Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Listing the roles of seiyuus

Should the role lists on the seiyuus' pages be arranged alphabetically or chronologically? Also, if alphabetically, by the role character's name or the series'? I have some free time in my hands and I'm looking for something easy to do. Nanettea 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the standard is chronologically. But I know know if that is most recent to earliest or earliest to most recent. --Farix (Talk) 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen both used. Either way, the show title (in italics, with a link to the article) should be listed first with the character name in parentheses following:

• Urusei Yatsura (Lum Invader)

Like that. If the character has a separate article about them, a link should be included to that article (as in the example above). I personally find it easier in many cases to list them alphabetically. This makes it easier to find a particular role as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the more technically adept, sortable tables could be created allowing people to arrange the list by whatever they pleased. See Help:Sorting. --tjstrf talk 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See here also, when I previously mentioned it. Although I'll admit I put off fixing them and still haven't. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New demographic categorization and infobox field

After it was pointed out in the course of that mass CfD that Shonen, Seinen, Josei, etc. aren't actually genres per se, but rather demographic descriptions, I have created Category:Anime and manga by demographic and a new infobox field, "demographic=", to make this distinction more apparent. The "demographic=" field is at present optional, so as not to mess up all the existing articles which do not use it, but for an example of its implementation, see the infobox on Bleach (manga). --tjstrf talk 08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. A few things that I may suggest. How about accepting only one value? and accepting only one way of spelling, either with or without macrons. How about color coding the fields somehow. All three would be easy to implement. --Squilibob 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, if we only allow one value then the infobox will be able to add the categories automatically.--Squilibob 08:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, right now it accepts anything, and is coloured the same as the rest of the template. Basically it's the same as every other field, only it shows up only when manually triggered. The other option was to make it show up by default, which would have certainly publicized it faster, but then people might not have known what they were supposed to put there.

If you wanted to do the fancy coding, you could set it as a parameter like the "class=" on the wikiproject banner that automatically generated the proper categories, etc, but I don't really see the use. --tjstrf talk 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't need a new parameter. You would just do #switch: {{{demographic|}}} and for each value add it to the correct category. --Squilibob 08:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the automatic categorization. It's very easy and useful for the editors. It would be great to do the same for the genres, having two parameters "genre1" and "genre2" which categorize automatically; that could also be a way of limiting the number of genres a single manga is categorized for. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize the technical aspects of it. I'm not a coding genius or anything, but with a bit of trial and error I can figure out how to imitate anything that's been done. What I'm not understanding is the use, especially since any effective global implementation of the field would have to be done by a bot. So while I'm not opposed, I don't think the overhead is worth the results. --tjstrf talk 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are some manga that definitely fit into 3+ major genres, so I'd suggest a minimum of 3 fields if this were done. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok then we'll keep it simple. I'll put the automatic categorizing in and if you don't like it then just revert it. --Squilibob 08:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it displaying empty? The source code has the word, but not the actual page Doceirias 09:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Squilibob's messing with it... he should really be using a user subpage for that. --tjstrf talk 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup my apologies, seems I'm rubbish at this :D tjstrf was right, results are not worth the overhead. You can't use wikilinks in a switch statement so it won't work. --Squilibob 10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can, of course, transclude a template containing the link, so there is that workaround. But yes, very much not worth it. If we were just setting up the infobox system, maybe, but the scale of change required is not worth the improvement that results. --tjstrf talk 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Working now. Added it to all the pages on my watchlist, and discovered several seinen titles in the shonen category while I was at it. Might be a good idea to double check that kind of thing. I expect people corrected the infobox and forgot to remove the category...Doceirias 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A&M stubs; another try

I notice someone at this project suggested a {{manga-artist-stub}} a while ago; I've proposed that and several others at WSS/P. Please comment there if you have any thoughts or (counter-)suggestions. Alai 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

EVA work group/ task force

The idea for an Evangelion WikiProject came up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I took the initiative to make it a work group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion. Feel free to join up on the effort, or just help out on setting up the group page. -- Ned Scott 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Excel Saga on main page

Excel Saga is on the main page. Watch out for corrections, new contributors and possible vandalism. --129.241.126.121 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice! -- Ned Scott 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The image isn't really a good illustration for readers in that it doesn't show that it's a manga/anime, but on the other hand: Nabeshin, LOL! --129.241.126.121 09:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but TPTB decided that the main page can't have unfree images at all, even on cases like this...this is the result. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy hell. They've been moving fast. How long until there a ban on featured articles about fictional works still in copyright? --129.241.126.121 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think next in line is eliminating all unfree images in Wikipedia. That's the goal stated by Jimbo anyway. --Mika1h 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's getting ridiculous though. There are photos of the actors that are being pulled when they themselves have released them explicitly for wikipedia that are being pulled. Are they trying to eliminate all images from wikipedia of people and works?--Hitsuji Kinno 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But we can't use anything that's licensed just for Wikipedia, that's the problem. Because of the GFDL, *anything* on Wikipedia must be available for *anyone* to use, so a Wikipedia-only license is practically no better than fair use. There were probably a few older photos that were uploaded under such a license before we got really strict on the fair use stuff, but if the idea is to produce a free encyclopedia, we need to have as little unfree content as possible. Now, if you can find a papparazzi willing to release their entire catalogue into the public domain (or at least under Creative Commons), we'll be a whole lot better off. Confusing Manifestation 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot marking image with no Fair Use Rationale

