual series. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much reviews or mentions add to the notability of a manga on this WikiProject. Perhaps that is what you should be asking here..? More opinions are welcome since I'm interested in this too. —KirtZ^Message 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia as an example of reviews adding to notability. A trivial mention does not add to notability but significant coverage of something does. These principles affect all articles in all subject areas on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have no problem with this principle. I've never seen that practiced on this WikiProject while I've been active here. The problem with this is that, most manga get reviews if you look in the right places. If we go with this, then most of them that was deleted from in the past was wrongly so. —KirtZ^Message 02:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I think that is up for debate, at various times the amount of manga released per month was way beyond the capability of reviewing (both for time and mag space), so most of the time you were still limited to a handful of titles reviewed.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is true that there are, for example, more novels released per month than reviewers could possibly handle. It means that the unlucky novels not reviewed by "Wikipedia-reliable" sources and without coverage elsewhere may not be able to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Notability_(books) actually exists mainly to allow articles for works that aren't GNG compliant but may have achieved notoriety in other ways. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have Newtype USA here from December 2006 to the last issue February 2008. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Do you have "Passion and dreams." Newtype USA. November 2007. Volume 6. Number 11. p. 50-51? I would like to have a scan of that article. I used it as a source for Light Yagami and I would like to have a copy of it so I can see if there's any more notable content I can get from the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled by this point being raised frankly. I don't think we really need to be told that we can use magazine articles and reviews as sources, actually I think it's rather condescending to assume we don't already do this. The problem is that when you start collecting magazines it becomes very difficult, very quickly to keep track of what is in each one. Features are only one aspect, for example that Animerica list doesn't tell you what they reviewed per issue and such a list is very difficult and time consuming to build. I started doing my own spreadsheet to keep track of what was in each issue and gave up after 5 issues. Never mind the 60 I now have, just for Animerica. I've got about 160 anime magazines now and it's impossible to keep track of anything but the headline articles. It's extremely tedious and time consuming to list the entire contents of a magazine. We have had a list of user owned magazines for years but it can be a massive pain to edit all that table code so people tend not to use it.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sephy, the particular point was the archived lists of back issues and their contents. These lists allow Wikipedians to determine exactly which magazines they need. Also it is good to keep track of non-US/UK/Canada/Singapore magazines as those may have content previously known to English-speaking editors. Perhaps the average American editor may not realize that a French source may be useful to him or her when writing about a Japanese manga. It's important to remind him/her of this.

It is good to periodically remind the userbase of what tools they may have at their disposal since not everyone is experienced in using and obtaining sources. In fact I would like to have these lists on a permanent "toolbox" type page so all editors are reminded of what tools are out there.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Except they are only partial lists and only useful for major features. The chances are that if a series has notability concerns, you need to be looking for reviews and other mentions which won't be listed on a table of contents (like comparisons to a series within the feature for another series). That's why I'm starting to make searchable PDF's of my magazines. Yes, the lists can be useful, but not really for notability. As for non-english magazines, well that's another thing completely due to the obvious language barrier. I know Kappa has lots of information but not reading Italian or even having access to them means I have to settle for english translations of their articles in Manga Mania etc. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. It is true that the lists may not have all of the information since there may be comparisons to other series and other things not picked up in the summaries. One thing that Viz did with Animerica is actually list all of the series mentioned in that magazine (Archive) with the relevant issue numbers. I wish the other magazines did something like that. Also, I'm glad that you're making the searchable PDFs of those magazines. That will be even more helpful.

It is true that there's something of a language barrier. In addition to using Manga Mania and Google Translate, some ways of getting around it that I've used are Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, country Wikiprojects, and Wikipedia:Embassy pages on other Wikipedias (French, German, etc.) I personally like using ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo on the Japanese Wikipedia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Protoculture Addicts also has a list but again, it's ignoring most of the notability content in the mag. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised the character of Inuyasha didn't obtain an article. There should be a lot of articles reviewing the manga and dvds. At least that's how it worked for the Tsubasa versions of Syaoran and Sakura.Tintor2 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Spanish publications which may have articles: Minami, ¡Dibus!/¡DibuCómics!, Mega Hiro, Guru Guru and Yukiko. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Italian magazines which have had/may have articles about anime and manga: it:Kappa Magazine, it:Man·ga!, Fumo di China and Scuola di fumetto WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Eureka Seven

