Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68→Archive 70

List of manga cliches

I recently spared this from speedy deletion and moved it to the draftspace (Draft:List of manga cliches) since there is some potential merit in this as an article. Per my comments on the talk page, typical manga and anime tropes have been the focus of some discussion and would likely merit a mention somewhere, although the problem with this is that if it's to be a subsection it could be debated whether or not it should be in anime or manga. Both could likely have a section, but it'd be easier to just have one rather than write out two. It could possibly merit its own article, but that would require a lot of sourcing to justify and shouldn't be a list page, since whether or not something is a trope or cliche is somewhat subjective since something could contain a plot element but not really be a trope or cliche per se. It definitely shouldn't be listed as cliches since the term is inherently negative and a series can use a typical story element and use it to good effect, meaning that it wouldn't be seen as a cliche. I'd endorse the use of the term trope offhand.

What do you guys think? I think it has the potential to warrant an article since there is some coverage in academic texts like this one and some coverage like this. (Other sources include this and this.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As the draft is right now, it is basically useless, and might even be considered offensive. "Mini-Flashbacks; Shojo comics having too much Romance; Plain colours" - these don't describe the clichés at all and might not even be unique to Japanese media. I do really like the idea of such an article, though. It could describe concepts such as harem, tsundere, artstyles, as well as fan-service. Such a thing could be a subsection of the main Manga article, but it might be interesting to go all out and create what amounts to a glossary of manga tropes. ~Mable (chat) 12:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I find the title, and content to be un-encyclopedic that falls under "just because it exists". If you want to make an article called Manga clichés then that in my view would be better, you wouldn't have the WP:OR issue of people adding every little thing they see, and labeling it a cliché. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film clichés, it needs some serious backing by academic sources and notability as a standalone list, which the film article has but not sure if manga and anime will have similar treatment. The list as it stands is just a creator's brainstorm which is why I CSD'ed it. Someone could just as easily put together a list of things they find annoying in manga / anime, and custom all sorts of lists as seen in MAL and other fan websites such as list of tsundere characters, list of characters who have unrequited love, list of student council presidents, list of manga characters with special powers, list of manga that parody other manga, list of foreign exchange students. If it is to cover the manga typical art styles, then that can fit in the particular articles like Shōjo manga, Chibi which can then be backed with "How to Draw Shojo Manga" and book discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking at List of film clichés, all I have to say is please don't make it somekind of bulleted list. Use prose to actually describe the tropes, perhaps with some history and practices and opinions related to them. I would imagine something more similar to Glossary of video game terms, though hopefully with less individual items and more prose. ~Mable (chat) 16:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
We already have Glossary of anime and manga for that list and that identifies many of the common themes and terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
How would a description of various anime and manga tropes add anything that that list couldn't already have? ~Mable (chat) 17:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think a glossary is much more encompassing and has clear inclusion criteria rather than "cliches". For starters, what makes something cliche is completely subjective, and as we see in the draft article, a lot of it isn't even unique to manga. Looking at the film cliches article, it just screams WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the bottom of the list shows the future of any such attempt. If the article must exist, like others have said it should be in prose and the title should avoid "list" and use "tropes" instead of "cliches". Opencooper (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
A "cliché" or "tropes" list should not exist either way. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Listicles and categories

Any reason why List of Freezing characters is in Category:Anime and manga characters who can move at superhuman speeds? List of Rosario + Vampire characters too. It seems counterproductive to include listicles into such such categories, especially when most of the characters listed don't fall into the cat. Has there been any consensus for this? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd get rid of them. They aren't the defining topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree it is too loosely connected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Satellizer: Be careful with the lists, List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica characters for example would go with Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters, as that is the main theme of the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Rosario + Vampire characters Category:Monsters in fiction, again another main theme. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Should it though? Not every single character on that list is a magical girl, which the category name implies. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Tsukune Aono isn't a monster, and he's the main character. He's most certainly not a "monster in fiction". (Stopped for the time being.) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 03:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand things that are loosely associated with the series, but if the main theme is about magical girls or monsters then it could help better organize things than just having a broad "Category:Lists of anime and manga characters" category. As for Tsukune Aono he becomes a monster in the manga adaptation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
One last note before I sleep, would "Category:Tragedy anime and manga" be removed from certain articles that don't have all of the characters die or be involved in sadness? This is kind of the logic that is being applied here, so in my opinion we should have a consensus put into place. Im not saying your idea is bad, im saying we need an inclusion/exclusion criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: I'm usually hesitant to put listicles into these categories as they aren't really articles in the traditional sense. For example if I'm researching "monsters in fiction", it's not unreasonable to expect the contents of the category to be nothing but monsters, and an entry like "List of Rosario + Vampire characters" complicates things as then you've got non-monsters on the list. "List of Rosario + Vampire characters" isn't really a monster per se either: Moka Akashiya is a monster, "List of Rosario + Vampire characters" is a list that chronicles that some monsters appear in a work of fiction.
I left Category:Lists of fictional Japanese characters and Category:Lists of animated science fiction television characters well alone for example as they are obviously intended for listicles. I'd personally argue that "monsters in fiction" are for individual monsters, and "magic girl anime and manga characters" are for individual animanga magical girls. Cases where every single entry on the list also belongs in the category becomes more of a grey area, but if that isn't the case, it should be left out.
That being said I see I was rather hasty and should've clarified first, and waiting for consensus to settle. Apologies. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Adding one more thing: it's a bit of a mess as I was trying to create a consensus as there were none in the first place. AutoWikiBrowser statistics for anyone interested: 42 pages had offending categories which I removed, 269 pages had only categories intended for listicles and thus I skipped. But yeah, I agree I was rather hasty, apologies again. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Tragedy anime and manga" isn't meant for lists though, so it's not really a fair comparison. It's more comparable to a debate on whether Moka Akashiya (to use that example again) belongs on Category:Vampires in fiction, not whether List of Rosario + Vampire characters does. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
To provide a case study to my line of argument, Category:Monsters in fiction was present on both Monster Musume and List of Monster Musume characters. Personally I'd say the category should stay on the parent article as it's a central theme to the series, but should be removed from the listicle (which I have) as not every single character listed on there is a monster. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I moved most of the categories to Category:Rosario + Vampire and got rid of the superfluous ones like werewolves in fiction, witches in fiction, as those only pertain to a specific character and not the entire series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Again I can see that as being a non issue as those are narrow categories. I am arguing in favor though of broad categories that can help the lists as we don't have many individual character articles. @Satellizer: Back to Monsters & Vampires, the s at the end means that the category can be used as a plural. I suppose I did make a bad comparison with the tragic category, but I hope you see my point here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I do see your point, though to be honest I don't really agree with it. The plural at the end is because the category contains more than one entry; "Monster in fiction" is grammatically incorrect English. My argument lies on three major points: 1. including listicles into these categories is misleading to readers (see above), 2. It becomes difficult to draw the line between major and minor themes (are "vampires" a major theme of Rosario + Vampire, for example?), and 3. Not including these categories is already more or less the norm on Wikipedia, with the vast majority of character articles not containing such cats (42 with and 269 without in my AutoWikiBrowser run thus far.) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't some of these issues be solved by a Category:Lists of characters from magical girl anime and manga? We've got multiple lists of characters from such franchises, so the category is useful and everyone knows what to expect from them. ~Mable (chat) 06:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters and it contains a bunch of redirects to the specific characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood: I am suggesting a separate category for lists of anime and manga characters of certain types of shows. Homura and Madoka would be in Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters, while the list of Madoka Magica characters would be in Category:Lists of characters from magical girl anime and manga.
That could work, though I'm reserved as to the necessity of it. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If it would prove necessary to change, it's an option. Currently, most character lists for magical girl shows feature five or more magical girls as main characters. It's clearly a major theme for these shows. Of course Madoka Magica would be in the "Magical girls in anime" category, as save for Kyubey, all major characters are magical girls at some point in the story. The "monsters in fiction" discussion above is much more complex. ~Mable (chat) 06:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anime convention article cleanup

I am convinced that more than one article should be deleted from our list of anime conventions due to lack of notability. Here is what I have so far:

Feedback is welcome!

  • Ai-Kon - Doing a search for this one bears local news coverage mainly from the Winnipeg Sun, and something by someone named chrisd. Yes I am aware of how many attendees & guests attend but there is no significant coverage at backs up WP:N.
  • Animaritime - This article has 3 independent sources, again mostly local coverage with the exception of CBC which possibly makes the convention notable.
  • Aniwave - I was not able to find any additional coverage in reliable third party sources which remain at only 3 for this article.
  • G-Anime - This convention faces a language barrier as the sources are likely going to be in French.

-Work in progress...-

Comments

What about say, Anime Festival Asia? That article could use some work. It's been covered by ANN and Southeast Asian sources so it has GA potential, actually. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it could use some work, I am mainly talking about articles that have little to no sources to them though. I am debating on which ones to nominate for deletion, so more work can be geared towards the others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I reworked Aniwave with the sources I could find, not sure if it's any better. Article was complicated due the film festival features and a lack of cited information about them. Esw01407 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Importance of Music of Anime including events like Animelo Summer Live

Finally the Japan Times starts to take notice:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2016/04/16/general/anime-biz-sings-praises-shows/

I'm not sure why Animelo Summer Live still counts as low importance. Anime has a strong use of good music, and many of the singers that appear at shows like Animelo Summer Live are also voice actors/actresses.

14.2.90.59 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject ratings shouldn't be taken too seriously because they are added by project members and are really just meant for the WIkiProject's own coordination, rather than real-world importance. Our assessment guidelines stress that "Priority must be regarded as a relative term... these only reflect the perceived importance to this project... The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it)." This has the unfortunate effect of the importance of topics being skewed towards a Western audience, despite their importance to anime and manga at large. The few times I've seen people refer to these importance ratings is when discussing how the WikiProject as a whole is progressing, and to prioritize certain articles for collaboration and cleanup. (Even then, our current Good Articles and Featured Articles receive their fair share of attention) All that being said, considering that Animelo is "the biggest annual anime songs music festival in Japan", and that the importance scale lists "Large conventions" under "Mid" importance, it might be worth looking again at its importance by another WikiProject member. Opencooper (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Importance is based on long lasting significance, typically all articles are low importance by default and then increase from there. Generally something would have to show that it has offered either a historical influence on the medium or industry or otherwise achieved a long display of significance. As an example, I've seen debates over the importance of articles of creators based on them being involved with one or two successful works. However thats not the same as having a significant contribution to the industry as a whole. In terms of events, even at over 10 years a event is not necessarily important. Music events happen all the time, events involving anime performers (be they actors or not) happen frequently at various degrees of size.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Part of what I see in Animelo Summer Live is a commitment to excellence that is recorded and made available on video releases (which then get seen by far more people than actually attended). It's a cross-section (ie across multiple recording companies) of the best songs and artists including collaborations, as opposed to label-specific or franchise-specific or region-specific events, and is a regular and successful anime-related event.