This bot is going through and marking for deletion every image without a FUR. I strongly urge everyone to go through all the articles you watch and make sure all of the images have a fiar use rationale similar to that found here. You can see more about FUR here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I've been dreading this moment... so much work, and I have like 500 images on my watchlist as is. That aside, I'd suggest going a bit beyond what's been done on that linked image and giving a more detailed reason for use if one is available, so that you don't have to fix it again next time they raise the bar. For a couple examples of ones that I've done, see Image:Quincy (Bleach).jpg or Image:Luppi Trepadora.jpg. --tjstrf talk 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the FUR has to be in this format: ==Fair use in/for [[Insert article name here]]==, meaning that the FUR should clearly state for which articles the image is being used in. This is the convention I've adopted since I started added FUR's to my images about last year in May/June. Thank God I started doing it back then or else I'd be in a load of trouble.--十八 07:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I made an image instruction/FAQ-ish type page for WP:DIGI at WikiProject Digimon/Images due to the image cleanup and tagging, maybe we should make a general one for WP:ANIME. A lot of stuff (as in, just about all of it) is being reviewed. -- Ned Scott 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also worth noting that two images I had provided fair use rationales for were deleted anyway. Apparently, they've stopped bothering to check if a fur has been added, and you have to remove the deletion banner when you add one or a bot will delete the image automatically. The text of the deletion template has been changed to reflect this, belatedly. Doceirias 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, whenever you add the FUR, always make sure to remove the deletion template so the bots (or non-bots) don't auto delete it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't happen, as betacommandbot can't actually delete pages (no bot can). I would check the deletion log and contact the deleting admin and ask what happened. But yeah, as Nihonjoe said, you should remove the deletion banner when adding the FUR. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The deleting admin's talk page was filled with dozens of complains about it. Images were restored promptly, but much easier to take it off before the page gets accidentally deleted. It sounds like there are so many images in need of deletion now that they're not even glancing down to see if a FUR exists. Doceirias 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Japanese/English voice actors

Are there any guidelines for listing any and all of a character's non-Japanese and non-English VAs (e.g., Latin America, Italy, Brazil) here or in the archives (i.e. this is OK or not), or at this point it's up to the editors how as to wide they want to go in listing VAs? --BrokenSphere 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

List English and Japanese, point other language editors to their respective wikis. --tjstrf talk 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall us having this discussion before, but I can't remember many of the details. My own personal feeling is to list the original voice actor of the work (Japanese) and then list the voice actor of the language the reader is most likely to encounter (English), then list any that are particularly notable in the article itself, should there be anything to say about them beyond just being the voice actor in X language. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say stick to Japanese and English. Other languages can be listed on their respective wikis. We don't want the English wiki becoming a conglomeration of everything from every language wiki as that defeats the purpose of having separate language wikis. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally would stick would Japanese and English only on here, but for the examples that I've noticed (Urusei Yatsura, Ranma ½), the other language VAs have been added by other English language editors. I'm wondering if there are any WP:Anime guidelines re. restricting VAs to Japanese and English that I could point to to justify removal of other language VAs that more properly belong on the respective foreign language Wikis. --BrokenSphere 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What often happens is an editor adds the Spanish VA credit to "X" character page, another editor sees this and does the same to "Y" character and it snowballs from there. Although, I have the distinct impression those edits you noticed (Yatsura and Ranma) are mostly the work of Ryanasaurus0077. Most of his edits have been toward creating a sort of "mexican voice actors database" in the English Wikipedia. When another editor questions his edits, he plays the race card.--Nohansen 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We used to have this line in the scope:

Companies and staff of those companies that produce the above and companies that produce licensed English translations of the above but not anime voice actors that speak in neither Japanese nor English

It has been replaced, in part, with

Voice actors, Japanese or international, whose principal work is in anime and whose roles are generally notable

So I'm guessing that this was done to include notable cases of non-English and non-Japanese VAs. --Squilibob 06:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anime fixes.