Is anyone familiar with the Eureka Seven series? I'm proposing we merge Eureka Seven and Eureka Seven: AO. Being unfamiliar with the series myself, as far as I can tell they are basically the same show with two seasons. The articles have gone the way of a runaway train, consisting mainly of original research and could use a bold cleanup. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of when I tried to get Gundam Seed and Gundam Seed Destiny to merge. As far as I know, the AO has various releases under that name, such as the manga and anime series. It could go either way though depending on who edits and who opposes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well coming from a completely neutral perspective on the series and based on their current states a merge is the logical proposal. It wouldn't be too hard if we trim the excess from Eureka Seven by cutting out the crufty terminologies. Plus the only noteworthy part of AO is the small Media section which can be easily copy-pasted (everything else is unsourced original research. I asked for more opinions but hopefully this makes sense in the spirit of a Spring cleaning if you will. —Kirt^Message 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're taking up the task of merging them, I'd say do it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you can do it much like Last Exile and its Fam Silver Wing. The only parts that wouldn't be merged would be the episode lists as the sequels are set quite apart from each other. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tweak what needs to be tweaking if you guys want. Also, should we PROD List of Eureka Seven mecha? I mean how necessary is this page? After-all they aren't characters, so this might as well be terminology which describes inanimate objects. —Kirt^Message 04:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd PROD the Mecha page. It's unsourced and has no notability beyond the series. If it were a significant franchise like Gundam, that would be different. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It cant be prodded as it has been to AfD twice in the past, you would have to send it through AfD again (3rd nomination). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes used for timeslots

These edits don't seem kosher. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

i'm not sure we have an established practice for this. I'm not sure they are necessary or really add anything, but I don't have a strong objection either. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any problem, and what do you mean kosher? Kosher is related to religion, so is Wikipedia religious?Doorknob747 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it's just an artistic synonym for "acceptable"; calm down. I don't have a strong opinion on the boxes, anyway. Tezero (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

wikt:kosher defn 2. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly in favor of them and don't see how they will be very useful beyond a very small population of readers. For the most part, they are trivial information and at worst, unsourced trivial information. They do take up a lot of real estate. The one issue I do have with Magicperson6969's edits are the removal of white space from the infobox that are there for readability. That should be stopped. —Farix (t | c) 20:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinged WP:WikiProject Television. —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm strongly against such edits, per what Farix stated. In the edit used as a example, not one of the five other shows even has an article. Are we suppose to catalog every Japanese TV station's schedules for the past 50 years? Xfansd (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

After some thought this probably fails something or another in WP:NOT. And I'd definitely peg it for WP:TRIVIA, since the defining factor of the shows isn't when they aired; I think WP:CLN is probably the most pertinent guideline? --Izno (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE seems to apply here. There is far too much detail in the boxes. WP:TV uses {{Infobox television}} which includes |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, so if there is need for such information, it can be included in the infobox without all the unnecessary information. Of course, it's entirely optional. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't do this with animanga infoboxes because it would create a great deal of bloat. Given that the infobox on some articles can be very large just covering the most essential details, any additional bloat is undesirable. —Farix (t | c) 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

By the looks of it, there doesn't appear to be anyone in favor of what Magicperson6969 is doing. Unfortunately, Magicperson6969 has not participated in the discussion by giving an explanation of why he is adding these boxes (and still continues to add them), despite being pinged. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a notice on his talk page inviting him here to the discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

By succession in television, I think more of single positions that are passed to the next person in line as with The Tonight Show hosts and news anchors. It would also not make sense for anime programs as they are frequently broadcast on multiple channels at all sorts of times. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. I find it interesting to know what else was on around the same time, but I can just read the Japanese article for that if we don't include it here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm late...I have a VERY messed-up internet connection. Part of what gave me the idea of doing this is that I noticed that there were some well-known titles that aired on some stations at the same time as some other well-known titles, and figured making succession boxes linking some titles wouldn't be a bad idea. I also dislike when certain things aren't easy to find. Magicperson6969 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In a way it's hard to fault your motivation. However I'd noticed before this was brought up that you have a tendency to do things that while done in good faith, might be worth discussing first - especially if you are going to do it on many pages. I think this was one of them. I think the problems put forward by people outweigh the benefits. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: It should be hard to fault someone's motivation. :) --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this discussion can be summed up as no one supports Magicperson6969's addition of succession boxes and that they should be removed? —Farix (t | c) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's my !vote, but I'd like to see if Magicperson will respond again. Someone should think about pinging him. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Magicperson6969 again

Magicperson6969 is once again editing in a disruptive manner, this time, blanking the talk pages of several redirects that had discussions on them. Anyone want to spend the time to roll them back or have an administrator do it? —Farix (t | c) 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if I do roll them back, will this behavior continue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - Rollbacks done but you should watch this editor and report them if they continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Genres