14.2.90.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is a reason to make it mid importance, at least not based on the current information. The japan times article shows the event is notable but it's no Comiket or Anime Expo (both mid importance) in relation to industry significance. Although really my main problem is that it's just a list article, which I would say are inherently low importance.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure

It's pretty safe to close the List of Sword Art Online characters merge proposal imo. It's been open a month, there's pretty clear consensus to keep and plenty of sources have been found. If an uninvolved user can close that would be great. Thanks in advance, Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

About the sources, do you plan to add them later? I don't mean creating another article but creating a reception section for the list. I'm pretty sure CZAR bothered it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: But I've already added plenty of sources. A reception section on a list is pointless. No-one reviews "Sword Art Online characters" as a whole. They review the individual characters.
Besides no-one has commented for two weeks so I doubt consensus would change either way. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, didnt notice that.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Hyperdimension Neptunia characters also isn't going anywhere. No need to be an admin or anything to close these uncontroversial RMs, just a reasonably experienced user who hasn't yet commented. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Closed both of them. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Sun and Moon

A discussion on the formatting of Japanese titles in video games is happening here. Pokémon is also a well-renowned anime and WP:VG and WP:ANIME have very similar guidelines on Japanese names, so I thought it'll be relevant. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Producer parameter in Template:Infobox animanga/Video

I've been toying with the idea of removing |producer= from Template:Infobox animanga/Video for some time. For one, such information is rarely given during the initial announcement, which brings up questions about the importance or relevance of the position. Second, I have seen a some confusion as to what actually goes into this field. It was mainly intended to list the executive producer of a series, but I've seen many chases were the companies that were part of the the series production committee where inserted. And lastly, it will create a spot of a more relevant field to be added to the template, such as character designer for original productions. —Farix (t | c) 13:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be much better to replace it with a place for the character designer, especially since the character designer can usually be sourced while the producer almost never can. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there exceptions? Is the parameter for producer used in a proper and useful way in some articles? It might be worth keeping the parameter around if the position is of notable importance in some cases. Perhaps anime produced by people in the anime producers category should keep this information intact. ~Mable (chat) 15:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest waiting a little before tackling this. ANN are currently doing a guide to the op/end credits on shows and producers are covered in the next instalment. I think that would cover what the possible entries would be, I suspect many of the "producers" will not be individuals but members of the production committees. I guess it depends on if it's a original show or a multimedia franchise. From the dates off the last two entries, I expect the next one to appear this week.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I would also agree that the producer field be replaced, or just outright removed. It's kind of pointless when someone adds in 10 names to the infobox, none of whom have articles, and all of whom have very little to do with the actual substance of the anime.--十八 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
And that's just one of many similar edits that user is making. The parameter is pretty much just asking for people to fill it with trivial/unsourced stuff. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be kept, but changed so it is very explicit about it being for the executive producer (which is usually one or two people, and those people are much more likely to have an article). I also think adding a parameter for character designer would be good. I don't see it as an "either, or" situation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The thing is that no matter how we word it, there are going to be random IPs and other editors adding a bunch of names to these fields. And give that the executive producer is almost never given when a series is announced, it leads to the general unimportant of this field. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Demonizer Zilch

I have started an article about this series seeing it has made the NYT as a best seller. Feel free to help out! I am going to take a rest but will be on again later. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Yona of the Dawn volumes

I just finished adding a list of Japanese chapter titles to List of Yona of the Dawn volumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Could someone who knows Japanese go over it and see if I got the titles and their Romanizations correct? I think I got most of them, but I had to rely on Google translate for the Romaji, so there are bound to be some mistakes. Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ratings parameter added to infobox's obsolete checks

This should have been done a long time ago, but I've added |ratings= in {{Infobox animanga/Game‎}} to the obsolete parameters check. This field was removed back in August 2013‎, but no cleanup ever took place. —Farix (t | c) 11:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with an article and a proposal

I was asked for some help on the article for Janice Kawaye and I figured that I'd ask here for help trying to confirm her gaming roles.

Something else that crossed my mind though... I think that we need a notability guideline or notation specific to voice acting. There have been a lot of articles deleted on otherwise notable voice actors because they lacked a lot of coverage in independent and reliable sources. I'm aware that part of this issue is because there aren't a lot of places that list their work credits that aren't edited by random people, but even with some of the roles confirmed we still run into problems. Draft:Brianne Siddall is a good example of this since Norozco1 is doing a valiant job of trying to improve the article, yet there are still issues with providing sources that discuss Siddall's roles in depth other than an offhand mention here or there. (For example, she voiced many Tommy Himi and Calumon from Digimon, Tsukasa from .hack//Sign, its games, and so on, Myōjin Yahiko from the Samurai X dub, and many other major roles for notable series.) It just stinks that we're essentially forced to judge them by the standards for live-action actors, who are 500% more likely to be highlighted because they're physically visible. We need some type of guideline that will take this into consideration so that we can avoid deleting articles like Siddall's. If there is consensus to propose something it'd have to be fairly well written so that we don't inadvertently keep ones on actors that have only voiced a mild amount of characters (like random one episode roles). I figure that at most we need a notation that will say something like the VA's role can be considered notable if the role has been voiced in multiple media that warrants their own independent article. (Like the .hack series has the article for .hack (video game series) and .hack//Sign)

What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need for separate voice acting criteria compared to WP:ENT, which says multiple leadsignificant roles in notable shows. Also, what are these "lots of articles"? The ones I see show up on AFD have been for actors who have appeared in non-notable guest roles in minor productions.
As for Janice Kawaye, I rewrote her article entirely today because it didn't even explain what she was notable for. It turns out she was in several notable/high-profile cartoons and even a video game series. She also had a small role in a horror movie when she was a child. But those are big enough to appear in secondary sources like the New York Times reviews. Adding every last video game she voiced in is difficult, but not important for her article.
I've been waiting on Brianne Siddall's biography to be written up to highlight those roles you just mentioned, but it's been many months and that information has not even been put in, only that she was in Digimon. Who the hell cares? Was she a lead role there? Outlaw Star is highly notable; she voices a lead character there as a male lead. Tsukasa in .hack series is a lead, but yet none of that is mentioned at all in the lead paragraph. Again, the focus should be on the biography not the filmography, which is pretty much ready to go. The biography section is what will get it out of draft. And it needs to be sourced to like anime convention writeups and other news articles. It's there for the writing.
WP:ANIME/BIO has a bunch of sourcing suggestions. A lot of it refers to primaries but it also includes secondaries. If you want these voice actor articles to stay around, please help develop them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that this discussion is mainly about dub voice actors and not seiyū. However, I can also see this discussion affecting the latter. For one thing, while sources for extremely popular seiyuu is easy to find in Japanese or English, it's not the case for seiyuu who mostly do supporting roles, albeit several such roles rather than just a few bit roles and a short career. Plus, even for the articles for some popular seiyuu, sorting can be quite poor. What should we do about this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we shouldn't neglect these kinds of articles and start trying to find some sources to them, like I did, I even found some info sources for the Brianne siddall article, and I just posted them on the talk page, so make sure that you guys go and check them out ok, cause I finally found the biography for the article, I haven't put it in yet cause I haven't figured out how to put it in to put it in my own words, ya know! ;-) NJOrozco 06:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's good to go. I also gave it a ton of credits and commented out the unsourced ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Help!

So last year if I remember well, I was adding the main staff from Samurai Champloo in List of Samurai Champloo episodes and the table kinda "broke". Anybody knows how to fix it? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The table looks fine to me. What's broken? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This is how I see it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Here it's fine too. May be it's a problem with your browser. Anyway, I've tried this. Tintor2, tell me if something happened. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It also looks fine for me on Chrome on OS X. Inspecting the generated HTML shows it to be valid markup using table elements. Are you using an old version of Internet Explorer by chance? You might need to update your browser or try an alternate one. It's also worth trying to bypass your cache. If you still have trouble, you can try asking at the Technical Village Pump. Opencooper (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I can see it well. However, when I got to see previous versions with my android, it still looked bad. For the ones asking it, I have a 10 year old toaster, I mean windows xp.Tintor2 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrator action required

Weekly Shōnen Jump controversies needs to be deleted per CSD G5, it's made by a sockpuppet of Cow cleaner 5000 (talk · contribs) with the same old fake sources. I'm hesitant to straight up speedy it as it looks legitimate for users without experience in dealing with CC5000's disruption. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Satellizer: This should be brought up at WP:ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done As per Knowledgekid87, this is the wrong venue for reporting this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's clearly a sock (block evasion) job then you can go straight to WP:SPI and report it there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Stu Levy

I came across this page while going through the automated cleanup list. It's one of two articles tagged as being written by the subject of the article. This was the case in 2008. Going through the page it seems clear that it's quite promotional in nature (it's basically a CV/Resume) and I'm not convinced that there is a case for him to have his own page. A lot of the text is the same/barely different from Tokyopop and other aspects of the text are taking his Tokyopop credits that he essentially gave himself and making them out to be creative moves - being an executive producer on something when you own the company handling it is a dubious credit. Does anyone have any opinion on the validity of this article? My concerns are that once you take out the details about his company is there enough left to make him notable himself? A list of credits isn't a demonstration of notability. Is he a recognised industry expert or just an expert about his own company(s)/projects? To me that is a big difference. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel that you should save the references somewhere (A sub-userpage, draft, ect...), and send this to AfD per WP:TNT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Recommend his article redirect to Tokyopop since that is his main association with anime and manga. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I started an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Levy AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Inuyasha edits

A user added somethings to the article Inuyasha adding notes like "as mentioned in the animation." The discussion page is Talk:Inuyasha#My edits for further discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lists of characters in light novels

Is Category:Lists of characters in light novels necessary? Despite being created back in 2013 it was never populated and currently contains only 4 entries, despite there being far more light novel character lists on Wikipedia. This is as the majority are classified under Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. That, the fact that those aforementioned four entries are also listed under the anime/manga character category, and the synonymity and overlap between light novels, manga and anime leads me to believe that it may potentially be redundant. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems redundant to me. The parent category is meant to be all encompassing. If we need this, then we need separate categories for lists of anime character and lists of manga characters. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This category seems redundant I agree, but we have over 400 entries in the broad category Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. There is a reason why we have Template:Improve categories, many of our character articles just have this one category. Category:Anime and manga characters touches upon the issue but I am sure more articles can be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, looking at it now it looks like our categories need a reshuffle as some overlap each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. There's very high degrees of overlap between anime, manga, and light novel character lists, so separating their categories may prove to be redundant as many of them fall under all three. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm.... then yeah trimming down some categories that are underused like this light novel one is a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@G S Palmer and Knowledgekid87: Category nominated for deletion, see here. Just a heads-up as you guys have already commented here. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashita no Joe

Has Ashita no Joe ever been published in English regions? I want to work in the article but I can't find anything about it. Through Google Books I found little information about its themes but nothing else. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

According to this, the anime was cut into a movie version by Tai Seng for US release under the title Champion Joe. That's about all I could find, which is really surprising considering how famous the series was in Japan. (Also worth searching under the translated title "Tomorrow's Joe") Here are some other sources I found which might be helpful: tetsuya chiba interview brief mention of how it became a template some cultural impact; 2011(?) film reviews: variety Hollywood reporter. I think the better bet would be to look at books covering manga history; Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics has 1.5 pages on it talking about its impact and I'm sure others do as well. Opencooper (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to use the sources.Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I can provide the Manga source if you need it by the way. I borrowed it recently to brush up on my manga history. Opencooper (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I finished adding all the sources without spamming too many quotes. Also, do the manga volumes have information about the making of the series?Tintor2 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The Japanese tankobons? Sorry but I don't know, though that is a possibility in one of the reprints. Opencooper (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Kindaichi Case Files

Someone moved the Kindaichi Case Files page to The Kindaichi Case Files, and also changed the whole title on the article, even the title in the citation, without any discussion. Is it okay?

I did see the changes but I haven't acted on them yet. A problem for the article is that several variations of the title exist, so we need to decide on to use the common name, or original title. Usually we go with the english title used on the primary work, which would be Tokyopop's manga release. However, it could also be argued that the official english stream of the current/recent anime series could take priority. The find/change on all titles within the article was certainly overdone, the name it states for the english manga is clearly incorrect. I have no immediate preference over which version to use until the legwork has been done to decide the possibilities and their pros/cons. The franchise is big enough and old enough that it would be foolish to not consider all options. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
As a side note the chapter list for the manga still needs splitting, the English volumes have a completely different chapter list to the japanese editions so combining the two into one table is inappropriate (there are other series with this issue).SephyTheThird (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If it gets to be as messy as List of Oh My Goddess! chapters, I agree the English editions can be listed in a separate section as with Home media and DVD's and there it can say which chapters each volume covers from the original list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This might be worth a separate discussion so we can develop a standard approach.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Advanced chapter lists

There are a number of titles where the Japanese and English volumes do not "line up". Examples include List of Ranma ½ chapters where the summaries can't apply to both versions due to differing volume numbers/chapters per volume. Kindaichi was repackaged so that each book covered an entire story arc rather than just being published as x chapters per book. I'm also running into issues with the Lupin III chapter list as chapters are rearranged between editions and chapter name difficulty means I'll just put the Tpop release as a separate section (even though it's supposedly based on a specific printing), meaning I could easily have 7 different sections. I'm sure there are more examples. On the other hand there is List of City Hunter chapters where the differences are presentation rather than content.

Do we have any examples/opinions of how we should deal with these such articles? List of Maison Ikkoku chapters takes an interesting approach but I'm not sure that the per chapter format really works.

