Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 19

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
Latest comment: 17 years ago by KyuuA4 in topic Merge suggestion
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Reactivating AMCotW?

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Just checking to see how many people are interested in restarting the Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week? About a year ago, it became inactive do to lack of support and updates. Long and short of it, I took a several month long hiatus and the whole thing collapsed.

Of course, there should be some reforms made. For starters, the Collaboration should attempt to improve the article to at least B-Class. Also, editors should only comment on nominations they are actually interested in contributing towards and not simply because they like to see the article improved. I believe that was one of the biggest problems the last time. And lastly, a nomination should have a minimum number of willing contributers before it can become AMCotW.

Thoughts? --Farix (Talk) 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think obscurity is the major problem with nominations. We'd need a much narrower scope of articles, limited to those manga/anime that are well known and have plenty of information. Most of those type of articles are already well developed. Maybe we could concentrate on getting B-class articles to GAs or GA articles to FAs. --Squilibob 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Squilibob on this one. One of the main reasons that I lost interest in AMCotW was that many of the articles that were nominated I've never even heard of/could find no resources on when searching for it on the internet. It would be a good idea to start it up again, but more guidelines would be necessary. --Miss Ethereal 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
On a further note, I've been away from wikipedia for a long time, so I don't know how active the anime editors are and if they're like me, they've probably forgotten many of the wiki-tags. --Miss Ethereal 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a B-to-GA improvement drive would be easy and rewarding and fun. --Masamage ♫ 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
a B-to-GA improvement drive would be excellent. You wouldn't need a deadline and you wouldn't need to be limited to one article so it's deviating away from a CotW. --Squilibob 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing something like that with all of the Mitsuru Adachi articles. So far I've improved Nine, Rough, Cross Game, Miyuki, and Slow Step. I'll be working through the remaining existing articles as I get to them, and then moving on to creating all (or as many as I can of) the others in the template at the bottom of each of them. Oh, and I made the {{Mitsuru Adachi works}} template to help link them all together. I've gotten a little sidetracked with creating Weekly Young Sunday, Shōnen Big Comic, Twilight Q, Strange Dawn, and all the Japan-related unassessed article assessment, but I'll be getting back to them. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree we would need more guidelines; B to GA sounds good. On that theme, what happened to the importance thing? Did anyone ever try to do it? Was there a lack of consensus? I feel if we could have this done, we could start by the "top" articles down. And btw, if we're going to a B to GA thing, I think we really need to start by Evangelion. I know by now the mere thought of approaching that article makes most people nauseous, but we simply cannot leave it in that desperate state. --SidiLemine 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot of InuYasha has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The article on the plot of InuYasha has been nominated for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of InuYasha and express your views on whether Plot of InuYasha is needed. JRSpriggs 08:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that the article "Plot of InuYasha" has been wantonly destroyed as a result of this AfD. JRSpriggs 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't read the very clear text shown every time you make an edit, have you? Let me quote:
By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not object to people copying my contributions. Nor do I object to edits which are done for the purpose of improving the article. I do object to vandalism and destruction for the sake of destruction. If we accept that, then why should anyone contribute anything? Why do you edit Wikipedia? Would you be content to see the articles you helped build wiped out so that neither you nor the people you were trying to help could enjoy them? Your comment is disingenuous. JRSpriggs 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I do object to vandalism and destruction for the sake of destruction. Except that this deletion was nothing of the sort. By editing and participating on Wikipedia, you agree that your contributions must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:NOT, a major policy that defines what are not acceptable content to the site, explicitly states that articles that are only plot summary are not encyclopedic and will likely be deleted, regardless of whether contributors find it useful or interesting. This article violated a rule in WP:NOT, and thus deletion was the correct course of action. If you disagree with that, you can discuss it at Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your position was refuted during the AfD, especially by KrytenKoro (talk · contribs). JRSpriggs 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It may have been refuted to you, but the consensus among the other users at that AfD was that reasoning was valid. Like I said, if you don't like that judgement, take it to DRV or in WP:NOT's talk page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the plot of Anything can be summarized into 1-3 paragraphs. If it's longer than that, obviously, there's too much info. KyuuA4 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images in userboxen

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

The following userboxen have Naruto ninja village insignia (or whatever they're called) images:

and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Uchiha has the Uchiha family symbol.