I may need some assistance. After returning to my genre watch (a rather tedious task), an editor has started text walling me about requiring reliable sources before making any changes to the genre. The main dispute is around Unbreakable Machine-Doll when the editor, 赤羽雷真, added a bunch of new genres to the article. (diff) I reverted the genre change on the bases of it being original research and then found a source (an ANN article) that mentioned the genre. (diff) Afterword, the editor started text walling my talk page with explanations as to why all sources are original research, the genres on the article are wrong/incomplete, that ANN is not a reliable source because they engage in original research and insert their views into articles, that other articles have unsourced information, and that I should not be editing articles if I don't know their subjects first hand. —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There's WP:ANALYSIS which says that the secondary source can add their own interpretation on the primary source (they most often do in reporting the situation). The WP:NOR is supposed to cover interpretation by the Wikipedia editors themselves. -AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, this editor doesn't appear to be willing to acknowledge that WP:NOR applies only to Wikipedia editors. If you fill up to wading through the text wall, you can read their comments on my talk page. —Farix (t | c) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on possible vandal

Be on the look out. I've noticed an IPv6 editor making massive changes to dates on some articles. One of which is Kimba the White Lion, which I've gone through and verified against the Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs' Media Database. I would recommend reverting unless the dates the IP is changing are checked against their sources. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nihon review

Would this be a reliable website for reviews? Link. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on their staff and about page, no because they are a self-published source. If they are to be considered a reliable source, their reviewers need to establish that their previous reviews have been published by reliable third-party publications, which is hard to do when you use pseudonyms. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

if it is not reliable then I would suggest it's removal from the reception sections on a number of articles it is used in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Only used by 7 articles (search), so there shouldn't be an issue with removing them. —Farix (t | c) 22:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Should mech pilot be a category and are Newtypes psychic?

Mech pilots are substantially different than aviators and there's a whole lot of giant mechs in anime. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article Ghost in the Shell (manga) has been placed on hold for over a week. The nominator User:ChrisGualtieri is apparently busy. Should I fail it or will somebody solve the few issues I noted? RegardsTintor2 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't receive a notice from the bot - but I will work on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates discussion at Village Pump

I have started a discussion about verifiability of future air dates at the Village Pump. Comments are welcomed. —Farix (t | c) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sailor Moon RfC

An RfC regarding the addition of LGBT as a main theme is taking place at Talk:Sailor Moon#RfC: Is it relevant to include LGBT as a main theme?. Comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Terminology section at Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?

Would like a second opinion on the terminology section at Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?. I've attempted to remove it twice times on the bases that any terms that need an explenation should be covered in the plot summary, but it keeps getting restored.[17][18] —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section. However, I suggest you try to open up a dialogue with the user/s who wrote the sections or the ones reverting the removal and explain why the project does not endorse plain Terminology sections anymore, rather incorporating them into the plot. —Kirt^Message 12:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote up a paragraph under Setting which contains the terms and their general context. -AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Based of the helpful guide section on the main project page, I made a good proposal.

____I created a small guide book on Wikipedia that has all of the linked pages in the, book. I think the link to the PDF ( two links I have one is for A4 sized paper layout and the other is Letter sized paper layout) the book should be placed in the helpful guide section. This is good to have this book so , if people want to read the pages on the helpful guide section they have a portable PDF that is ready made so they do not have to create it. I already have created the PDF's.

link to A4 page size layout downloadable PDF : 1 (do not use rendering fails on user domain [bug on Wikipedia some one contact wikibug]).

link to Letter size page layout downloadable PDF: 2 (do not use rendering fails!)

Now I know you guys might say I make a bad looking book so here is a link where you guys can edit the book : 3

Now do not say this is not a contribution. Also, as you can see no spelling mistakes or bad grammar this time because, I am editing from my laptop and not my cell phone, and I am a native English speaker!!!!! Thank you, From, Doorknob747 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Im confused, are you trying to sell a book of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sell its free look you can make a book by going too print/export section on left side bar. Doorknob747 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

STOP for a while every one I have a version 2 of book in books domain, Wikipedia domain does not render books good.Doorknob747 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to A4 Size in book domain where rendering works : 4

Doorknob747 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to Letter size in book domain renders good : 5

to edit renerable version : phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Help_guidey 6]

Enough. We don't need this. You're too inexperienced to be doing things like these. Find a mentor, and stick to articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Door try improving some articles =) These proposals you are making are broad and the biggest issue is that you aren't listening to what other editors are telling you. You will find this reaction on any wikiproject you goto if you don't take other's helpful important advice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

im leaving from project bye byeDoorknob747 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It would appear Door created Book:Help guidey. Not really sure what to do with it, other than WP:MFD. We also seem to be a bad project full of wikihounders here.--十八 08:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would send it to MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone might want to request some help from an admin (possibly at WP:ANI?) regarding said user and WP:CLUE. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Originally brought up a couple of days ago [19].SephyTheThird (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

" anime OVA series."