I would go with the Japanese tankobon volumes first since they were published first and then have the table of chapters for the English versions. Splitting them by individual chapters as with television episodes is an interesting scheme but introduces a third source: the original magazine volume and issue number and related date. It would also lead to a pile of one-line summaries and make the table unreasonably long. Later rearrangements of the volumes can also be described in the equivalent "Home media" section for manga. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Numeral romanization debate on 5 Centimeters Per Second

There is a debate on the romanization of what numbers we should use for the title for 5 Centimeters Per Second at Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Numeral romanization. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishōjo games

Is Category:Bishōjo games for all games that are "Japanese video games centered on interactions with attractive girls", or dating sims and visual novels only? The article Bishōjo game itself doesn't make it clear and currently the cat is populated almost exclusively with dating sim visual novels and eroge. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Although the majority of (notable) bishōjo games are dating sims and visual novels, there are some that aren't like Princess Maker. "Japanese video games centered on interactions with attractive girls" is more or less what the point of a bishōjo game is (in contrast with an otome game).--十八 08:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I've added a few games like Omega Labyrinth, Bullet Girls, Monster Monpiece to the category, they're mostly RPGs with a cast composed of attractive girls and gameplay contains fanservice and ecchi content (or "interactions", if you will) with said girls. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 09:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The Fandom Post

In lieu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Harlacher I feel it would be a good idea to bring this source to WP:RSN. The issue being how this source wouldn't fall under a self published source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary at all. There is no need to take a source to RSN because one user, who has shown a rather biased opinion towards certain types of articles is looking for ways to get his way. His complaints at users ganging up on his afd's because they disagree is rather indicative of this. As said before, the site is a successor to a site that was demonstrably RS, is run by the same RS individual and is staffed with several contributors to other RS sites (including ANN,AniemonDvd and Mania) and publications (Otaku USA). There isn't a case to answer so why submit it. It's never been a problem outside of one AFD. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that the website is considered an RS, though ^_^ It's always worth doing a check on a source once in a while, even if going through official protocol is overdoing it. ~Mable (chat) 08:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
My worry is that this is going to come up at another AfD that is sourced by The Fandom Post I just want reassurance is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It may, but we can reiterate the arguments again like we've had to for ANN and others. Unlike some of our other sources we can point to at least three regular contributors having prior recognition. Although I will look into the other staff.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Short stories summary advice

Hi I'm working on a draft for a manga and I need some advice for how to handle the plot section. The manga is a collection of sixteen independent short stories (very short, eight pages each). How I've handled this in the past is to summarize each story, like here and here, but I'm not sure it's the way to go here because of the large amount of stories. I feel some sort of discussion of plot is merited for an article, but I don't want it to overwhelm it. Maybe the section isn't necessary? Or maybe I could give a sourced overview of the types of stories or the more popular ones? Am I just overthinking it, considering we always have summaries for multiple volume and episodes? Opencooper (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You could always use the following markup, which I settled on for a similar article I'm drafting:
Extended content
{{Numbered list|start=1
| {{Hidden|style=width:50%;|headerstyle=text-align:left;|header="Story One"|content=Summary of the first story.}}
| {{Hidden|style=width:50%;|headerstyle=text-align:left;|header="Story Two"|content=Summary of the second story.}}
| {{Hidden|style=width:50%;|headerstyle=text-align:left;|header="Story Three"|content=Summary of the third story.}}
}}

Which produces:

  1. "Story One"
    Summary of the first story.
  2. "Story Two"
    Summary of the second story.
  3. "Story Three"
    Summary of the third story.
This has the advantage of not taking up too much space, while also allowing you to summarize each of the stories. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That is not a good way per WP:MOSCOLLAPSE. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Huh, wasn't aware of that, thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That method seems to be appropriate for the amount of content. You could also place it in a table, so that you can add information like (original) publication date for each story. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
16 stories might be okay to list as entries for 8-page stories would fit the dictionary definition list style. If there are hundreds then list them under each volume in the volume list section and write one sentence for each "chapter" in the summary. The "Plot" would then describe the general format of the short stories and the themes covered as with First Love Limited or Azumanga Daioh. You could group them in a table as with episodes or music track lists.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess in the long run sixteen very short stories isn't that much (though two are quite long). I would go for one of the suggested formats if I had things like release dates to add, but in this case that information isn't available. I'll go on with the definition list then. Thanks for the replies everyone, especially with the general advice on plot sections which I'll be able to use in the future. Opencooper (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Some categories for deletion

Just a heads up that Category:Anime series based on light novels‎ and Category:Anime series based on novels both badly require categorization, so if you come across any applicable pages be sure to add them. Just posting this here in case anyone was unaware that they exist.
Of course, deleting them both is the other solution, but I think they may be useful. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 09:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually on second thought I've decided to nominate them for deletion, redundant to Category:Anime and manga based on light novels‎ and Category:Anime and manga based on novels respectively. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 7#Category:Anime series based on novels Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Space battleship yamato guides

Any person with knowlegde of the plot summaries of the following List of Space Battleship Yamato episodes, List of Space Battleship Yamato II episodes,List of Space Battleship Yamato III episodes it would be much appericated. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Macrons in the title

So there are three articles I worked, but for some reason I don't know I left the macrons in the title: Kamui Shirō, Seishirō Sakurazuka, and Yūko Ichihara. Does anybody know if the English versions of the manga avoid the macrons? If so, then I think I should move the pages. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yûko Ichihara is spelled with a û and not a ū. —Farix (t | c) 16:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I still don't get it though.Tintor2 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You asked if the English version of xxxHolic uses a macron in Yûko's name. I stated that it uses a circumflex (û). What more is there to get? —Farix (t | c) 19:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not article titles should include a macron or circumflex in the first place. I never really read the MOS page on this topic in depth. ~Mable (chat) 20:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for making it confusing but it has kinda bothered me ever since I worked in those Seraph of the End (without the macrons, the MC's name would be Yuuichirou) articles and the users from around here encouraged me to avoid the macrons and leave them for the nihongo template.Tintor2 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You might run into tendentious editors who insist on having the macron anyway even though the English versions don't list it as such as with List of Fate/stay night characters#Shirō Emiya. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting the short summaries in episode lists

All right. Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#TVPLOT is confusingly written back in March, the maximum limit of 350 words in complex storylines was eliminated from the manual of style on television articles to reduce any confusion. This would apply to all anime related episode lists as well. Given that there are summaries in some of our articles that are way too long, I think we should organize a mass cleanup of the plot summaries in episode lists to approximately 100–200 words. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it necessary? I was going suggest to limit it to FL's (or likely FL candidates) . However as they would have been promoted based on the previously existing suggestion I think that would take priority over a change down the line. It's not a fail. For anything else, I wouldn't place much faith in the summaries being any good so worrying about limits wouldn't seem worth bothering with unless the article is being cleaned up anyway. I think it's worth considering going forward, but not retroactively. Cleaning up articles is one thing, chasing after all the lists is going to be an enormous and thankless task. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sephy, all that time and energy should be focused towards other things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
While I understand Sephy's concerns, if the episode summary is 350 words and is notable enough to have a separate article, we should create one. And to be honest, even if the FLs are not a fail based on WP:TVPLOT, I believe summaries that are over 200 words are too complex (for example, some of the episode summaries in List of The Testament of Sister New Devil episodes, List of Cross Ange episodes and List of High School DxD episodes are at least 25-50% too long and I will eventually cut them down to a manageable size). Still, per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems, having summaries that are a little too long (like at least 200 or 250 words or at least 10% too long) is probably better than having summaries that are too short (like 25-40 words for instance or 75% too short). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You can always flag the big offenders for Plot and it will show up in the cleanup list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I see, so in that case, we'll have to check what the big offenders are. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Adventures in poor taste

Would this source be reliable or a WP:SPS? [1] Review is by Jordan Richards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have editorial oversight, has been around for 5 years, and publishes multiple authors regularly. I don't know that it could be used to establish notability, but it could definitely be used for a reception section or to establish various facts about whatever is being reviewed or covered. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I would use it for reception sections, okay thanks for the input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Are any of the contributors notable in the anime/manga industry? Do they panel at comics and anime conventions? Is it an acceptable RS on WP:Comics WP:CMC/REF? When I look up Jordan Richards on wikipedia I see athletes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't checked out the reviewers yet or implemented the reviews into any article, I just put the source up for discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been on numerous anime/manga panels (as well as given presentations all by myself) at anime and general science fiction conventions (local and regional) as well as at an academic symposium, so I don't know as that would necessarily qualify (though, perhaps I'm notable now!). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
*Rushes off to write the article detailing the adventures of Nihonjoe's life* In the meantime though is the source usable? I couldn't really find much about Jordan Richards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Gnn

Are their any template-savvy editors on this project? There isn't any way to use these two templates in a franchise that has multiple series, i.e., Attack on Titan (with No Regrets, Before the Fall, etc.,) or Dance in the Vampire Bund. Is there any way to add a |series= parameter to both of these? I would try to do it myself, but I'm worried I'd just break them (in fact, I'm sure I would). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest using {{Ref label}} or {{Ref}} instead as with List of Freezing characters. You could also see what I used for List of Attack on Titan characters, where I referred to the guidebook. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the other options, and I probably will use those if I have to. But I still think it would be useful if someone could alter these template to be used that way. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Long chapter list with alternative chapter titles

So, I don't write or edit manga articles on WP very often, but I did start doing some work on Battle Tendency, having shortened the overly long plot summary and character sections to reasonable lengths. What I'm wondering about is the chapter list - it would be pretty long already with just the chapter titles, but here it also lists reprint volumes from 2002, doubling the length. Looking at the article history to see why it's like that, I noticed one editor reacting similarly to me in 2014, removing the reprint list, and another editor reverting the removal because the reprints use different titles for the chapters. Are these different chapter titles really important enough to take up this much space? It really feels excessive to me - is there any precedent for doing this?--IDVtalk 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I would split the chapters off into a separate article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it.--IDVtalk 17:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
With it being in a separate article, that can have a separate section about how the series was reprinted and how it uses chapters from the other series with a brief listing for ISBN and chapters covered (no chapter titles in that table). The format would be very similar to a Home Media section for DVDs in television episodes article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarada Uchiha

It's been 9 days since the discussion to delete Sarada Uchiha and the apparent consensus is that we should redirected back to the character list. Is there an admin around here who could close the discussion? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Though I'm not an admin the close isn't contentious as all keep !votes were from socks Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Portrayed by in Infobox animanga character

With an increasing number of anime and manga being adapted into live action films or television series, I was wondering if we should add |portrayed by= to {{Infobox animanga character}}. —Farix (t | c) 01:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I support this. Live-action dramas count too! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done Though I had to used an auxiliary field because the |portrayer= (what a terrible name for a field) put the portrayed by field above the voiced by field. This is because an anime will almost always take precedent over a live action adaptation. Honestly, I'm not sure why {{Infobox character}} is being used as a meta template because of syntax issues like this. —Farix (t | c) 02:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, just tested it on Goku. Portrayed by is a better name AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Anime UK News

Would this source be reliable for reviews? Looking at the staff page [2] I noticed "Ian Wolf" for example who says he writes for MyM magazine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Note, not to be confused with UK Anime Network, which is listed as RS (NEO editor Gemma Cox was a former contributor). I noticed a couple of things, one editor is from the same town as me. More importantly, only Ian Wolf seems to have any industry involvement. It also has a much broader scope than NEO as it essentially "includes" anime/J-culture coverage rather than being based around it like Neo. Mym is basically the magazine of MCM Comic Con. I'm on the fence tbh. It sounds familiar, but really I might just be confusing it with UKA which has been around much longer.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Well if Ian Wolf checks out, this could be used as a situational source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Voicechasers.com

Is Voicechasers.com cartoon database legit? Can it be used to verify show credits? It is maintained by a group of contributors and pulls from some of the voice actors in the industry. I found this note from Jerry Beck of CartoonResearch that supports Andrew Leal, the lead contributor to the database and also the site ToonJunkies: [3]. Stephanie Ciccarelli (Vox Daily of Voices.com) seems to like it as a research resource, although she likes IMDb too: [4] Craig Crumpton of Voice Actors in the News also likes it [5] although the last two all support each other. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Being a contributor to a Jerry Beck book is a pretty good indicator that the contributor can be a rs if you ask me.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I am so glad I found this site, AngusWOOF. Hopefully the WikiProject Anime and manga community can agree that this site should be added as a reliable source. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 1:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Has there been a decision made yet concerning Voicechasers as a reliable source? AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 19:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I would treat it as a self-pub/resume-like reference for the actors thanked at the bottom of the list. [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Alright, then I guess it will be used that way. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 18:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Mini edit war

There has been an apparent edit war in Boruto: Naruto the Movie regarding the gross. It appears the users are new so I didn't warn them. Please see Talk:Boruto: Naruto the Movie#Gross.Tintor2 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to point them to discussion on Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z:_Resurrection_'F'#Box_Office. Scabab was active there and the discussion was really useful in explaining how the final numbers were computed when Box Office Mojo and The Numbers were not good enough to figure out the totals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Title issues on Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma

Please see Talk:Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma#Different titles. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Different spellings across different sources

Hello. I'm an admin at the Attack on Titan Wiki on Wikia. Excuse me if this is not a Wikipedia issue, but as you know we are a non-profit community like you (at least the community is, we know that Wikia itself is for-profit) and pursue the same goal as your group, which is to offer the most accurate information about manga and anime; in our case, specifically about Attack on Titan. We are currently having a discussion about which we haven't found a definitive solution yet, so I decided to ask for your expertise, as you are a much older group than us and work on many more mangas and animes, so you probably already have a convention about this.