I would appreciate it if any members of this project would assist in fixing the problem of preferential treatment to Japanese titles - ie, Son Goku (Dragon Ball), whose editors chose to call it that for the reason that it is the original Japanese title (even though naming conventions say to use an official English title whenever possible). And the fact that Goku has multiple English name in other regions is irrelevant, considering that it states "most well-known official English title". It doesn't help English non-fans of the series - all it CAN do is make Wikipedia more disadvantageous for them. Using Son Goku is about as correct as using the Japanese alphabet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that isn't an article on the series, but on the main character of the series, right? Doceirias 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

...Yes. I don't understand why you ask. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Managed to pull that off with Naruto characters over a year ago, and there's still monthly complaints about the naming despite having repeatedly point out that Wiki policy trumps fan popularity. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When the naming dispute is between "Goku" and "Son Goku", does it really make a difference? The only change is that one abbreviated the name. --tjstrf talk 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One is Japanese, the other is English. No one would claim that Dragon Quest VIII as the game's title is just as good as Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One is Japanese, the other is Japanese but shortened. (I find the mention of Dragon Quest amusing, since it was called Dragon Warrior in English until very recently.)

My personal suspicion is that the Japanese names were decided on for the sake of consistency, as there are several different "official English names" in circulation. --tjstrf talk 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The other is Japanese but also the official English title. And wouldn't you know it? Naming conventions say "use the most well-known official English title". So guess what? Goku > Son Goku. Yay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you find this interesting, you may also wish to look at Talk:Makoto_Kino#Why_is_this_the_Japanese_title.3F, as Link has also broached the matter of naming there. He has dismissed consistency concerns as "irrelevant" there. -Malkinann 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why. If we intend to serve the readers, then using consistent naming is of the utmost importance as anything else would be confusing. --tjstrf talk 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite getting this "consistency > helping the readers". Apparently, everyone having their Sailor names is inconsistent for some reason that doesn't seem to exist in our reality. No single reason anyone at either the SM project or the DB project have provided even remotely explains why their articles are the exception to this guideline, which states "use the most well-known official English name". I've shown that Goku is an official English name, and that it is the most well-known. Nowhere on Wikipedia does it imply that helping no one is better than helping only half of the people. And Malkinann, before you go making claims like that, don't forget about how you said that you hate America and are doing this out of spite.

See? I can make up stuff too. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)\

Consistency helps the readers because it's the same. Not all of the characters that we cover on Wikipedia even have English names, or the English names are less-well-known than the original names. Using Sailor names has only been in the equation for a couple of days, and WP:SM has been known to discuss names of articles for months, without the incivility that you have displayed. What does making up lies about me got to do with the name of an article? -Malkinann 08:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't understand people like you who think that "English Wikipedia" means U.S. Wikipedia; unless the same name is used in all of the English adaptations there isn't just one official nor commonly accepted name. I just can't see why the name chosen by FUNimation should be considered official while the others aren't. And doesn't the VIZ edition of the manga call him "Son Goku" too? I haven't read it but [1] and [2] say so --Εξαίρετος (msg) 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, you were lying through your teeth with the intention of making everyone seem that I was trying to somehow make things consistent by... um... consistently using Sailor names (which apparently is inconsistent for some inexplicable reason).

And I don't understand why people say that if there's more than one group that we can choose to appeal to, we should say "well, I guess we'll just make things worse for BOTH of you then and give all our love to your drug dealing stepbrother." At no point will you ever, ever be able to argue that anyone's biased against any English region when you're biased against them all.

Oh, and in case you all are consistently refusing to read a lick of evidence that contradicts your non-reality:

Most well-known official English name. Son Goku fails that by not being the most well-known official English name. Dragon Ball came to NA long before it ever came to Europe. And Google hits shows a significant disparity. Naming conventions, at no point does it EVER say anything that would EVER begin to say that using no English name is better if there's a dispute over which should be used.

Dragon Quest: Journey of the Cursed King - the European title for the eighth game. Why don't we call it Dragon Quest VIII because there are multiple English names? Honestly, the "use Japanese names" is evidence of both laziness and Japanophilia long before it could ever be "neutrality between English names". This subject isn't even a matter of English vs. English - it's a matter of anti-English bias. You can't act as if Europe is being hurt - Son Goku? Europe's hurt. Goku? Europe's hurt. But apparently, it hurts more if it's the NA title for - well, actually, no real reason.

And why do you keep replying?! You won't even respond to my request for you to explain why the "most well-known official English title" doesn't apply to WP:ANIME! You're just wasting bandwidth if you're so adverse to my request. - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We replied; it doesn't apply because your proposals aren't the "most well-known official English title"; see also WP:GOOGLE, and compare the number of US readers with the whole number of English readers all around the world, not to mention those in the US who read the manga but haven't seen the anime (maybe just a few, maybe not). Also, please note that even in all the adaptations of Dragon Ball that mention "Son", that's used as his family name, so of course he's often called Goku and most of the websites reflect this, but that doesn't change the fact that his full name is Son Goku (grandchild of Son Gohan).