Found another phrase to avoid. It's redundant. OVA already explains that it's animation, so "anime" is not needed. It's the equivalent of saying "Animated original video animation". You can just use the full phrase "original video animation" series. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest phrasing it like: "An OVA was released as an extension of the anime series on DVD". Normally the OVA is either an extension of the series and/or episodes that don't move the plot along (for fun). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OVA is rather cryptic and jargony. It is hard to tell if readers will understand that OVA is synonymous with anime/animation or if they even know what an OVA is. In general, we should not presume that they do know. I'm wonder if the term shouldn't be replaced with "direct-to-video anime". —Farix (t | c) 13:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, there should be a link to the OVA article, so if anyone is confused as to the meaning, they can look it up. Direct to video anime series can also work, but be sure to include a link to the OVA article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't rely on wikilinks as a substitute for plain language. But another alternative would be to avoid the acronym altogether or use "original video anime (OVA)" on the first use. As for extra episodes that were released as part of a TV series but never broadcasted, I would suggest avoid the term altogether and use "bonus episode", "extra episode", or some other variation. —Farix (t | c) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there OVA's released for media besides anime? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think avoiding the acronym would be a step in the wrong direction given how commonplace the term is, especially as it's heavily used by our sources. Introducing the term at first use seems the best way to address it.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are other meanings to the acronym OVA, so it always needs to be disambiguated whenever it is used. —Farix (t | c) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not always, it just needs to be capitalized. OVA leads to Original video animation just as DVD leads to digital versatile disc. While I know you are trying to make things easier for the readers Farix, the term OVA is used more in sources. So if the casual reader comes across the word OVA in the sources we provide, and doesn't know what it means then we would be doing our jobs as editors by providing the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Anime" is literally just the short form of "animation", and for some people a lot of people have forgotten that. And the term OVA is only used in Japanese animation. The reason for the term is that high budget direct to video animation is a uniquely Japanese phenomenon. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying "anime ova" is like saying "automated atm". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not something that is obvious to a general English reader. The key is to write in a way that a general English reader will understand, even if sometimes that means being redundant. An examples the use of "Japanese anime" or "Japanese manga". Given the general confusion over what anime (Japanese animation) and manga (Japanese comics) mean, it is better to be redundant to aid in clarification. —Farix (t | c) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

An anime fan is likely already knowledgeable about it. For new users, it's just one term, and it's not hard to learn. Though we should avoid jargon heavy pages, a single term isn't going to kill anyone. And it's a vital term that for Japanese animation of the mid 80's to 90's. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The convention of using the term plus acronym at first mention would be fine like with Yamada-kun_and_the_Seven_Witches#Anime : "An animated promotional video (PV) was released by Liden Films on August 26, 2013.[17] The video was directed by Seiki Takuno. Ryu Yamada was voiced by Ryōta Ōsaka, and Urara Shiraishi was voiced by Saori Hayami.[ch. 76] In June 2014, Liden Films launched a website with news that it would be producing an original anime DVD (OAD).[18] The OAD has two installments: the first was released on December 17, 2014 bundled with the manga volume 15, and the second is bundled with volume 17 for May 15, 2015. They were advertised as featuring all seven witches as well as hot springs scenes.[19]"

Obviously something like DVD would not need to be expanded upon but there are still plenty of jargonistic terms and acronyms that wouldn't hurt to clarify. -AngusWOOF (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Original Video Animation" is not jargony, it's more an example of Engrish. What it means is "Original direct to video animated series". But their command of English isn't perfect, so they said "Original Video Animation". The term is a little awkward. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's Engrish. Rather, it's a very precise, shortened term for animation released originally on video (as opposed to airing on TV or released in theaters, the only two other options at the time the term was coined). Hence, original video animation instead of original television animation or original theatrical animation. It makes perfect sense. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems with a C&P move at Dominion: Tank Police

I'm having an issue at Dominion: Tank Police, with different editors performing cut and past moves to Dominion (manga).[20][21][22][23][24][25] I undid the first two attempts, pointing the editors to WP:RM if they want to perform the move, however, GhostofTiptoety believes that a RM is unnecessary.[26] —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed it. Everything is now at Dominion (manga) since the manga came first, and I've restored all the sections from each of the articles (I think). Feel free to check it over and make sure I didn't miss something. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Replace Syoboi references with Media Arts Database?