As you know, Attack on Titan started as a manga and has since expanded to more media, including anime, novels, movies, etc. The official English translators for each of those media provide different spellings for characters and other stuff. Common examples are Eren's surname which is spelled as "Yeager" in the Kodansha translation of the manga and as "Jaeger" in the Funimation dub of the anime; or the Vertical Maneuvering Equipment called as such by Kodansha and as "Three Dimensional Maneuver Gear" by the anime.

The thing is, we are unsure whether we should pick a single spelling and use it consistently in all articles, or if we should use different spellings for articles related to the different media. For instance, we might conclude that "Eren Yeager" is the most reliable spelling as it is provided by Kodansha USA, the American filial of the original Japanese publisher, in all manga chapters, volumes and guidebooks; but the anime consistently refers to the character as "Eren Jaeger" in subtitles, credits, official website and the material included in Blu-Rays and DVDs; so it may not be appropriate to use the Kodansha spellings in anime related articles; for example, by listing in the voice credits "Yūki Kaji as Eren Yeager" if that's not how it listed in the actual credits. However, the list of different spellings is very long and extends even more if we take into account the video games and the official translations of the novels by Vertical, so using different spellings for each of them could turn into something very confusing.

I read your Manual of Style and if I understood it correctly you seem to stick with a single spelling, but I've also read your Attack on Titan related articles and found instances of "Eren Yeager", "Eren Jaeger", "Vertical Maneuvering Equipment" and "Three Dimensional Maneuver Gear" here and there, so I'm not sure about what your conventions for this issue are. I'm also unsure whether this is a common problem for more mangas and animes or if Kodansha and Funimation are that inconsistent only when it comes to AoT. I've visited more animanga wikis and read their manuals of styles, but couldn't find any indication that they have ever faced this problem. :S --Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Our convention for AoT media is to use with the following priority:
  • 1) Kodansha USA manga spellings (Eren Yeager, Wall Sheena) – Most AoT-related articles, especially manga, the guidebook, and our character list.
  • 2) Funimation anime spellings (Eren Jaeger, Wall Sina) – Apply only to the anime-specific articles: List of episodes, Home media / DVD articles, and filmographies like Bryce Papenbrook
  • 3) Other acceptable English manga and anime spellings from official sources – includes anime and manga captions from early translations like Crunchyroll/Hulu.
  • 4) Japanese romanized spellings – what you see on pictures for the Japanese manga and anime. With macrons and all. – usually this is only if we can't find any official English spelling from 1-3. This is where you might see "Sīna" and passages of English text that may not be proper English.
  • 5) Fansubs (low-to-no priority). They are not reliable sources for Wikipedia.
Note that we also alias all the spelling variants to the appropriate articles and use {{Nihongo}} a lot. We've done this for other shows too: One Piece (which has a ton of spelling variants and even name variants), Case Closed (lots of variants in names across manga and anime) and Fairy Tail (spelling variants between manga and anime).
For your Wikia, you can pick whatever scheme you like. Some wikias like using Japanese romanizations and names for just about everything, so you'd see a lot of Shingeki no Kyojin instead of Attack on Titan, but we're mainly English Wikipedia so we try to use titles as released in the English like Attack on Titan: Before the Fall as much of the media has been officially translated. We picked the manga first because it was printed extensively in manga and that's also the original source material. Similarly they'd like to use Detective Conan instead of Case Closed; that's been a debate for a while. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd also suggest NOT creating separate articles for Eren Yeager and Eren Jaeger. This isn't Robotech or Cardcaptor Sakura/Cardcaptors. The differences between Japanese and English translations or manga and anime aren't so radically different to warrant that. Also look at the extensive talk discussions on the spelling for the names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, this is really helpful, thank you. It seems we actually work in similar ways. We also prefer to use the English translations whenever possible. Actually, our wiki was named "Shingeki no Kyojin Wiki" until a few months ago when we requested the change to Wikia in order to follow this guideline. And we only create separate character pages for the movies and parodies which take place in very different continuities, but not for the main manga and anime, which are mostly the same thing and any difference can be acknowledged in a simple "Anime and Manga Differences" section. I'm going to suggest to the community to adopt this convention you use here as well.
Related to this, I noticed that on your Attack on Titan: Before the Fall article there is a mention of the "3D maneuver gear"; when the spelling used in both Before the Fall manga and novels is "Vertical Maneuvering Equipment". According to your conventions, that sentence should be changed, right?--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll also add that sometimes the English translations differ within themselves as with Kalura vs. Carla and Zoe Hange vs. Hange Zoe (they flop between this a lot). Zoe's actually has a whole interesting discussion regarding the gender. For Before the Fall I'd check with what Kodansha USA uses and Crunchyroll if they publish that. That series has been stocked in the public libraries recently. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The Before the Fall error was my fault, and I have already fixed it (when I first saw this thread, and before that specific example was brought up, actually). When I was writing the article, I couldn't remember which translation Kodansha used, and I didn't feel like searching through my books to find it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of those issues too. "Kalura" and "Zoe Hange" were only used in early translations of the manga, but the recent translations (at least since 2014) have consistently used "Carla" and "Hange Zoë".
About Hange's gender, we decided to make an exception to our Canon Policy and always refer to the character as female, as the character's page is currently filled with imagery from the anime that shows Hange as a woman, and all other spin-offs and movies also depict Hange as female (at this point I doubt there's still someone who thinks that Hange is a male). It was not the most strictly correct stance and I certainly wouldn't recommend it for Wikipedia, but unlike this wiki and all other sites that don't make a comprehensive coverage of the character, we have literally hundreds of articles that talk about Hange's actions and it would be very complicated to always refer to the character by name or by neutral pronouns (I had difficulty simply to write this paragraph without using gender pronouns).
About the Vertical Equipment, I actually think that in Before the Fall it is simply referred to as "the Device"; as the series is intended to take place several decades before the main storyline and it had not been properly named yet. I'm not sure if it is indeed called "Vertical Maneuvering Equipment" at some point of the Before the Fall novels or manga, but I'm sure that both Kodansha and Vertical use that name for all the other AoT mangas and novels. So far I've only seen "3D Maneuver Gear" in the anime.--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Bubblegum Crisis

Hi, everyone, I've recently merged Bubblegum Crisis (series) into Bubblegum Crisis because I felt it was an uneeded article. In addition of being far from our conventions, I don't thik WP:SPLITSIZE would justify it. However, I and Justin Bacon had some dispute over this (see). I've started a discussion here and I as got no response from him I hope someone else can give an opinion there. Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The table is unnecessary and OR, if there are links between other titles they can be dealt with better, but that needs sources. I would kill the RPG section, one of the links is an adult site(!) and the other isn't a reliable source. Merge the other media section into the Crisis article and then retask the Crisis article into a franchise page like every other franchise. I have a few potential sources for the various elements of the series (Anime Uk, Manga Mania, Animerica etc) I can use on the page if you want to develop it. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Animanga infobox questions

I have two questions about the animanga infobox's use on Danganronpa 3: The End of Kibōgamine Gakuen. The infobox guidelines say this: "For consistency, it is recommended that components be sorted by release date". This makes sense in most cases, where the primary work was created first and adaptations came later. In the case of Danganronpa 3, however, the primary topic - the anime - is not the first media to be released. Rather, a spin-off manga meant to promote the anime started serialization in March, a few months before the anime's planned premiere. It makes way more sense to me to put the primary topic first, and the spin-off below - what do you guys think? I want consensus before I switch them around, since I'd be going against the infobox guidelines.

For my second question, the Danganronpa 3 anime is split into two parts that are planned to both start airing in July, with one episode from each part airing every week. The two parts each have their own infobox component, but they share the same staff, so you essentially end up with two identical infobox components with different titles. This is not particularly helpful for the reader, and just takes up a lot of space. Is it possible to combine the two in some manner?--IDVtalk 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not the first time this has occurred, but we still the infobox listed in chronological order. As for the two season, is the only different in the subtitle of the cours? This would be a duplicate situation to Durarara!!x2, which we just combine three cours into one infobox segment as they were produced as a single unit. —Farix (t | c) 11:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I can see that you said to follow release order on the Angel Beats talk page, but was this ever discussed? I definitely think there's room for exceptions in these types of situations. Moving on to your next point... I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you mean by As for the two season, is the only different in the subtitle of the cours?.--IDVtalk 11:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link to the discussion that led to that note on the Angel Beats! talk page. As for the other issue, since the only difference is in their title, as was done on Durarara!!, I think it would make sense to use one infobox and just list the total number of episodes for both series once it's complete.--十八 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Does that mean it's going to air an episode from Mirai-hen in the first half and from Zetsubō-hen in the second half? I'd still treat that as one show with two parts then as with Tonari no Seki-kun to Rumi-chan no Jishō or The Scooby-Doo/Dynomutt Hour. You can then use Japanese episode multi-part. One show for the infobox since it takes up the same slot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Titan OVAs' titles

There's a discussion about the titles of the Attack on Titan OVAs here: Talk:List_of_Attack_on_Titan_episodes#Title of OVA 2

Sorry if I'm not supposed to paste the link here, but I received no answer on that Talk Page and I saw other people doing it, so I assumed it was ok. :PManuel de la Fuente (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass Hulu removals

As detailed on ANN [7] and Engadget [8], Hulu will be mass removing most of their anime on June 1st (Viz titles being the most obvious exception). This strikes me as an opportunity to update articles to include them being on Hulu (where not mentioned already) as well as their removal at the same time. The only concern is how much can be reliably sourced as expiring.SephyTheThird (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Fandom Post has a near-complete list of the titles that will be expiring. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see that when I made the post, even though I was on FP for something else. Oh well :p I'm not sure it's quite accurate, Viz have started all their titles are staying. However the ANN post has now updated since this morning, apparently not as many titles are actually being removed as first thought. Perhaps the licenses are still valid, or something has happened behind the scenes.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
If the hosting by Hulu occurred during the initial run, then it would be worth noting in the text with accompanying sources. The same as we treat Crunchyroll's simulcasts. However, we should not include when the series was removed unless the removal is the result of a significant—and documented—event, such as allege copyright violations or lawsuit. —Farix (t | c) 12:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

the removal is the result of a significant—and documented—event, such as allege copyright violations or lawsuit.

Wait: there have been cases of "official" streams being taken down from Hulu allegedly due to copyright infringement? Which would be kind of weird given how hard it is to be put up there in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a hypothetical example of when a VOD is removed is notable enough to be included in an article. —Farix (t | c) 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If the expiries are published by Hulu (which they seem to be as peoples queues have been marked with the dates), then isn't that documented? We add that the streams are available/were started (depending on case) so why not that they are no longer. We do the same for physical versions if the expiry is announced so I don't see why streaming should be any different. It is relevant to release details, so if it can be sourced then I don't see why it should be excluded. I don't see a distinction between simulcasts and catalog releases here. Some of the catalog titles were never given physical releases in NA/UK (many TMS titles for example).SephyTheThird (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
We don't normally note when a particular anime or manga series is no longer available, either because it is out of print or the license expired, unless there is something significant about the situation. Hulu realignment doesn't appear that significant of a situation that is worth mentioning outside of Hulu's own article. —Farix (t | c) 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Surely, if an article lists that a show is available on Hulu, and Hulu then removes it from its library, something needs to change on the article? Otherwise, it would say that the show is available on Hulu, which is in the present incorrect. Either it needs to have dates to indicate in which period the show was available (i.e. "2014-2016"), or the service has to be removed in its entirety from the article. The latter may cause confusion. ~Mable (chat) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Not all license expiries are published, which I suspect is much of the reason why. I also don't think it's a case of "we don't do it" and rather more a case of "we don't go out of our way". There isn't a reason not to note expiry's if it meets the usual requirements for sourcing even if we don't make a habit of it. I think Maplestrip makes a valid point, if the shows is sourced as being available, it should be sourced that it's availability has ended if possible. If we don't know a specific date, we can just use an archived source and use past tense, as the original source in that cite should serve as evidence.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to archive the start dates of the anime's page if they were Hulu premieres? If they were used just as a convenient place to look up episodes for cite episode purposes then the URL isn't as critical. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
How would it be possible to use date for Hulu premieres? Do they even state when shows go up for streaming? I know Crunchyroll tends to do that for simulcasts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm only aware of Hulu start dates from ANN news items which are often done from press releases or other license holder announcements. Unless it's a simulcast, shows either get uploaded and then word spreads, or perhaps word spreads a couple of hours at most before they are live.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Tenchi in Tokyo

As there was no plot listing for this series, I went ahead and wrote it while watching the series, but I'm a bit stuck; it is complete, and having looked at similar synopses for "full-season"-type programs, it probably should be fairly long, but it seems overly huge. One reason for it is that in this series, certain plot details aren't explored either linearly or deeply on first occurrence, but do come back as central to something else several episodes later, which then requires some backfilling to understand how that situation arose. For example, the archaeological dig is mentioned at least three separate times, but it's not a plot point the first time it shows up; it becomes more important towards the end of the series to fill in the backstory of the main antagonist. Similarly, every instance of "little girl" Yugi comes back eventually as part of overall motivation, but it is in no way apparent that something that happened in episode 2 is going to be pertinent in 25 or 26 until it happens in 25 or 26.