The problem with consistency is that some characters don't have an English name at all, and people often feel that calling one with an English name and one with a Japanese name just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and please don't make this a war of pro-English vs pro-Japanese, or pro-Europe vs pro-North America; this is Wikipedia for the English language readers, and it should take into account all the English speaking readers all around the world. And even when you consider only North America, why should we give precedence to the FUNimation name against the VIZ one? --Εξαίρετος (msg) 11:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. So even though Goku is the name of the character in the biggest English-dominant region (North America) in the biggest medium for the series (anime), it's not "most well-known official English title"? What is it? Is it not the most well-known, even though the North American version of the anime is more well-known than the European version? Is it not official, even though FUNimation owns the right to call him whatever they want? Is it not an English title, even though it's an... English title?
2. French is prevalent all over Europe. Why doesn't the Spanish Wiki ever cater to them? Because it caters to the biggest language. The vast majority of Wikipedian readers are from English-dominant countries. It's simple logic that you're fighting against with this bunk argument of "English-speaking people exist in Japan, so we should assume that there's enough people in Japan that speak English who know the series".
3. Just because there are multiple groups and one or more people will be dissatisfied does not legitimize leaving everyone unsatisfied (besides the group you're in, conveniently).
4. Consistency vs. logic... hmm... we don't title everything in the DQ series Dragon Quest OR Dragon Warrior. We don't title Gyakuten Saiban 4 Ace Attorney 4 just because GS4 doesn't make sense when grouped with the other three games, and similarly, the presence of this game does not warrant using the Japanese names of those articles.
5. What are you talking about, by the way? What does Japanese people speaking English mean? Did I not say "most well-known official English title"? Son Goku fails the most well-known qualifier by being his name in the comics, a weaker medium for DB series in Europe and NA by a large margin. All the merchandising is based on his anime name, not his manga name. Also, the fact that English is commonly used in non-English dominant countries is irrelevant - that does not make their names for the character the official English titles for him.
6. Because A. the anime is more prevalent, the anime is probably the biggest anime in NA or Europe, and B. Goku is the first English name ever. Goku is the name on all the toys, shirts, etc. Does that help?

Summary:

• Anime is more prevalent.
• Merchandising is based on the anime.
• What other countries whose official language is not English is irrelevant - their title is not an official English title.
• Consistency is not a good reason to ignore a guideline.
• Readers are largely based in English-dominant countries. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Well, for one, you were lying through your teeth with the intention of making everyone seem that I was trying to somehow make things consistent by... um... consistently using Sailor names (which apparently is inconsistent for some inexplicable reason)." - your original proposition was to use the civilian dub name, which we explained to you was inappropriate, for reasons of consistency among others. Since then, you've changed your proposition to use the Sailor names. This is fine, you are allowed to change your mind. However, as the possibility of using Sailor names has only been in the equation for a couple of days, and WP:SM has been known to discuss names of articles for months, you may have to give us some time to consider the pros and cons of this. Becoming emotional and accusing anyone of lying or being anti-American, Japanophilic or spiteful will not dispose editors to take your position seriously, even if they try their best to assume good faith. -Malkinann 12:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You falsely stated what my argument is. Fun fact: People who do that usually forfeit the right to complain when someone does it back. - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. Can you please explain it again? -Malkinann 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's perfectly understandable to assume that consistency and inconsistency are the same. For instance, when you decided that using all Japanese names is magically consistent, while using all Sailor names is confusing and will destroy the Wiki. Makes so much sense, mmhmm. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot believe how rude you are. This conversation might actually accomplish something if you stopped distracting everybody with your mean-spiritedness. --Masamage ♫ 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you actually listened to things that you did not wish to listen to, such as breaking evidence, I wouldn't be quite this irritated. In a universe where I was polite, all you'd do is continue to ignore my evidence and refuse to answer my questions - which, if you answered one way (that it is helpful to the fans and Japanese-speaking people) would prove me right that Makoto Kino is not the best name to use, and if you answered another way (that it is the best name for the sake of English-speaking non fans), I'd ask why. So if you want me to be polite, answer my question. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am considering that you might be right; that's why I'm not arguing with your point anymore. That, and talking to you is a lot like getting flogged. So give it a rest and we'll see what we think. --Masamage ♫ 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'Official name' thing is not valid: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions - POLICY:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

And per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) - GUIDELINE:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

So the issue is not whether it's "official" or not, whether it's English or not, just use the name that is most commonly known by the English audience. If you disagree on which name that is, you can try a google test. For instance, the article for Boys Over Flowers uses the 'Official' English title, although many would agree that Hana Yori Dango is better known amongst the English audience. Ninja neko 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think this matter should be let to the folks at WP:RM to decide. See, even I more endorse Case Closed rather than Detective Conan, the other side at Talk:Case Closed#Requested move got a supermajority-- and lose. (But, in this case, most names have similar G-Hits.)--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Son Goku" is the full name, so as long as there's a redirect, it doesn't much matter if it's at "Son Goku" or "Goku". I really doubt too many people would be confused, especially if something like "Son Goku, commonly shortened to Goku, is the main character from the Dragon Ball manga and anime series." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Should we use Mario's full name? Or Bill Clinton's? No, because where they are now is the name they're most well-known as - the same is true with Goku and Son Goku, except for the fact that the most common name is not used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Manga and illustrator field