Given the rather sketchy status of this being a reliable source post broadcast, should we try to replace as many references from it as possible over to the Agency for Cultural Affairs's Media Arts Database? Being published by the Japanese government, it wouldn't be difficult to establish a claim that isn't reliable. Currently, we have 52 articles using Syoboi as a references, so it isn't too big of a task. May even throw in replacing AllCinema references as well, which is also of questionable reliability. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I thought Syoboi was already discarded as unreliable already. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Can you shows us the link to its database? Are you willing to change every instance of Syoboi or are you asking for help? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The link is on on the Online Reference Sources page, but in case you can't find it, here it is: http://mediaarts-db.jp/ Not every reference to Syoboi can be replaced. However, it should be replaced whenever possible. Here is an example of where I replaced the reference in one article.[27]

Another reference that should be replaced when possible is WebNewtype. I've not don't a search on it, but I don't think there were many articles that used it as a reference. —Farix (t | c) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is WebNewtype related to the magazine? If so, I would consider it to be reliable. If not, then perhaps not. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WebNewtype were planned air dates and were subject to change (record of what may happen). The Media Arts Database's dates are a record of what actually happened. As sources, I would believe the latter is better than the former. —Farix (t | c) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is what you mean by "WebNewtype", then they are absolutely reliable, as far as any anime source out there. Whether the actual airdates change or not is irrelevant. They are simply reporting the information provided by the producers. I suspect that if a study was done, you would be find them no more or less reliable than any other reliable entertainment media source. There's no reason to replace it as a source just because things might change. That's WP:CRYSTAL right there. It's perfectly fine to use them to indicate future dates, and then verify the dates are correct once they have started airing. They are the online part of one of the longest-running anime magazines in the world. They are trustworthy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Rie Kugimiya

Could someone double check if the image currently on the infobox is a copyright violation or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Quoting: "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 4 December 2014 by the administrator or reviewer TBloemink, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you follow the Flickr link, and then click on the "Some Rights Reserved" link on the right side, it takes you here, showing the licensing on the image uploaded here is correct. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Expanding our library

Looking to our WP:A&M/RS, I've found some interesting people/column/site. I'd like the community thoughts.

Liz Ohanesian: She has a regular pop culture column on L.A. Weekly ([28]). By itself, it seems enough to me but that's not all. Deb Aoki (listed at WP:A&M/RS#Individuals) cites her. Also cited by Ain't It Cool News ([29]), The Comics Journal ([30]), Comic Book Resources ([31]), Comics Beat ([32]), and io9 ([33]). She also publishes on her own site, KCET ([34]), Paste ([35]) and Topless Robot ([36]).

Brigid Alverson: She has written for Publishers Weekly ([37]), MTV Geek ([38]), MangaBookshelf ([39]), Good e-Reader ([40]), Comic Book Resources ([41]), School Library Journal ([42]) and has been regularly on San Diego Comic-Con panels of manga ([43], [44]). She has also been cited by scholars. She has been interview by Boston Globe ([45]), and The Comics Reporter ([46]).

Shaenon K. Garrity: contributor to Anime News Network's House of 1000 Manga ([47]), The Comics Journal ([48]), About.com ([49]), comiXology (see below); cited by Publishers Weekly ([50], [51]), The Comics Reporter ([52], [53]), Comic Book Resources ([54]), and Manga Bookshelf ([55]).

Whitney Matheson: wrote the blog Pop Candy for USA Today from 1999 to 2014; it was popular and earned her notability. In addition of having a Wiki article, she has been cited by Entertainment Weekly ([56]), Los Angeles Times ([57]), and others ([58], [59]). Her blog has covered manga and anime ([60], [61]). Also wrote for Slate ([62]), Mental Floss ([63]), and Decider.com ([64]).

Mental Floss, seems an established magazine ([65]). It has a good coverage on anime and manga ([66], [67]).

ComicsAlliance: three-time Eisner Award nominee ([68]), cited by The Comics Journal ([69]), Comic Book Resources ([70]), The Comics Reporter ([71]); has a widely coverage on manga ([72]). Staff page.

Comics Beat: Heidi MacDonald's site; she has published for Publishers Weekly ([73]) and Comics Buyer's Guide ([74]). If any evidence of realibity is needed: her site cited by Time ([75]), Los Angeles Times ([76]). The site has an extensivee coverage on manga and anime.

Comic Book Resources: established comics site, cited by The Comics Reporter ([77]), The Comics Journal ([78]); has a widely coverage on manga ([79]). Staff page.

comiXology: well covered comics site. Jason Thompson ([80]) and Shaenon K. Garrity ([81]) wrote about manga for it. Kristy Valenti, who wrote some manga articles too, is fine too as she is the coordinator of The Comics Journal ([82]), and was assistant editor of Comic Book Resources ([83]).

Genji Press: Serdar Yegulalp's publishing imprint. He has written for About.com ([84]) and PC World ([85]), and Genji Press been cited by Manga Bookshelf ([86]), Ain't It Cool News ([87]).