I'm also pretty sure some of the issue with the plot is that the overall program isn't all that good in the first place. Now, the short alternative to the polt is something to the effect of "In this series, Tenchi moves to Tokyo, meets a new love interest and a new enemy, and in the end, everything turns out OK", which seems sort of pointless to even bother writing. Therefore, I could use some direction or some actual pruning assistance, because I think there's a happy medium that will summarize properly with the right level of detail, and I'm not sure it's at that point yet. MSJapan (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You really need to take a step back and look at WP:TVPLOT. You should try to shoot for a summary that's about 500 words by only including the important details to the plot. Play-by-play summaries like that aren't going to help anyone since they're so long that no one would read it. Take a look at similar-length series that have adequate plot lengths like Neon Genesis Evangelion (a GA) at a mere 554 words, or Madlax (an FA) at 592 words.--十八 06:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
In my experience, simply describing the setting, a rough outline of the story, and the ending is more than enough. The primary purpose of a plot summary on Wikipedia is to give some context as to what an article is talking about. The kind of in-depth description you wrote would fit better on a fanwiki, where every little detail is appreciated. There's also a copyright problem: right now, AIC could basically sue Wikimedia because we re-tell a story they own. (Not that that ever really happens, but Wikimedia has some pretty strict rules to keep this from happening). If you want to improve it, try to tell the story like it would be described on the back of the box, or better yet, use reliable sources to describe the story. That makes it very easy to create some extra real-world context in the plot section as well. ~Mable (chat) 07:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yikes! That's way too long. A lot of those details can go in a list of Tenchi in Tokyo episodes. You can look at Kill la Kill where I put about 1-2 sentences per episode or even less. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed here, I feel like I am looking at a wall of text. @MSJapan: a fellow editor once told me: "let the reader experience the plot for themselves", you don't need to rehash every small detail, just the overall story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I must admit, even with the knowledge it was going to be long it was still about 5 times longer than I expected. Brief and loose, no need to cover so many details. Plot summaries do take skill to do well, but for the most part an "adequate" summary will be enough. I've never watched the series so I can't say how brief the summary should be but the suggestion made above ""In this series, Tenchi moves to Tokyo, meets a new love interest and a new enemy, and in the end, everything turns out OK" is a good place to start. By itself that would indeed be unsuitable but if you can make a two paragraph summary that covers those points, you'll be on the right track.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The Eva plot was actually really helpful in this case; I'm familiar with that series, so seeing what the essentials were there helped me whittle this one down considerably. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome job, MSJapan! I haven't read the description, as I haven't seen this show yet, but right now I think most people here would be very happy with the length :) ~Mable (chat) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
And as Angus said above, you can still add more detailed summaries to the List of Tenchi in Tokyo episodes, but you should still try to keep the length of those summaries to around 100-200 words each per WP:TVPLOT. List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes is a good template.--十八 20:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Butcher as an individual RS

Previous discussions that didn't receive responses: 1, 2.

Hi I'd like to bring up Christopher Butcher for consideration as an individual who is a reliable source. He is the manager of The Beguiling, a comic shop. http://comics212.net/ is his blog. He is also the co-founder of PopImage and PreviewsReview. Here are interviews with the Comics Reporter and another with Deb Aoki where he was considered the driving force behind the Toronto Comic Arts Festival, of which he is a co-founder. Here is an interview with ICv2 where they ask him about the future of manga in context of his working at the shop. He was included in a survey by Publishers Weekly about the growth of graphic novel publishing. Here is a piece about him in the Toronto Star about a manga censorship talk given by him. He's been a panelist for a panel by the American Library Association for Best and Worst Manga. Another panel at Sandiego Comic Con about Making a Living in Manga. Quoted by ComicsWorthReading.

Places he's written for: about.com, Xtra!, InnerSPACE Podcast (probably many more since he is also a freelance writer)

I think these show him to be a prominent figure in the manga industry and his blog has also been linked to a few times. (Examples: here and here) Lastly a note that because of his role as a comics retailer, there is a possibility of a conflict of interest, so that might be something to consider.Opencooper (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think he has all the credentials to be a RS. And it would be CoI only if you are him or related to him. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay I'm probably misunderstanding the COI part. I'll just strike that out. Opencooper (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyone else? Please don't let this become the third time this discussion gets passed up. Opencooper (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Gabriel made a mistake: it could be a conflict of interest if he discusses something that he himself sells. For example, if he strongly recommends a manga he is selling for a discount in his store, obviously we would not accept such a source. Other than that, I don't know Butcher at all and can't give much of a comment about him. In general, editorials are always worth more than blogs of notable people, but if his opinions are considered "generally important" and if he is considered an industry expert, I'd be fine with them being used in articles. Just try to refrain from using his word to source controversial factoids. ~Mable (chat) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Looking into it more, according to Butcher, "The Beguiling is what you would call a full-line manga store. This means we order at least one copy of every manga graphic novel/tankoubon, by every publisher, and put it out on the shelf." (http://icv2.com/articles/comics/view/5742/christopher-butcher-the-beguiling-mangas-imminent-doom) So based on that I wouldn't really say it is cause for concern and I've never even seen him mention the store in his reviews. I just noted that it's something to consider if we use him, but shouldn't hang up whether he's a RS or not. You make a good point about not using a blog for sourcing controversial information. Opencooper (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Should be OK for RS. He's recognized in the manga industry for directing TCAF. Tom Spurgeon has interviewed him. [9] and the Toronto Star has covered him in paneling that and other local events. [10] [11] [12] Another one for Beguiling [13] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
He was also the moderator/interviewer for Masashi Kishimoto's first appearance in North America at the New York Comic-Con. [14] [15] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like someone may be able to write an article about this person as well, if someone is up for it. I mean, I haven't read the sources linked above, but that sounds like quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 19:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sailor Moon move discussion

The discussion for a potential move on Chibiusa is at Talk:Chibiusa#Requested move 29 May 2016. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Den of Geek

[16] Not heavily anime focused but does contain anime articles. Published by Dennis Publishing who are a Magazine publisher .SephyTheThird (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The about page shows that it was established in 2007 and there is editorial staff. (Also, confusingly, there is also a US version of the site with different staff and content) Here is the anime category. I had trouble finding instances it being cited or quoted by other websites unfortunately. (IndieWire refers to an interview they did) Do you know any more information about them, such as any mentions on other sites/media? Opencooper (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
ANN reported on their Ghibli interview recently, which was what caused me to take a look[17].SephyTheThird (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have some good experiences with the writing on Den of Geek, though I've never really looked into the website other than that. I didn't even know that they did anime-related stuff. ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yu Kanda project

After working on Allen Walker (the MC of D.Gray-man), I decided to work in article for another character, Yu Kanda, in my sandbox. I managed to grab some reviews but I still don't know if it is enough to make an article. I will also to see if I can find creation information about him too. If anybody has reviews of the manga or the article that mentions him, I would appreciate if you shared it with me. You are also welcome edit the sandbox. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to dishearten you or anything but writing articles on Madoka characters will probably be easier, I'm afraid. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about Madoka, but if I have free time tomorrow, I'll see if I can increase their reception sections.Tintor2 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Sorry about that, I meant to say "Madoka characters" and not "Madoka articles". I made a typo. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I might end up putting too many quotes @Narutolovehinata5: since I don't understand the comments so somebody will have to paraphrase them.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I tried expanding Madoka Kaname @Narutolovehinata5: (although it could be rewritten since I don't get some of the quotes) but couldn't find much about Homura Akemi. Maybe the problem is that there are only few reviews of the series since all the reviews already have the entire series and try to hide massive spoilers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Try using {{cite episode}} for information then. I know you aren't exactly familiar with the series, but I have watched the series a couple of times and I'm willing to add information on your talkpage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can't cite an episode for review information or other more encyclopedic content. I had difficulty writing a lot about Madoka and Homura as well as sources shy away from spoilers and Japanese magazines are difficult to access...
If I may criticize some of the latest edits on Madoka, a lot of the added content either doesn't make much sense outside of the larger context of the review (for example, "Bertschy noted in the finale of the series, Madoka's transformation was 'quite intense' despite not transforming into an actual magical girl" is rather meaningless to a Wikipedia reader), or doesn't make any sense at all (in particular the connection between a lack of character traits, constantly eating food during battle, and comic relief. I'v watched the show and have no idea what that reviewer is talking about). But I'm already happy that you're adding more sources. Anything that is confusing or vague can be fixed, I'm sure :) ~Mable (chat) 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Anybody knows French?

I ask this because a D.Gray-man review that probably has information about Yu Kanda is located here. It's just to add a bit more of reception to the character article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully Google translate is rather more useful with european languages than with Japanese.[18]SephyTheThird (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks SephyTheThird. But just to make myself clear before adding to the article, the author found the Kanda's return and the first fights good, but the following one average, right?Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Although I don't know the plot, it sounds to me like they were saying that the first fight was unbearably chaotic while the second was much clearer, with the reviewer liking Kanda's return. Unfortunately machine translation mangles grammar and there might always be nuance or tone that only a native reader could pick up. If you still need a French speaker, you might wish to use the services of the editors listed at Wikipedia:Translators available, especially since the review is so short. Opencooper (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Any Shonen Jump subscribers watching this page?

I just recreated the Black Clover article; it was redirected after a deletion discussion back in August 2015. I was wondering if anyone here has a Weekly Shonen Jump subscription and could fill out the chapter list? Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to for some of the volumes. They have snapshots of the table of contents in the publisher's online samples. [19] The latest non-published volumes will still be a mystery unless the Japanese wikipedia has been on top of the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: I meant Viz Media's English Shonen Jump. I know how to get the Japanese chapter titles, but since only one volume of the series has been published in English, a Shonen Jump subscriber would need to fill out the English titles for later volumes/uncollected chapters. And I could add the Japanese ch. titles (and probably will, sometime), but since I don't speak Japanese, it would be a lot easier if I had the English titles so I could reverse-translate them using Google translate. >_< G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I found some translation on ComicVine [20] but no idea if it's legit as it appears to be user-submitted to GameSpot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Liam O'Brien a Funimation voice actor? How to categorize VAs in non-Funimation dubbed works licensed or produced by Funimation

Input would be appreciated at Talk: Liam O'Brien regarding whether he should be classified as a Funimation voice actor and whether dubs that are done by a different studio (Studiopolis (Los Angeles), New Generation Pictures (New York)) that isn't Funimation but are then post-produced and released as a Funimation title count as a Funimation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_18#Category:Funimation_voice_actors AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 and future air dates

I've been having an issue with a dynamic IPv6 editor who keeps adding future air dates without citing a source. Apparently, this individual doesn't thing WP:V applies to future dates. The affected articles are Terra Formars, List of Terra Formars episodes, Beyblade: Burst, and Seisen Cerberus. —Farix (t | c) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS-TV discussion

In case anyone is interested, a proposal for a rewrite on WP:MOS-TV is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Manual of Style Rewrite. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

List of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar characters

Hi, I created the above page by merging character information from The King of Braves GaoGaiGar, List of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar protagonists, and List of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar antagonists. This was because the main article had a ton of information on side characters, and we really really don't need separate articles for protagonists and antagonists like Wikia. As it stands, the current article weighs in at 159 KB and is as WP:INDISCRIMINATE as they get. Some serious WP:TNT is needed here and help would be appreciated. If anyone is knowledgable in the series, could you pare it down to the most major characters? Or if there is an even smaller amount of cast that really matters, it's possible that a small portion could be merged back to the main article. However, the current article is much too long and full of minor characters and should be put out of its misery. Opencooper (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also redirected List of shikigami in Onmyō Taisenki and List of O-Parts Hunter Angels and Demons. Opencooper (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Akame ga Kill! chapters