Is there any reason why we can't have the illustrator field in the manga infobox? It has been added and reverted a few times without discussion, so let's discuss it. mako made the point some time ago that it made the infobox longer and I would agree but common practice has been to add a <br/>and put (art) in the author field anyway. I believe that a few editors do want it and I'm sick of fixing the articles that still have it. --Squilibob 04:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. We have the author/illustrator distinction for the light novel info box, and should have it for manga. I think the argument against it was that so few manga have separate writers and artists, but that's easily solved by making the illustrator field optional. And for those books that do have both, they deserve their own field. Doceirias 05:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with this. I was going to add it in last month on May 21, but then reverted myself. My reason was that most (if not all) light novels have separate writers and artists, while manga tends to have more where the author and artist are the same person, but not always. On top of that, I thought that right now the convention is to put the author and artist (if separate people) in the same area with a line break inbetween, and if the illustrator box was then inserted, that would mean a whole lot of correcting to put the illustrator in its own field; thus, I reverted myself since I didn't think it was worth it at the time. It is more practical to have the distiction in the light novel box, but I still agree that it should be in the manga box too.--十八 06:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We can also make the template adapt when the same name is used for both fields, preventing two entries from being shown. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the new demographic field is in hundreds more articles and the number of manga articles that have a different illustrator to the author would pale in comparison of size. --Squilibob 12:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I actually had infobox complexity in mind; the boxes are pretty complex now, so it's a moot point. - mako 07:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Case Closed#Requested move

Re: Talk:Case Closed#Requested move, I guess I had forgotten about the discussion, as I remembered it happening. Call me a bit slow, but only tonight did I notice that.. the requested move did not proceed. Am I reading this right? 19 users supported the move, while 6 opposed it... and the closing admin says "no consensus"? This is a problem that needs correcting. The question is, how do we do it? -- Ned Scott 08:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the best place to put this comment, but I noticed one of the arguments seemed to be that it IS the official release name in Australia and New Zealand...that alone should have easily caused the move to go through, I'd think. Yes, definetly a problem that needs correcting. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say move it. Looks like a clear consensus to move the articles to me. Case Closed is only used in the US I believe, everywhere else it's called by it's original title, Detective Conan. Especially since one user pointed out, a lot of the stuff hasn't been translated/licensed (Manga chapters, episodes, movies, etc). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the UK and Canada too. But this is not the correct forum for this, please. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to get people's take on an issue like this. -- Ned Scott 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mangaka Taskforce?

I'm toying with the idea of a mangaka taskforce. Most of the mangaka pages are not in proper format, are in disrepair, are missing sources or just have wrong information. I noticed that AMP doesn't seem to have time to focus on this 100% of the time. So this would be to try to get a handle on some of the pages and detail them out properly and to format (according to the Biography template)-- many mangaka *do* talk about themselves in notes to their readers so it's not like we're strapped for references. I'd like to get them up to par for them to get featured or at least beyond the stub rating many are stuck at. Is anyone interested? And if not Mangaka... a Creators Taskforce? ^^;; (Many Biography pages of authors manhwaga, creating directors etc have issues of the same sort.)--Hitsuji Kinno 08:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested, though I would want it to stick to mangaka and not include manhwaga (as they are not in the scope of this project). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes i could help too Narutorules^o^ 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need more than three to make a task force... Anyone else? --Hitsuji Kinno 01:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to create it now as there will likely be others who pop in and notice it. Not everyone follows this talk page with regularity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping here and there, so make it four. But I feel like limiting the task force to only mangaka is just not enough. I want to suggest a project for all Japanese people — mangaka, seiyū, etc. — but I fear that might be too wide a project and probably could easily be covered by WP:JAPAN instead... // DecaimientoPoético 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How about anime-related real personalities then? So Seiyuu, directors, mangaka, etc? So people who are just related to the Manga and Anime industry. We could call it Anime and Manga Industry Biographies Taskforce. AAMIBT... I'm sure some obsessed fans would be into doing just a certain Seiyuu, etc. --Hitsuji Kinno 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That works, and it could be a joint task force with WP:WPBIO, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured that part out. Basically the task force will follow the structure of the Biography project, but supply information for the biographies and references for the biographies from this project. Shouldn't be too hard. I'll put the task force underneath this project since it's supply the info more and more people will be more likely to be interested in helping the biographies. --Hitsuji Kinno 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It can certainly be a child project of both. --Masamage ♫ 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Masamage I'm having trouble creating it *feels like dunce* I started it under : [3] but I can't get the Task force tag to work properly. It keeps spitting out all this other stuff. I guess I want to do more on the *doing* side than trying to bang my head against something I don't understand side. At least it's started... but stuff needs to be filled out. And redirects, etc have to be put in. --Hitsuji Kinno 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a far too complicated name. Just shorten it to Biography. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Biography and there is now a biography-work-group switch in the template that will categorize the articles to Category:Anime and manga biography work group articles when set. I had also added a listas parameter that will behave exactly the same way as the one in Template:WPBiography earlier today, which I also added to the header section of Template:Infobox animanga. --Farix (Talk) 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ^_^ That helps a lot. I still can't get the template thing to work though. People can add their names now...--Hitsuji Kinno 05:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE, our guideline for articles on episodes