Thoughts? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger of anime industry into anime

Hi. I've proposed a merger of anime industry into anime. Please discuss here.--Cattus ^talk 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good I support but, my comment is meaningless in this project. :( beter yet :[ even better! :{ Doorknob747 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Inuyasha

I went on to recreate the Inuyasha (character) after seeing so many reviews of the series. However, the article is still an obvious beta and it needs some rewriting to be a B class. Sadly, I don't have any of the series' volumes so I can't source it at least for now.Tintor2 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Check your local library if they keep anime novels/magazines. My local library does. They have shoen jump, Naruto, and other anime novels/magazines. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: lead increased a bit. Reception seems enough. However, I can't decide what image should I use in the article. Any suggestions? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Back

Back but as a temporarily inactive contributor to that project. Will become active contributor to that project when people think I know enough of Wikipedia rules and editing does and don'ts. Doing this as non contributing, so im not annoying.Doorknob747 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just saying but your comment below isn't helping your case, your comments are valued but editors here are just giving you constructive criticism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My constructive criticism is that you are still trying to do too many new things at once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK

Need eyes on List of hentai anime

Editor Mestrinho420 keeps adding entries to anime that does not have a stand-alone article, despite the list's clearly stated criteria in the edit notice. Believes that simply existing is enough to justify its inclusion in the list. —Farix (t | c) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I put it on my watch-list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have twinkle enabled then you can use its RPP feature to request page protection of that category. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really use the auto tools as I find it more personal to address the problems the old fashioned way, but thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I could not stop my self but, then I thought what if there was a place like controbutores like me can propose ideas in a forum like manner

So I made this https://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=4393 . Like it guys :D ?

NOTE:The two threads are mine on craigslists forums, but I use a totally different handle name most of the time on craigslist. I have not used it in this forum I created on craigslist forum since, I do not want you guys to follow me around with the handle I always use most of the time on Craigslist forums. Also in craiglist forums, a handle=name ex. Doorknob747, a single craiglist account user can have up to five handles! So anyway what do you guys think about this? Doorknob747 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to get others to join the project here? If so, you should be careful as these aren't forum pages but places to discuss improving articles, and things under our scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that is why the recruiting is happening there we first test them there before telling them how to be part of the project. Note: If they now how to be part of a wikiprpoject most likely they must be a Wikipedia editor. duh? So, we first test them out, then go to their handle click it, then send them a email telling them how to be part of the project if they pass the test. Doorknob747 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There isn't really a test here, some editors pick up things a lot more quickly than others, when I first started out my name like yours was brought to ANI as I had no idea what the heck I was doing. The way I learned was by studying what other editors had put down and experimenting with it to improve articles I was interested in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

oh did not know that. :)Doorknob747 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Recently, My Sister is Unusual episodes

My recent edits have been here, but would appreciate if someone could do a second hand copyedit for me. The page is looking good just wish there were more details on the releases. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I must have time traveled back to 2006, because I haven't seen screenshots in episode lists since around then. Last I checked, weren't all the screenshots ultimately removed because they failed WP:NFCC 3 and 8? Not to mention that it's bad precedent, and could possibly incite less experienced editors to add a screenshot for every episode on other lists. Also, what are you doing adding in a link to some site like Loveanime.org? Doesn't that violate WP:COPYVIO?--十八 01:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

~~Loveanime.org is just being used as an external link~~, as for the extra image, it is very hard to explain to the reader the premise without having an image in this situation. If you want remove the image and try to follow the story and see how well you do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