There has been anon User talk:86.245.52.89 adding new volumes to List of Akame ga Kill! chapters (apparently in good faith) but he does not add citations. I tried contacting him, but he reverted my edit and kept the currently list without the sources. I don't mean to revert again, since I fear I might start an edit war. Any suggestions? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP, per WP:BRD this needs to be discussed first or else it falls into WP:WAR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A small request

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask for this, but can someone quickly review VA-11 HALL-A to see if it meets the project's B-class criteria, and update the class accordingly? I daresay it should pass without any major hiccups. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is a fine place to ask. (There is also requests for assessment but I don't know how well-watched it is) The referencing is good. The topic is reasonably covered. Structure is well-defined. Prose is good. Has two images and an infobox. Lastly all jargon is wikilinked and the article is otherwise understandable. Checks out to me. Opencooper (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is this article even within our scope? There are no anime or manga related media. —Farix (t | c) 14:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The game had significant anime, Japanese, and visual novel influences. There's general precedent that articles related to anime and manga fandom get the tag, like Maid café, for instance. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just because a game has the same visual style of anime/manga doesn't mean it falls within our scope. This Wikiproject is based around two types of media and the associated sub-culture, not a visual style. —Farix (t | c) 01:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The game's creator has said the game was inspired by anime and targets anime fans though. If people have somehow managed to logic "Wikiproject Women's History" to be relevant to maid cafe, I don't see the harm in classifying VA-11 HALL-A under WPANIME. Wikiproject tagging is usually very broad. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
By that logic we'd consider stuff like Kappa Mikey, Avatar, or RWBY as anime; even though they're clearly inspired by anime, they aren't as they're primarily produced by American companies for an (initially) American audience. Users here can probaly help out individually as editors, although not because it's related to anime and manga (which it is not). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
We should list RWBY and especially Avatar among the Western OELs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Farix on this, the scope of our articles is fairly clear. OEL and visual novels are clearly inspired by anime and manga but we don't cover them because they aren't anime or manga. If they have anime or manga adaptations then we cover them but otherwise they aren't under our scope. Just like manwha. I think the maid cafe analogy doesn't work as there are there is more of a subculture link. Visual novels, even if they are Japanese or not necessarily part of the subculture. Besides I don't think the two are really comparable, the arguments are different in each case so that discussion is separate. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, our project page does include visual novels in this case but I don't really see why.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how visual novels got listed on #scope. I've looked through the talk page history and can't find a consensus discussion supporting the addition, so I will be removing it. Granted that there is a lot of crossover, but so is there a lot of crossover between anime/manga and light novels, which is not within our scope either. —Farix (t | c) 11:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with Farix. Big-name VNs often get some sort of anime/manga adaptation, but they're not directly related to those mediums.--IDVtalk 11:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what you're trying to redefine as the scope. I would treat visual novels as video games in that if they have notable manga and anime adaptations, they fall in our scope. If they don't, like in particular video games that don't cross into anime, then no. If all they have on the anime side is a short promotional OVA, then no. That would be like a commercial trailer. Some video games do have extensive cutscenes that are produced like anime, but it doesn't make them movies, unless they are treated as an anime piece. The task force is mainly under video games. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've undone Farix's removal of Visual Novels from the project scope. The discussion that added them to the project scope is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive_52#Adopt Visual Novel Task Force as a joint WikiProject TF with WikiProject Video games. Visual novels in the same franchise as anime/manga were already in scope before that discussion, but that discussion added all visual novels to the project scope. If anyone wants to remove visual novels without an anime/manga connection from the project scope, please start a separate discussion proposing their removal. Personally I think visual novels should remain jointly within our scope, since members of this WikiProject seem likely to be both interested in them and knowledgeable about them (more so than any other WikiProject that I'm aware of). Also, I do agree with Farix that the article that this request was about isn't within our project scope, since the project page specifically says non-Japanese works inspired by anime and manga are not in scope (I'm pretty sure the work in question is non-Japanese). I don't think the addition of visual novels to the project scope was meant to include non-Japanese works, just like we don't include non-Japanese comics and animation. Calathan (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really see the reason for having a joint scope on these articles, either they are animanga or they are not. That being said, non Japanese works shouldn't be in our scope at all (unless it's a western adaptation of an existingJapanese media title) so this work still doesn't qualify.SephyTheThird (talk)<
Because people who have an interest in anime and manga may also have an interest in Japanese visual novels, without being interested in video games. The whole point of the matter is really: are there people in this project who feel that way? People who want to keep track of Japanese visual novels but aren't interested in joining WP:VG? If not, than it can just as well go. I mean, it doesn't really matter all that much if such articles are within this project's scope or not to me, but it's not like there's no reason to keep them within this project's scope. ~Mable (chat) 10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
While I see a consensus to make the VN taskfore a joint one, I don't see a consensus to include visual novels without our scope. We also share the LN task force for with WP:NOVELS, but that does mean that all light novels are within our scope. Also, just because someone is interested in Topic A may also mean that they may be interested in Topic B does not mean that Topic B is with the scope of Wikiproject Topic A. WikiProject are about focusing on a specific topic area, not on articles that a group of editors may find "interesting". This just causes scope creep that cause a project to eventually loose its focus. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The whole point of that discussion about adopting the VN taskforce as a joint one was to add all visual novels to our scope. The discussion to add the task force was prompted by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 52#User:Fortdj33 removing WikiProject banners from visual novels further up on the same archive page. That's why Jinnai started the proposal with "Given the previous discussion . . .", and why Jinnai edited the scope section of WP:ANIME to say it included all visual novels once that discussion had reached a consensus. He specifically made the discussion because he wanted the non-anime and manga related visual novels to be part of the WikiProject. I don't think anyone who was participating in the discussion at the time was confused about what was being proposed. Also, all light novels are within scope of this WikiProject. Light novels have been within the project scope ever since the scope section was first added to the WikiProject page back in 2006. We share WP:LN with WP:NOVELS because light novels are in our scope, not the other way around. The discussions related to the scope section being added are Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 6#Scope of the project and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 7#Scope. Just because we name our WikiProject "WikiProject Anime and manga" doesn't mean we need to limit our scope strictly to those things, and covering other topics that are generally of interest to the same group of people seems good to me (and doesn't mean we need to rename our project to "WikiProject Anime, manga, light novels, visual novels, and related stuff"). Calathan (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I intentionally tried to write a short reply that wouldn't drag me in further but that didn't work out well. So I'm going to throw this out there: Essentially I don't agree on the latter point, otherwise we would end up covering anything with the slightest hint of a Japanese media influence. We don't cover OEL's so why should we cover western VN's even if they are inspired by animanga? I don't see the distinction. I know I'd be happier going through the cleanup list if the articles were all relevant to what i'm doing. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've said above that I don't think we cover Western visual novels. I don't think the article this request was about is within the project scope. I am totally in agreement with you that there isn't a distinction between OEL manga and western visual novels. I don't want to expand our scope to include non-Japanese works that are merely inspired by anime/manga. Calathan (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
We should cover Western visual novels are significantly influenced by Japanese works, just like we do for any other "subculture link", as you put it (for the record BTW there is extremely large crossover between visual novel, light novel, anime, and manga subcultures in Japan). There's also a pretty big strawman between me saying we should cover works significantly influenced by anime/manga and you saying we shouldn't cover "anything with the slightest hint of a Japanese media influence". Also, making our inclusion guidelines this strict is completely different from what every other WikiProject is doing, I provided some examples below. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, given that they are Western in origin, unless these were somehow actually involved with an anime rather tham merely being inspired by anime, they don't belong in our scope. See my analogies above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Good thing I'm not advocating for Kappa Mikey to be tagged then, so that point is moot. I don't see anything wrong with placing RWBY under our scope, as reliable sources have extensively discussed the series' anime influences and it even spawned a manga.
My question to you is simple. WikiProject Video games tags non-games with video game influences, like Wreck-It Ralph. WikiProject Horror tags non-horror series with horror influences, like Darkstalkers. WikiProject LGBT Studies tags pages with minute LGBT stuff, like Analogue: A Hate Story. WikiProject Women's History tags pages where the connection is laughable, like maid cafe. What makes WikiProject Anime and manga any different? What makes us special, to make our tagging criteria different from others? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
RWBY is a bit of a borderline case since it has a manga adaptation, so at best things should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis (for example, Powerpuff Girls Z definitely falls under our scope, although the original Powerpuff Girls does not). But saying that something should be included in our scope just beceause it's heavily influenced by anime is kind of like saying that Philippine TV dramas would be part of a theoretical Telenovela WikiProject (which I know does not exist; just using this for this analogy) just because Philippine television dramas take inspiration from telenovelas. As for maid cafe example, well as a budding historian myself, theoretically anything that's happened is part of history, and it does have some historial significance. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Philippine dramas or telenovelas, but from what I can see they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_television_drama are] a type of telenovela, so I'm confused by your analogy. The Visual Novel task force is a joint collaboration between WPVG and WPANIME, so visual novels will be tagged under this project anyway through {{WikiProject Anime and manga|visual-novel-task-force=yes}}. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy shit this blew up :O I'm not a fan of arbitrarily defining strictly what is and what isn't in our scope, which is happening above; like I said, WikiProject tagging is usually very broad, and anything with significant anime/manga influences or relation with anime/manga should be included under our scope (including visual novels), subject to WP:COMMONSENSE of course. That's why Maid café is under WikiProject Women's History (and this project too), Wreck-It Ralph is under WikiProject Video games (it's a film inspired by games) and Darkstalkers is under WikiProject Horror (it has horror elements but is certainly not a horror series). Not sure why everyone is up in arms when I'm just tagging articles under this project with the same conventions used for any other project. It's beyond harmless. Come on guys Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Maid Cafe's clearly involve women, particularly in services. Wreck It Ralph isn't simply "inspired by games" it's packed full of material which is directly from actual games. Darkstalkers is based largely around representing hundreds of years of horror media, with characters lifted entirely from literature and genre movies. Ultimately wp:otherstuffexists and we can trade examples for hours, none really explain why we should tag western vn's as animanga because they claim to be inspired by 80s ovas or well known japanese vn's with anime tie ins. I'm just as confused as to why we should include them as to why you are confused people disagree with you.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If A is clearly and blatantly "inspired" by B, and this inspiration has been clearly discussed by reliable sources, then A very clearly is related to B and editors who are interested in B are more likely than any other random editor to also take an interest in A. WikiProject tagging is broad as tagging A and B in a centralized area for people interested in improving A and B to discuss them is clearly beneficial, and harmless. Maid cafe's involve women in the same way VA-11 HALL-A involves anime themes and characters. WP:OSE is irrelevant to project tagging and also doesn't mean much when there's clearly precedent. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Should WikiProject Anime and manga's scope be widened?