Some of you might be aware of WP:EPISODE, which is our guideline for dealing with articles about an individual episode from a show. Before it had the shortcut WP:EPISODE and the current title, Wikipedia:Television episodes, it was known as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes [4]. Well, it still says pretty much the same thing as before, but some recent redirecting of episode articles that weren't seen as notable lead us to some new activity on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. We're now looking for input and comments to expanding the guideline at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion - your views matter!

Kung Fu Jimmy Chow has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Fu Jimmy Chow‎. There isn't a huge amount of interest in the debate so I'm writing here to ask people who might actually have an interest and better understanding of the content of the article to comment on whether it is notable or not. I hasten to add that I'm not canvassing for support, just don't want to see this article deleted without a wider consensus to do so by people who have read both side of the argument. If the wider consensus is to delete, I'll of course abide by that. GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a Rumiko Takahashi Wikiproject

As she has a wide body of work, I was thinking of proposing a WP to cover all of her works with task forces dedicated to each of the 4 major series that she's done (Urusei Yatsura, Maison Ikkoku, Ranma ½, InuYasha). However, given what has been done with other series recently in terms of creating task forces that are subordinate to WP:Anime dedicated to one specific series (e.g. Eva, Bleach, Haruhi Suzumiya), I'm wondering if that might be better instead. This is because the coverage for each of the 4 series I mentioned widely varies. IY has the most comprehensive, ongoing coverage, with Ranma as a likely #2, UY #3, and MI dead last, most likely due to relative availability of the series. So I guess I'm open to either suggestion, whichever seems more practicable and maintainable in the long run. --BrokenSphere 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there's no practical difference between a WikiProject and a Task Force other than semantics. WikiProject Sailor Moon, for instance, plans to keep calling itself a WikiProject just out of a sense of community, but it's effectively a Task Force because of how we defer to WP Anime for questions, policies, and assessment. So I guess I'd recommend calling your group a Task Force, because it'd be similarly connected-at-the-hip with WP Anime. Good idea, by the way! --Masamage ♫ 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anime convention

Just wanted to bring this up, but the article on anime conventions is in serious need of sources and improvements. I'm not sure exactly where to begin with sourcing the article. --Farix (Talk) 13:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd start with the history section. I'd help but I have no clue where to get sources for the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate XYZ

While cleaning up usage of {{BannerShell}}, I cam across a whole series of List of fictional characters who can manipulate XYZ with the project banner on the talk page along with a whole slew of other WikiProject banners. I've removed our banner from the pages since the lists fall outside of our scope. Just because some anime and manga characters who have these ability are on the list doesn't mean the list is now within our scope.

So here is the list of lists that I removed the project banner from:

• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate superpowers
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate water
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate time
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate light
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire
• Talk:List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow

And although it didn't have the project banner on it at the time, we may need to keep our eyes on this one.

• Talk:List of fictional characters who can warp reality

There may be a chance that the original tagger will attempt to put the project's banner back on. --Farix (Talk) 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that was me. The rationale was that since there are actually special instructions related to anime/manga on the pages, we can be helpful to those pages and leaving the contact link makes sense. --tjstrf talk 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not listed on their history pages, and the banners were added by J Greb. I've contacted him about the situation, but he is defending the placement of the banners because our scope does not specifically exclude such lists. But then, it doesn't include them either. --Farix (Talk) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said "I think". I thought incorrectly, as it turns out, but I'm inclined to agree with J Greb anyway. They don't fall strictly under the Comics, Television, Video Games, Square-Enix, or Heroes WikiProjects either, but those banners are there because the members may be able to assist the article if there are questions about the characters. That's my understanding of the purpose of banner tagging, that it potentially help the article. --tjstrf talk 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, that's just scope creep. If the article isn't within our stated scope, then it shouldn't have our banner on its talk page. And it is this kind of indiscriminate plastering of project banners that has contributed to many at the Village Pump to become dismissive of WikiProject efforts. --Farix (Talk) 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When articles have broad coverage then a WikiProject with a broad scope should be covering that article. So any article like this I would leave to WikiProject Television. --Squilibob 00:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Farix: Not at all. "Scope creep" would be going and editing the WP:MANGA page to specifically include those lists, which would be silly. I agree with you that extra redundant tags are useless, and commonly remove them when I see them, but you're ignoring the purpose of banner tags. They aren't for the sake of the project, they're for the sake of the article.