how do you do stricke through?Doorknob747 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know the link was in copyvio, it appears to be the same as crunchyroll's which streamed the series in English sub. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Links to Crunchyroll don't get removed because CR legally licenses series to steam; any website outside of the legal streams are in violation of copyright (like what CR used to be before it went legal). As for the image, does "The possession causes the real Mitsuki who is now transparent to float outside of her body," not accurately convey what that image represents? I don't see how the prose in this instance is confusing, and that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as stipulated by NFCC point 8.--十八 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will link crunchyroll then, the image portrays what happens in the series multiple times it is easy to explain once but I felt that in order to follow it an image would be of help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else, I wouldn't be opposed if you put it in the main article instead of the episode list, since it is accepted that character lists may have one or two screenshots/non-free images, but across Wikipedia, I haven't seen screenshots in the tables of episode lists since c.2006, or is there a case of a featured list where they use screenshots in the tables?--十八 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure, im just thinking of the reader here. NFCC point 8 does exempt complex scenes but the problem is the person who judges what a complex scene is. I do plan on making a character list so I will take you up on that suggestion. I will look too and see if I can find any featured lists that have 2 images in them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can the episode summaries be shortened a bit? Perhaps getting them down between 250 to 300 words at least. Right now they average between 400 and 500 words per episode and for a romantic comedy anime (controversial or not) I'm not sure that they need this much detail. —Kirt^Message 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on that, it will take time though to smooth the information out. I have been trying to make the length like episodes 1 through 6 are (Counting the words I would say average is around 325). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There's some discussion about it (please see my talk page). I hope this can help you.--Infinite0694 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to write better by cutting redundant words which possibly include original research(unnecessary information), but he denied and reverted it[88], so I dunno what we should do.--Infinite0694 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I responded on your talkpage, did you not see it? The average of the first 7 episodes is like ~~310 - 320 words.~~ It would be best to work on the larger episode descriptions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to get the average between 300 and 400 words, film plots are recommended for a 400-700 word length so it is below that line. I know it says feature films but there are no guidelines out there for regular films or television episodes. A feature film normally runs between 40+ and 80+ minutes depending on who is defining it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the summaries have to be so long, and indeed, this seems to be an issue almost unique to this project. Across Wikipedia, anime episode lists seem to be the only ones that go bonkers on the length per episode, typically doing 2 or 3 times the amount that is necessary. I don't think you should be using List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters as an example since that one has summaries for an entire manga volume, which typically will include about as much story material as 3-4 anime episodes at least, so comparing an episode summary to a manga volume summary is like comparing apples and oranges. You can even look at other anime episode FLs like Bleach (season 10) which has episode lengths about as long as you will find with all the other lists at WP:FL#Episodes. I ask that you at least take a look at these examples, since this is actually what this project should be aiming for, not the overly long summaries which have become so ubiquitous almost since this project was founded a decade ago. Look at List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion episodes, List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes, List of Gunslinger Girl episodes among others. Because if you ever wanted to take this episode list to FLC, you'd have no choice but to reduce the summaries.--十八 03:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that they should be shortened but it is a careful balancing act trying to include the highlights so the summary makes sense, and at the same time trimming away the excess details. Every anime series is different, I saw Infinite0694s edit for example and after reading it found it to be inaccurate. There is a reason why we have templates such as "vauge" as if too much detail is missing then it can be inaccurate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy is important, but you have to realize by looking at those lists I gave as examples that is possible to trim summaries down to only a few lines. What someone who is invested in a series sees as necessary could easily be seen as excessive by someone who's never seen the series, or by someone reviewing such a list for FLC. How do you think that a ~45 minute episode of a series like 24 (season 1) or Lost (season 4), which have very complex and overlapping storylines every episode, can only have a few lines summary for each episode? Honestly, it makes the ~22 minute anime episode summaries that are twice the length and yet half the airtime look like a complete joke.--十八 21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is possible but at what cost? I could argue that some of the things are not very informative, as for anime and manga there should be a place in the MOS that gives a recommended size for episodes in lists. I have succeed in trimming down the article to less than 400 words per episode which I said is less than the defined 40 minutes min of a feature film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Im reading Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 3A "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." It looks like there is nothing that restricts the size of a list as long as it is written well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT itself states "The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail." It even recommends "...a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)." Are Recently, My Sister is Unusual's episodes are so complex to warrant 300 or 350 word summaries? I sincerely doubt it when I have proved to you that I can get it down to 169 words below and still retain the most important points.--十八 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I will work on further reduction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Less than 200 words is perfect. The reason why the unusual sister summaries are so long is you're not summarizing it from an outside view. It should only contain points relevant to the main plot and should be understandable to the general reader. I have to make some guesses at some points because the cause and effects were unclear to me. Here is how I would summarize it. "Mitsuki Kanzaki's mother has recently remarried and is now living with her stepfather overseas, leaving her and her stepbrother, Yūya Kanzaki, home alone. Due to the actions of a spirit named Hiyori Kotobuki, Mitsuki is strapped with a magic chastity belt. Hiyori then takes possession of Mitsuki and masturbates, causing (her/them?) to orgasm. Attempting to go to the bathroom, Mitsuki learns the belt can only be released a couple of minutes every hour". I left the hearts part out since it has no relevance until explained in the second episode. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice but right now I am too tired to work on something this big. I have been trimming the list for days now and need a fresh set of eyes on it for tomorrow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Example

I am going to prove an example of what I mean about trimming plot summaries. I have never watched Recently, My Sister is Unusual, and I am going to objectively trim the current summary of episode 1 down to a reasonable length:

Original summary: Yūya Kanzaki finds himself having a step sister named Mitsuki. At first she is cold to him, addressing her step brother as "you" or him" but suddenly one day Mitsuki collapses which cases Yūya to panic. When Mitsuki awakens in the hospital she passionately embraces Yūya calling him her "big brother" before changing moods again and literally kicking him out of her hospital room. Later on after a rest at home, she awakens to find a chastity belt on her. Mitsuki then meets Hiyori who calls herself as an angel, before she can ask more she then leaps into Mitsuki's body possesses her. The possession causes the real Mitsuki who is now transparent to float outside of her body, Hiyori tells Mitsuki not to worry though as she is not dead. Hiyori then proceeds to masturbate while in Mitsuki's body causing the real Mitsuki to jump back into her own body driving Hiyori out. Dismayed, Hiyori then pleasures her while talking about her big brother (Yūya) resulting in Mitsuki having an orgasm that causes a heart located on the chastity belt to fill up a little. Upset that someone might see her chastity belt she demands Hiyori tell her how to take it off. Hiyori tells of a button that just releases the crotch bit which Mitsuki proceeds to press. While explaining about the belt, Hiyori is interrupted by Mitsuki who has to use the bathroom. While there the chastity belt clamps back on, Hiyori explains that it only stays off for three minutes before going back on and she must wait an hour before pressing it again. Hiyori explains that she tried to finish what she was going to say but got interrupted. Mitsuki suffers for an hour in the bathroom worrying both her aunt and Yūya before having the opportunity to go again with great relief.

Reduced summary: Yūya Kanzaki begins living with his cold step sister Mitsuki after Yūya's father is transferred overseas for work and Mitsuki's mother accompanies him. Mitsuki collapses one day, only to later discover a chastity belt on her. Mitsuki then meets a disembodied spirit named Hiyori who possesses her. The possession causes the real Mitsuki who is now transparent to float outside of her body. Hiyori attempts to masturbate, but Mitsuki drives her out of her body. Dismayed, Hiyori casues Mitsuki to have an orgasm that causes a heart on the chastity belt to fill up a little. Wanting the belt off, Hiyori tries to explain how it works, including a button Mitsuki presses to release the crotch portion. However, when Mitsuki goes to the bathroom, the chastity belt clamps back on; Hiyori explains that it only stays off for three minutes before going back on and she must wait an hour before pressing it again. Mitsuki suffers for an hour in the bathroom before having the opportunity to go again.

See how nice and concise that is? And the best part is that the most important detail has been retained, meaning the reader can easily understand the plot without being bogged down with trivial details. Not to mention that the original summary is poorly written in places, making reading and understanding it a chore. For reference, the original summary is 308 words, and the reduced summary is 169 words. You should be aiming for less than 200 words per episode every time. If you can't do that, then you need a third party to do it for you.--十八 21:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

can some one review my recent edits and edit summaries plz?

plz? If my edits are good I may have found a good way to edit Wikipedia :DDoorknob747 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't link the Gundam in Gundam Seed Destiny since the franchise is not destination of that noun. It would be like linking ass in assassin. Don't add your opinions or feelings in the summaries. Keep it professional and short, Edit Summaries are often cut off on watchlists. You're creating too many topic threads here. You should just go directly to an editor's talk page. Do something like "Hi" and stick to that thread on the editor's page. We're not adding cameos to the summaries unless they're important. You should give up on the Gundam Build Fighter cameo instance for now, and let an editor who knows what's notable approve of its addition. I suggest looking at the prose on some of my articles for an idea of the text and format style. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Eureka Seven (video games)

With work on cleaning up these articles going smoothly, I was thinking we could also merge Eureka Seven Vol. 1: The New Wave and Eureka Seven Vol. 2: The New Vision either into one article or back to the main Eureka Seven article. I'm only proposing this since they both are so small and haven't had a decent update in years. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. —Kirt^Message 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

I need a second opinion over at the Doraemon article. An IP editor keeps adding The Fairly OddParents and Kiteretsu Daihyakka to the See also section on the bases that they have "similar premise". However, my view is that the See also section should only contain links to articles directly related to the subject. —Farix (t | c) 11:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

kiteretsu could be up for debate (I currently have no immediate view) but I see no reason FOP should be linked to.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed them again. What connections Doraemon may have with Kiteretsu needs to be established through reliable sources. I've also went ahead a remove a large amount of original research in Kiteretsu's lead section as well are remove a lot of what appears to be minor characters. There is still a lot more cleanup that needs to be done on that article, and I've tagged it as such. —Farix (t | c) 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well for one, Kiteretsu has the same author as Doraemon and both involves a robot companion (though the role of the robot and the kid are somewhat reversed)...And I'm under the impression that the See Also section is much more lax about RSes (see also WP:SEEALSO). The similarities are readily apparent to people who have watched both. _dk (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the to do list bot is not working on this talk page.

Many users here are talking about problems with show summaries, and etc. . But, those things are not coming up in he to do list on his talk page. Someone should send the bot to the bot doctor for a bot check up. Doorknob747 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin
Related
Pootaro Bear Yayyay! Anime Land Tuesday Wide Special Masahiro Nakai's We Are All Alive Otoko no Ko Onna no Ko