There is no consensus to widen WikiProject Anime and manga's scope as proposed to "topics that are not necessarily directly related to anime and manga but nevertheless are heavily inspired by it". A more specific proposal might be more likely to gain consensus. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I guess it's time to put this up for discussion: Should the WikiProject's scope include articles on topics that are not necessarily directly related to anime and manga but nevertheless are heavily inspired by it? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This is way too broad so No we should not. Im not sure what you mean by "heavily inspired", in what ways? The only exception I can see is Japanese visual novels as those are usually found at anime conventions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Would heavily inspired mean anything that looks like the stereotypical anime artstyle? (of course acknowledging that not all anime follows such an art style) Brustopher (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Brustopher: See Satellizer's comments above for what I mean by widening the scope. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Opposse Actually I think the discussion is less about simply widening it, and more of assessing the current list, there is clearly disagreement about the current wording and definition. The whole idea of the scope is to tie in to the subject matter. As KnowledgeKid said, it's just too broad to include things because of inspiration or similarities or if they involve people who represent several media. As i said above, if you start including western visual novels purely because of similarities and inspiration then you have to include OEL despite them not being Japanese or Manga. Where do you draw the line? All the mainline Dragon Quest games have extensive character and monster designs by Akira Toriyama, but the articles don't currently appear in our project as they are clearly not animanga. Yet they have connections to animanga so they would be included as well. I accept the arguement that Satelizer makes about tagging being broad, but it seems common sense that articles should actually follow the main theme/scope of the project or belong to a core concept. Pairing up with task forces doesn't convince me either, clearly there is overlap with VN's that have manga/anime adaptations but that doesn't mean we should be tied to every thing that can be branded a visual novel. Widening the scope also has big repercussions for the master cleanup list which is horrific enough for actual animanga articles, never mind the increased noise ratio. We already have issues with the bulk our our articles, why take on more problems as well. Nothing is stopping people from editing pages outside our scope, but it doesn't mean we should all adopt them.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Close discussion as an improper RfC. This is because an RfC invites comment from literally anybody; however, it is established practice that every WikiProject reserves the right to decide what topics fall within its purview, therefore, the only people qualified to discuss this matter are the project participants. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Literally anybody can join this WikiProject. All they have to do is show interest in anime and manga, and those without such interest are unlikely to comment on this RfC anyway. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Limit scope Treat visual novels that aren't franchised into anime and manga as video games. Media Arts classifies them as games and not anime, and should have some mention in databases like ANN. Similarly, light novels stay with novels/books wikiproject. The ones that are of interest to us are the ones that cross into manga or receive an anime adaptation. Articles that are categorized as Anime-influenced animation like RWBY and Avatar: The Last Airbender are outside the scope. Similarly for people, if they have extensive entries in Media Arts manga and anime sections or have ANN entries, they are probably okay to retain. Much as I would like to add video game and cartoon VAs such as Jennifer Hale or Grey DeLisle, they have only voiced on a handful of anime, so they would be outside our scope. There are still ones on the fence like what to do with an actor whose most Wikipedia-notable role was in an anime adaptation but hasn't done anything in the industry otherwise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Even shows like Miraculous Ladybug and Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi are borderline outside the scope despite having Japanese producers involvement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Not really - I wouldn't say they are borderline at all. Neither of these are anime, by definition. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep scope as it is now - I would like to keep the scope as including Japanese light novels and visual novels, but not including non-Japanese works inspired by anime and manga. I know the wording of the scope section is a little vague on whether non-Japanese visual novels are included, since it says non-Japanese "animated or printed works" are excluded. I would be in favor of editing that to make it clear that non-Japanese works of any sort, other than those actually adapted from anime/manga (e.g., Dragonball Evolution), are not within scope. About light novels, I see absolutely no reason to take them out of the project scope. They have been within scope for nearly the whole time the project has existed without there being any issue until now. Also, nearly every light novel that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page has an anime or manga adaptation, so that change would only be removing a handful of pages. I think it would be confusing to have 98% of light novel pages be in our scope, but not have the main light novel page be in scope and not say that we cover light novels. For visual novels, while I personally prefer that they remain in scope, I am more ambivalent about removing them than with light novels. Unlike light novels, they haven't always been in the project scope, and there are a significant number with Wikipedia pages that don't have an anime/manga adaptation. Calathan (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally think expanding the scope to simply encompass Japanese otaku, manga-influenced media would be fine. I don't really care too much, though. I categorize visual novels and light novels together with anime and manga in my mind, though I understand that others may feel differently. Regardless, I'd like to stress that if this idea goes through, we should limit it to Japanese visual novels. "Japan-inspired" visual novels are similar to anime-inspired animation. ~Mable (chat) 07:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ReLIFE

A debate about the release details has started at Talk:ReLIFE. The series is being broadcast on tv but is already available for complete streaming both inside, and outside Japan. This also explains why people have been listing the broadcast start and end on the same date, although that field is meant for TV broadcast and not streaming.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, no streaming or simulcasting unless it's the primary broadcast method. Plenty of English series that were released on DVD before enjoying a significant run on a major network channel. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Graphicpolicy

Some weeks ago, when I was searching a bit of reception to Yu Kanda, I found this website in the "Wikipedia RSs for anime/manga" using the words Kanda and Willingham, Graphicpolicy. Because I'm not entirely sure if that is reliable for the project I moved to my sandbox. Should I put it in the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So I'm looking at the "about" page, and it looks like it's just a blog run by comic book fans. Is there anything that points to it being reliable?--IDVtalk 23:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Even authors don't use their full names correctly.Tintor2 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Gwern's custom Google search excludes many bad sites like Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and scanlation sites, and it also whitelists sites from WP:A&M/ORS. (More details here and here, with the sourcelists available) However, from my experience, it doesn't entirely suppress all bad links such as the latest scanlation sites, (since those pop up constantly) and not all sources are exactly reliable, so I'm guessing it just gives more weight to whitelisted links, hides blacklisted links, and just regularly ranks the others. (You can confirm this by searching for example an American film and comparing that you get nearly the same results just ordered a bit different)
Anyway to get to the point you can't assume all of the results it give are automatically reliable, especially since the blacklisting can skew the results to more obscure sites. Graphicpolicy is not listed at WP:A&M/ORS and there are no past discussions of it on this WikiProject. It also isn't in WP:CMC/REF or in their past WikiProject discussions. Lastly it hasn't been discussed in WP:RSN either. (I also searched the sourcelist for the custom search and it isn't dealt with individually so Gwern didn't make any special rules for it)
That means we have to look at the site ourselves using the guidelines at WP:RS. Looking at the about page, I notice several things: first off there is no editor listed, which is a big negative. nachtmerrieschultz is the Kaylyn listed there and she is a "University student in Alaska" so doubtful that she meets the criteria for an individual reliable source. Additionally, anyone can write the site on a volunteer basis, meaning they don't have a regular staff. Running a search for mentions of the site itself, I'm not finding much on other manga or comics RSes. Based on all of this, my initial thoughts would be to not consider the site a RS. Opencooper (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Excessive detail in license announcements

Recently, I've been in a dispute with G S Palmer (talk · contribs) over adding some excessive detail when including information on when a series is licensed on the articles Big Order and Rokka: Braves of the Six Flowers. Palmer believes that including when and where a license occurred is relevant to the license itself, namely, that the series was recently licensed at Anime Expo on July 1. By the same token, it doesn't matter that the novel license was announced at the same panel. I simply removed the part about AX and the date because I feel it is clearly excessive detail, as it has no bearing on the license itself, and I feel is in accordance with WP:BECONCISE and WP:TOOMUCH. But I would really like to know what other editors in the project think about this.--十八 02:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out on my talk page, it help give the reader an idea of the timeline for the English release. Consider the case of The Irregular at Magic High School, where Yen licensed the series in spring of 2015, but didn't get around the publishing the first volume until this summer. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
So what if it took them over a year to release it? People aren't stupid; they can check the ref if they want to know when the license occurred. To quote WP:TOOMUCH: Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject.--十八 02:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I know that as a reader myself, I would rather not have to dig around through the various references to find a piece of information, when it could just as easily be included in the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC) (Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to continue participating in this discussion, since I need to sleep tonight. This is my last post. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC))
Except that we don't just include refs to verify content. Refs will invariably contain more information that what they are being used to reference; that doesn't mean we should attempt to reproduce every detail in a given news report because you would "rather not have to dig around" through the refs.--十八 02:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
"Location/event of announcement is completely unnecessary. I just don't see any benefit to including it. It's not needed for understanding of the topic. I think there is more of a case for including the date and I would be surprised if it wasn't common practice to do so for shows from the last few years. However I think this may be a case of the stage the article is at. For an article where the release is yet to occur or possibly is still in progress then it can be useful. Once a release is fully available I think the justification for keeping it goes away. Either way, we don't need full mdy/dmy for license announcements. SephyTheThird (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think mentioning events adds the important contexts of both time and place, as well as how long it took from announcement to actual publication. For example, on The Book of Human Insects, I've written "Vertical announced at the 2010 New York Anime Festival that it had licensed the manga, releasing an omnibus hardcover edition on September 20, 2011" The location is important because it is at these panels that the publishers reveal details about the licensing and the earlier date is important for an encyclopedic coverage of the release information. (ANN articles often detail any known prelease info from these panels) It was nearly a year spread from announcement to actual publication and this gives readers an idea of how long it took them to actually work on the manga rather than it just appearing out of the blue. Encyclopedia articles should provide real-world context and this indeed counts as that, especially when you don't have much production sources and publishers usually don't go into more detail on the releases such as translation processes or design choices. Opencooper (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Opencooper, you summarized my thoughts better than I could have. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the two cases, the location and date of the announcement is just trivia, especially since the announcements for the original Japanese manga publications and anime adaptations don't have a similar date/location information either, if those announcements are mentioned at all. What is important is that Yen Press licensed the two series and the date it releases the series in NA. —Farix (t | c) 13:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the announcement can be made and summarized as with Opencooper's examples. Here is also where the English titles would be announced. But it doesn't need to be as detailed like the original release and promotion, and it doesn't need to go overboard in detail like those K-pop single announcements which have a ridiculous amount of cruft like how every day in a week they release a teaser trailer / picture. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Condensing/lengthening episode summaries more efficiently