I view project banners as sort of like {{maintained}}: a "contact us" link to some people who may know how to solve a problem related to that article. Pages with anime and manga related content that have special anime and manga related directions will realistically be assisted by anime and manga project editors. The banner is thus not redundant, and sensibly placed.

A sane tagging approach might be to cut the banners on those pages down to the following: WP:TV, WP:COMICS, WP:VG, and WP:MANGA. That would include all of the broad categories of characters listed therein, while not overtagging and listing show-specific or taskforce-type projects. --tjstrf talk 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing stubs

I've been reviewing the articles that are still marked as stubs (Category:Anime and manga stubs). Many of these articles have outgrown the Stub-Class or are ripe candidates for mergers, and yet others contain almost no information other then "XYZ is a proxy-genre manga series by CBA" with an external link and a list of characters. The latter I've been tagging with {{db-a1}}.

Anyways, I've gone through . to B and I may do the C's by the end of the day. Any help in sorting through the stubs to which which once have outgrown their status would be helpful. --Farix (Talk) 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The anime-series stub type still exists, I thought we had that deleted long ago. Should we use it? --Squilibob 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alai overruled us. He/she also did the same thing with the anime-film and anime-OVA stubs, even though we largely rejected it. --Farix (Talk) 11:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like {{anime-episode-stub}} would have been more useful to the project as there appears to have a lot of those floating around. However, Alai has screwed up any chance of that stub being useful because he's bot has been throwing them around all over the place. --Farix (Talk) 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work for fixing up all those incorrect bot changes.--Squilibob 07:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But I just wish he would think about why the project has rejected those stubs earlier rather then create them anyways as if they were the only choice. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Movie Database

I just created Japanese Movie Database. It's just like the IMDB, but for Japan. Please use this when looking up references for Japanese anime films. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few years, but I usually found http://www.allcinema.net/prog/index2.php was far more complete. Doceirias 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True. I use both when possible as they will each sometimes have things the other doesn't. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anime and manga magazines category

I've revamped and organized Category:Anime and manga magazines a bit, so please make yourselves familiar with the new organization. There wasn't really any organization before. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox animanga/TV movie

Would someone be able to make one for TV anime movies? At the moment, listing TV anime movies is hard because what needs to be listed is a cross between the Anime and movie infoboxes. Thoughts? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it any different from an anime theatrical film? Other than airing on TV originally... Doceirias 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs an air_date instead of release_date, and it needs a listing for network. Like I said, it would be somewhat of a hybrid. I'm imagining it to be something like this:

{{Infobox animanga/TV movie
| title           = 
| ja_name         = 
| ja_name_trans   = 
| director        = 
| studio          = 
| network        = 
| licensor        = 
| air_date    = 
| runtime         = 
}}

Thoughts? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What category would it get automatically added to? --Squilibob 05:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to automatically add it to a category necessarily. If there are enough anime TV movies, then we could make a category for it. I could probably come up with 20-30 of them fairly quickly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively you could use a TV_movie=yes parameter for the either the anime or OVA infoboxes that would behave the same way as the Original English-language manga works for the manga infobox. If there are a lot then a new box would be easier though. --Squilibob 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If the network and air_date could be tied to it so TV_movie had to be marked "yes" in order to unhide them, it could work as part of the anime infobox. I don't know how to incorporate them like that, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It would also need to change the section header in the infobox to "TV anime movie". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok done, I tested it on a Lupin III TV movie. See if that does everything you want. --Squilibob 09:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine. I used it three times on Nine (manga). Thanks! (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we add ja_name and ja_name_trans to this as well? This would allow the infobox to be more useful. See Nine (manga). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You could add it, but I'd consider just how many articles would use it, considering the main ja_name and ja_trans is there. --Squilibob 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Film credits glossary

Since the glossary rarely gets used (at least by me as I never go over there) or updated over on Wiktionary, I've set it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Film credits glossary as I think it will be much more useful to this and related projects. Feel free to update the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Anime episode

It seems that this infobox entirely duplicates Template:Infobox Television episode. Is there any particular reason why we should use a different episode infobox for anime TV series? I don't really see the need have both of these infoboxes when one would do. --Farix (Talk) 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it's about an anime episode, adding ja_name and ja_name_trans might be useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since such information is already in the lead, so it would be redundant. Unless you use the infobox to avoid having such a long lead sentence. --Farix (Talk) 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are multiple TV movies (as in the case of Nine), having those there is very useful in case the titles are all different. It's no more redundant than having it for the Movie template. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, take a look at User:TheFarix/Sandbox2. It clones the look of Template:Infobox Television episode while keeping some of the arguments of Template:Infobox Anime episode. It's not a drop in replacement of either one of them, yet. But it is an experiment. --Farix (Talk) 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I think {{Infobox animanga}} should replaced by proper infoboxes. Examples are:

• If the article is exclusively about TV anime, use {{Infobox Television}}.
• If the article is exclusively about manga, use comics infoboxes.
• If the article is exclusively about light novel, use {{Graphicnovelbox}}.
• Use {{Infobox Film}} for the films and OVAs.