I have spent the past few days condensing the episode summaries for Mayo Chiki!, somewhat successfully. I am just creating this section just to mention that the episode summaries of some shows like Guilty Crown and Btooom! were harder to condense efficiently, though I was able to condense them as much as I could anyways (even though they might seem long if you are viewing them for the first time). I do want to note that I have seen many episode summaries for about seven or eight years, probably not as much as many of you all though, but I can honestly say that some episode summaries were not as "professional" as they could be (not trying to offending anyone here). But I also want to point out there were some shows like Hiiro no Kakera that originally did not provide enough information to be considered "summaries", which is why I lengthened them. I could go on and on about this, but I mainly want to ask how could we create/edit episode summaries more efficiently, providing just enough information without going overboard yet explain the events of each episode clearly enough? Editing List of Mayo Chiki! episodes was no problem, but what I saw before I edited was the problem. I don't know if that makes sense, but I am trying here! AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 3:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Recently the episode list wordcount requirement has been shortened (which I don't agree to) so you might want to look at MOS:AM under "Media". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
They should extend the word count to 450, only because shows like Guilty Crown demand that much words to configure a solid summary. I have seen summaries that actually were originally nearing 500 words, and I surely was able to condense them down to about 400 words! AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 3:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree but what can we do? I don't know about 450 but some series have complex plot episodes that unless explained will be tagged with "Clarify". It is a discouraging practice in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I counted the longest episode summary in Guilty Crown. I was able to condense it down to sixteen lines, 437 words. Before it was like nineteen or twenty lines, which would be equivalent to almost or over 500 words, which I surely do try to avoid. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 3:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, we should petition the anime episode summary word count to be up to or around 450, to allow shows with complex plots and progressions more room for explanation! AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 3:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I will respond more tomorrow its late here. I hope for the best going forward, as the current requirement will demote our Featured Lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you on that. Some anime episode lists have long episode summaries that aren't going overboard, but I have seen many that were, and I had to condense them in wording yet maximize them in clarification (which still mostly can be done with less words). What I mean by that is that we shouldn't document even single little actions the characters make. I actually try to avoid that, and I reflected that in Mayo Chiki!. You should've seen how it was originally! AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 4:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I know both those series you listed, and they can have summaries similar to the Code Geass episode lists, being less than 200 words. Even one hour episodes of Western Television series can reach that number, such as Agent Carter (season 2). The most complex I've seen is List of Baccano! episodes, and that numbers to about 250. That series is an exception due to events happening in three timelines per episode. This has been discussed pretty often, and anime and manga articles have problems with fan cruft and plot puffery. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Baccano!, the episode summaries near or past 300 words per episode, not 250. Plus, when I edited those a long time ago, even after they were edited after me, they were a bit longer in the past. In regards to Code Geass, the reason why the summaries can be shorter than 200 is because the amount of content that is presented in each episode is not a lot. If you were to shorten episode summaries of Mayo Chiki!, Btooom!, Future Diary, Guilty Crown, etc., the main points would be hard to generalized in a small set of words. Trust me, I have tried. I have seen a summary nearing 600 words, and I managed to cut it down to 400 words. Well, I need input on how to properly (or professionally) summarize episodes without leaving out important content (i.e, slight spoilers, flashbacks, terminology, etc.). Aside from the fact, I have seen summaries that were originally too elaborate, too erroneous, or even too exposed (too sexual or too graphic, although some summaries have exceptions). In the case of "exposure", I have tried to deviate away from describing sexual content, but rather just imply it to be there, like saying in episode 1 of Mayo Chiki! that "Kanade threatens Kinjirō with her sadistic behavior...." instead of originally describing her "sadomasochism" (like what Kanade does specifically to Kinjirō, in this case). That's what I meant by condensing. However, there are areas that need explanation like "Kanade explains that the Konoe family has served the Suzutsuki family through lineage, in which Subaru, as the only child in her generation, must cross-dress as a boy to attend high school and continue serving as a butler", whereas it only mentioned that there was a family circumstance with Subaru as to why she has to cross-dress as a boy to be a butler (which upon viewing it for the first time, I had no idea what that meant, even as a main point). That's what I meant by lengthening. I am sorry for this long entry, but I am just trying to explain my experience with condensing and lengthening summaries. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 13:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, there is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#TVPLOT_is_confusingly_written, in which the consensus was to remove the 300 word count and limit it to 100-200 words. I also changed the word count per that consensus at WP:MOS-AM#Media. If a 350 to 450-word summary is needed, I believe that would be enough to justify creating a possible episode article and the summaries in episode lists are to be pruned anyway when an episode article is split. However, if reliable sources covering production and reception are not needed to mention the discussion of an episode, then the 350-word summary in episode lists are still a little too much. Given that, I've notified WP:MOS-TV about this matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
First, we aren't going to extend a word count to 500 words for a half hour show...or even an hour long show (which is actually 42 minutes). We only allow 700 words for feature films, which are much longer. So, if you think that the show needs 500 words to summarize then you are spending too much time on the details of the episode. To properly summarize a show, you don't have to cover everything, not even ever plot point. Sometimes, plot points are less relevant in some episodes. For example, in Arrow, there are a frequent story arcs among the characters that have minor movement in some episodes. Just because it moves the plot doesn't mean it's necessary to include. You have to remember that we are not a substitute for watching the actual show. Sometimes you have to make a choice to ignore some plot points because you know you'll cover them better in another summary that has an episode more focused on that storyline. With regard to the "need" to have more words and that meaning you need a separate article, that's not going to fly either. The need to separate out to an individual episode article is NEVER based on the complicated nature of the episodes plot. It is entirely based on real world sources discussing the episodes and meeting the WP:GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I am strongly with Bignole in this regard. ~Mable (chat) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Bignole is right. I already know the plot to Btoom and Guilty Crown, and can do those under 200 words. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Aim for 100-200 words per episode summary per WP:TVPLOT - What we do not need more of is self-indulgent detail-laden writing at Wikipedia. A regular TV episode can surely be adequately summarized in 200 words max, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Please keep in mind the concept of "derivative works". Excessive detail can create copyright concerns. Providing the reader with a simple, academically useful summary of the episode is what we should be aiming for. Shorter and nutrient dense is always better than longer and junk food-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Cyphoidbomb that summaries should aim to be shorter, rather than longer. This project has always had problems with episode summary length since its inception back in 2006 (although I may be one of the only editors in this project still here who was around back then). To put it bluntly, if you (specifically AnimeEditor and Knowledgekid87) think that you cannot write a decent summary that's less than 450 words (to say nothing of less than 250 words), then you really need to rethink how episode summaries are written, and try to take a look at FL episode lists with summaries of decent length. If my experience as an editor for this project for over a decade has taught me anything, "overly complex episodes" is really only an excuse for inadequate or a complete lack of proper summarizing techniques, or otherwise a perceived "need" to list each and every event that an episode contains because of "importance" or "clarity". --十八 21:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Juhachi: Some of our FL's right now are using more than 250 words per episode, at best I could trim complex episodes to 250 words as that is reasonable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All of our FL episode lists are from when the recommended length for episode summaries was "upwards of 350 words for complex storylines", which has since been removed from WP:TVPLOT after that recent discussion. In today's climate, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an episode list to get to FL with episode lengths above 250 words (or even above 200 words). It's no wonder that List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes was our last FL episode list passed over 2 years ago.--十八 21:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the changes, Knowledgekid87, not bad on Mayo Chiki!. I wish the other twelve episodes could be condensed even more than I could. And the wiki-links aren't words. Sjones23 and Bignole, I try to avoid going near or past 500 words, that is why I condense the already long summaries in the first place! DragonZero, by all means, edit Btooom! and Guilty Crown! Condense them even more! Sjones23, Cyphoidbomb and Juhachi, if we as editors for anime/manga articles are supposed to aim for 100-200 words for shows with too many main points, that's really difficult, considering what is presented. In all honesty, I believe that the summaries shouldn't exceed 450 words, but if you guys that aim for 250 words or less, then I would take the opportunity to challenge any anime/manga editor to condense any anime episode list of summaries. I think "500 words" is like "19 or 20 lines", by the way, which I'd never allow anyways. I made this post because I have noticed so many episode summaries that are too much to read. I am sorry that I have brought this upon you guys, but I really needed the input (and assistance, if possible). So far, I must thank you guys for your opinions! AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 00:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents. There is absolutely no reason why these summaries can't be within the normal 100-200 word range. I write a lot of episode summaries for Wikipedia, mostly for 'hour-long' series, and I can always get them under 200, so there definitely shouldn't be a problem for 'half-hour' series. In fact, a summary of a half-hour show should really be closer to 100 words since it is half the length. And no, the "hidden" words in piped wikilinks do not count towards the word count. Obviously. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
More towards 100 is way too low, each episode is different and we are talking about Japanese media versus western media. Terms that the average person would not understand unless used in context with the wiki-link. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well this discussion really is going nowhere. My advice AnimeEditor is that you do what you can to shorten the summaries, and leave it at that. For some editors it is going to be easy while others can focus more on chapters, and/or getting articles up to GA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish we could actually describe plot from a real-world perspective, rather than trying to figure out how to describe the plot without going into any fictional details... ~Mable (chat) 09:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is balanced out by real world context in the reception, and conception sections to name a few. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Tagging a list of episode summaries for {{All plot}} or {{in-universe}} seems rather silly. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am just putting it out there though. I know this is "going nowhere", but I just had to bring it up, noticing how the summaries of Mayo Chiki! were originally before I attempted to condense them. They were awful in comparison to when I condensed them. Seriously, they were. I would be like, "Who wrote these summaries?" But after seeing what I have done as for a little improvement, regardless if it isn't "short enough", I just wanted to let others know how terrible the summaries were BEFORE I contributed to them, NOT after. The episode summaries of shows like Btooom! and Guilty Crown, as mentioned before, were worse BEFORE I attempted anything. They were just awful! I am not kidding! I don't know who wrote them or if they are here seeing this. AFTER I contributed to and shortened the summaries as best as I could (even if it was just a line shorter), fixing errors and removing unnecessary details, it just comes to me that the editor(s) who originally wrote them was/were overdoing it on purpose. That was the whole point of this post (alongside the feedback and input). I really do appreciate all your responses. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel that you did a great job, the episode lengths look professional, and even. I take issue with the word limit though as you have no chance to improve the article anymore than a list class article otherwise. I have no idea why we are following Wiki-project's TV's guideline when we have our own guideline in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will continue my dedication to edit episode summaries that need editing. For me, I strive for a flowing summaries than unclear "main points". Again, I won't be like the editors that tell every single detail which may or may not approach 500 words (which I have never done). A 450 word count is my limit (which I wouldn't approach anyways, unless it's "literally" impossible), and that is only if in a show like Guilty Crown presents a lot of content, therefore a lot of main points. I was letting people know how many "List of [anime show] episodes" I have seen that not only have exceeded the "requirement" or "limit" of words anyways, but also have exceeded the amount of detail. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 15:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the more you edit the lower you will be able to lower the word count. I can reach 200 - 300 words per episode here after which for some (not all) episode summaries it becomes hard to explain why x = y. There is a difference between western cartoons, and anime which has a more in depth storyline as well as Japanese references. Hopefully the word limit will be amended to take this into consideration, but if not there are always future editors who can handle it while the rest help articles that can be raised to GA as opposed to FL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like this is more about training people to efficiently summarize and weed out details that might be important to an avid watcher but not the average reader. I've also seen word counts shrink simply by cutting specific details. For example, instead of saying "Character Y was chasing down Character X, and when he was caught, Character Y cut off the head of Character X" - say something much more simplistic..."Character Y killed Character X." You don't have to lay out everything that happens that led up to that event. People can watch the show itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, and am no talking about details like "her long hair waved through the breeze" type of things. Plots require explanation, there is this plus the added cultural differences that need to be put into context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that you are meaning, but my point is that it's still a training on summarizing. Take List of Baccano! episodes for example. I can cut an entire sentence out of the first episode summary and not lost any meaning. The sentence about being shot up a bunch of times and surviving ultimately impacts nothing else in the rest of that summary and thus we can remove it without damaging the readers' understanding of the plot of the episode. Then there is general writing syntax and grammar that can clean things up as well. Summarizing doesn't have to mean loss of detail so much as more effective writing of detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, what matters I guess is that plot summaries are concise but have enough of the significant details to be able to explain an episode's story, but not being overly detailed summaries that best belong on a show's Wikia. You're doing a good job so far and I hope this leads to more FL (and maybe even GAs and FAs) for the WikiProject. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to Bignole, wouldn't it be better to say "Character Y beheads Character X after catching him during a chase", describing in the least amount of words, but recognizing the chase, the catch, and the cutting of the head as the cause of death? "Character Y beheads Character X after catching him during a chase" is still shorter than "Character Y was chasing down Character X, and when he was caught, Character Y cut off the head of Character X". 11 words versus 20 words, a little over half the words, yet still fully describes. If I was viewing that summary and saw "Character Y kills Character X", then saw "Character Y beheads Character X after catching him during a chase", the latter summary would have an more accurate description, yet not going overboard, while the former would be too blunt, considering the sentences before/after it. When I wrote the episode summaries for Texhnolyze, I wrote most in under 200 words, since the content presented was not a whole lot. However, I was pretty keen on describing how any character was injured or killed; that's just how I roll. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 00:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
My example was not a literal translation of what to write. I'm merely pointing out the unnecessary detail in that one sentence. Whether it's that or yours, the point was that there was unnecessary wordage in the sentence. When we talk about being able to turn any 22 or 42 minute show into a 200 word summary, that is what we are referring to. It doesn't mean the "loss of detail" in the sense that you don't know what happens, but the unnecessary detail that someone could lose without losing the impact of what happens. There is another sentence in that plot about a character floating down river on a suitcase and includes a bit about random men fishing. Guess what part doesn't need to be there to streamline the concept of floating down river?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Floating down river on a suitcase is necessary, in my opinion; the random men fishing is not necessary, unless they interact with the main/supporting character(s) in some significant way (which I am assuming isn't the case). Minimizing the wordage is important, I do agree with you there. But maximizing clarification in the least amount of words is the difficult part. I don't intentionally detail every event from the first to the last scene. And if I included "all scenes", I'd used a combining approach, by merging two scenes in one sentence for example. Back on your example, if a character was floating down a river on a suitcase, but the summary didn't include the suitcase, there is a loss of "detail", therefore a slight effect in meaning. If one floats down a river, you'd guess it could be by boat, raft, or another floating device..... but including the suitcase gives the viewer/reader a better understanding of what's going on, eliminating the other aforementioned assumptions. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 23:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, I am currently lengthening the episode summaries for Medaka Box. And yes, I am sure I can make summaries under 200 words. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 2:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A bit later, but I agree 100-200 words is perfectly fine. However, if we can help AnimeEditor in any way is stopping to give abstract suggestions and showing concrete examples. So, despite knowing I'm not the best writer, I would recommend you to check this, this and this. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Yuji, these are perfect examples as to what I mean. Whether or not the summaries are condensed down to 100-200 words (some of which are impossible), the edited versions are quite clear and concise, but still maintaining enough detail to tell a story. As for Medaka Box, I tried my best to lengthen the episode summaries in less than 200 words, which I have succeeded. I feel like some of the summaries could still be condensed, but as for now, they look much, much better. I also fixed titles and linked characters' names (which I always do anyways). I hope these are fairly good summaries. AnimeEditor (communicator • database) 16:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Crystalacids.com

Angus suggested I bring this here to discuss so I will be doing that. Is the website [21] a WP:RS? I have my doubts based on the "about us" page [22] which doesn't give anything suggesting that they are expertise in the field. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thread discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Crystal_Acids AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

List of D.Gray-man Hallow episodes

Sorry for bothering you guys for the same series, but an anon has placed new episode list List of D.Gray-man Hallow episodes as a some kind of continuation to List of D.Gray-man episodes (season 2). Should it be removed or kept? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Took me a while that you're referring to the "episode list" header and not the article itself haha. It's quite common to have a section for the episode lists and all of our featured lists do. At least to me it feels like a logical separation between the lead and the actual list. I can get that it feels a bit pointless on such a short list that likely won't have other sections, but it will be longer in the future. Or do you have some other issue with it? Opencooper (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No, nothing. It is just I was confused just like with the Darker than Black episodes list.Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd separate it from season 2. The navbox is fine where it lists. If there needs to be a encapsulated short list for all seasons and series, then you could make one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
So you think Hallow be separated from the main article, right?Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
As a "season" type of listing. Do you think it has enough notability for its own article as with Sailor Moon Crystal? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
As a list, I think it's okay. As a main article, I doubt it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Just one more thing: How can I avoid summaries from seasons in the main list? Currently, the first episode of Hallow is described in the main article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean at List of D.Gray-man episodes#Hallow? Looks like you did it right and the summaries aren't being transcluded. Opencooper (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_66&oldid=1136054628"