However, {{Infobox animanga}} should used when the article is about entire franchise. (Examples: Sailor Moon and Strawberry Panic) -- JSH-alive 10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You see if an article is about a manga and then at some stage down the track an anime adaption is made then all you have to do is add the anime section to it and not replace the entire thing. Is there any reason why you would want to use other infoboxes? Our infobox also automatically categorises articles. --Squilibob 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox animanga}} is a proper infobox. Just because they don't go into needless detail like most of the other infoboxes doesn't make it inferior to those infoboxes. Also, if we drop the {{Infobox animanga}}, the other infoboxes, particularly the comic infoboxes, will have to be alter to incorporate anime/manga specific fields. And frankly, if {{Infobox Television episode}} is any indication when added a 'length' field, there is going to be quite a bit of resistance. --Farix (Talk) 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others. It already is a proper infobox and presents the appropriate information in a concise and easy to read manner (the whole point of an infobox). There's no reason why such a huge area as anime and manga can't have infoboxes specific to them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at Manual of Style/Japan

Hi all. There is a discussion going on at the Manual of Style page, regarding the "In Popular Culture" sections in many of the Japan-related articles. Since a lot of the bulletins in these sections tend to be references to anime or manga, I thought you might be interested to know of this discussion, and would want to contribute your views on the subject. TomorrowTime 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, they are mostly unnecessary trivia. It's one thing to mention in the article that many references are made to the work by other anime and manga, it's another to give an expansive list. --Farix (Talk) 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are fan works to be mentioned in anime articles?

Some kids at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh!#yu-gi-oh_the_abridged_series want a fan work to be mentioned on the article page. I stated that mentioning it would not be notable. WhisperToMe 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not unless the fan-work has proven itself to be notable, which several AFDs and DRV have proven that it is not. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if the fanwork is a notable or exceptional one. The abridged YGO thing isn't.

Also, at least in the cases of series that have no official English translations, I believe it's common to mention the existence of scanlated/fansubbed editions. For instance, the last time I read the Jiraishin article, I believe it had a sentence along the lines of "the series was published in English by Tokyopop up until volume N, at which point it was discontinued, with later volumes available in English only by internet fan translations." By the same token, common alternate fan spellings are sometimes mentioned, though this is more contentious. --tjstrf talk 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The War Games (MÄR)

I came across this article through random articles. I would add a relevant template for anime and manga but I am not sure whether it meets criteria and whether it should be tagged for cleanup, a merge or nomination for deletion. Apart from the brief introduction, it is very hard for someone not familiar with the MÄR work to understand what it is about. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Never read MAR, but it looks pretty straightforward. The article at present describes the physical setting for a tournament arc, and lists the battles divided out by round.

I'd suggest just prodding the thing for now. Describing the location isn't going to require enough space or detail that the stage designs couldn't just be mentioned in other articles if it was necessary to understand some other thing. (We could probably use an article on tournament arc though.)--tjstrf talk 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a Lupin III Work Group?

Would anyone be interested in creating/joining a Lupin III work group? There is much to do, such as adding more information to the main article, movie, TV special, TV series and video game pages, Monkey Punch's page, character pages, and Yuji Ohno's page. Let's not forget the manga pages, too! --AutoGyro 12:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Lupin III.--Nohansen 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple cat naming questions

First, Category:Dojin and all subcategories: Is there a reason they aren't all at the macronned title, Dōjin, to match the article? (Category:Dōjin, Category:H Dōjin, Category:Dōjin anime, etc.) If not, then I'll have them all renamed at CfD.

Second, Category:Pornographic manga magazines. This should be renamed to something, but I'm not sure what. Category:Hentai magazines? --tjstrf talk 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ero manga magazines? We should get away from misusing the term hentai... Doceirias 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I'm not sure what the title should be. A lot of the other categories (like every subcat of Category:H dojin) just say "H", and might be better renamed as well if we can find a better term. (These two potential nominations overlap somewhat as a result.) --tjstrf talk 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I suggested Ero Manga. That's what they call them in Japanese, which makes it the correct term. Doceirias 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest deleting all subcats of Category:H dojin, as they mostly contain this one link only. _dk 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, any one mind explaining to me why there is no macron in the Dojin soft article, but there is in the Dōjin and Dōjinshi articles?--十八 07:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here. I'm not sure if this reason is valid though. _dk 10:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that is not valid either. If the other two articles use the macron, and the very first word in the article uses the macron, shouldn't that be reason enough to macron the title as well?--十八 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Shin Lupin III episodes nominated for Featured List

List of Shin Lupin III episodes has been nominated for a featured list. Go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Shin Lupin III episodes to show your opposition or support. --AutoGyro 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)