These strike me as derivative works of Naruto. Even though they are fan-made, if they're derivative works, they are considered non-free, and should not be in the Template or User namespace, as per Non-free content criteria #9. I'm posting here first to reach a consensus on a) if these images are non-free and b) what should be done if they are. Thanks, --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the images look like they've been released into the public domain, and thus are free-use images. I do not believe they should be deleted on this basis.--十八 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A derivative work of a copyrighted image cannot just be released into the public domain. IANAL, but at a guess I'd say these are non-free since they are recognisably Naruto-based images. (After all, if logos can be copyrighted I don't see why something that equates to a fictional logo wouldn't at least potentially be subject to the same kind of risk.) Confusing Manifestation 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that any image self-made could be released into the public domain and thus free-use. Am I wrong to assume this?--十八 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are - see derivative work. If you create a character yourself, and draw art of them, you're free to do what you like. But if you draw a picture of a copyrighted character, then you may own the copyright on the picture itself but the fact that it contains someone else's copyright is where the problems seep in. See also fan art which suggests that the best you can hope for is fair use - and Wikipedia doesn't allow fair use images on userpages. Confusing Manifestation 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Would these common symbols even be copyrighted? The rain one is just four straight vertical lines. Another is just four circles. Even the Konoha logo is a spiral with a triangle attached. Some of them could even be replicated in unicode. --Squilibob 07:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would assume only maybe Konoha, sand and the Uchiha symbols would. The rest are just commonly used symbols. Naruto can't copyright a star. Or a squiggle. The other 3 I'm not positive about, but most of the others are generic symbols they used. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 10:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but the problem is that even the ninja insignia that are common symbols (Sound, Rain, Moon, Star, etc.) are still explicitly based on a copyrighted work. I think that in the userboxen that aren't affiliated with a ninja village (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User narutofan and WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User WayOfThe Ninja), the image could be replaced with something clearly free and ninja-ish, like a shuriken or kunai. I'm not sure what to do about the ninja village userboxen. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The kunai or shuriken is a good idea. I have looked through unicode characters and these could be used: ☾ Moon ♪ Sound / oro ☁ Cloud (maybe) ☆ Star and ‖‖ Rain. They won't be breaching image guidelines if they're just text. --Squilibob 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A more recognizable symbol for Naruto in general might be to use the tomoe pattern. He certainly hasn't got a copyright on that one. --tjstrf talk 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I made some prototypes for NarutoFan and WayOfThe Ninja in my user space. 忍者 means "ninja", and the shuriken is the only one I could find on Commons that vaugely looks like a Naruto shuriken and isn't up for deletion. The kunai I found looks suspiciously like Naruto merchandise (one of the descriptions is "A palstic kunai" (sic)), so I avoided it, since it may or may not be a derivative work. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Those look good, but the "way of the ninja" ones should probabably be gender-neutral, too. --Masamage ♫ 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"His" is a gender-neutral pronoun. --tjstrf talk 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being called "dude" or "mankind" or reading a textbook with generalized male pronouns. But for the purposes of my userpage, I would never use something that referred to me, personally and directly, as 'him'. Most userboxes use 'them' or avoid the issue altogether. --Masamage ♫ 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, I take being called "they" as a singular entity about the same as being called "it". You just can't make everyone happy, can you? Or rather, I suppose you can, but it may require some template functions. {{{1|his}}} should do the job here, since then you can change the pronoun to whatever you want. --tjstrf talk 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You could take it that way, but you'd be the first I've ever seen. Like I said, most userboxes use "they". I don't really care how it gets fixed as long as it is. :P --Masamage ♫ 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>Interestingly enough...Singular_they. Be sure to check out the historical sections. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to his/her, which seems somewhat standard in userboxen. I copy/pasted from the old box, and didn't notice the pronoun. Fortunately narutofan is phrased in a gender-neutral way. The final version could easily have variables, though. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't any objection, I'll take out the images in {{User narutofan}} and {{User WayOfThe Ninja}} in a day or two. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, just very slowly. I put all the ninja village boxes together on one page in my userspace, here, but it is still very much a work in progress. Thanks to User:Squilibob for finding those unicode replacements for the images. I'm still pondering what to do with all the boxes that still say "id". --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Plurals?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Is Manga and Anime still considered a foreign word? Last I read the definition was wrong in many dictionaries.... including the OED (Which stated that manga and anime usually contain science fiction and fantasy elements --which is not true (Considering Roman and OL manga and anime), and some I've read say more violence and sex which is also not true... (considering Marybell and Hime-chan no Ribbon, for instance). If it's considered a foreign word, then it should follow foreign word rules, shouldn't it? And if it's considered native, then what do we do about plurals? Just wondering. It seems like the project leans towards Japanese word rules over American... i.e. Two manga versus two mangas. (Firefox and many of the programs I have don't think they are words and underline them as wrong... but then it also underlines sensei...) Be interesting to add this to the article proper too on anime and manga, as well as common misconceptions on the International field about these two.--Hitsuji Kinno 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with Japanese words, what we have done is dealt with them from the standpoint of the Japanese language since they are loan words and originated from another language other than English, thus they should follow the language rules of the language they came from, so I disagree with adding the plural 's' to the end of anime/manga when speaking about them in the plural form. The other words around anime/manga tell the reader how many there are. And if there isn't something already, shouldn't this be stated at WP:MOS-JP?--十八 09:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
They are treated just like "deer", "sheep", and other English words which don't change when pluralized. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should it be added when it is not the correct form to begin with? The words may have found their way into English dictionaries, but that doesn't mean that normal English pluralization rules now apply. It is also very uncommon for people who use the pluralization "animes" or "mangas" and is generally a sign of ignorance, just like when they use "sheeps" and "deers". --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Though there are exceptions ("futons" is one that's mentioned on the WP:MOS-JA page). I added a header for the paragraph on that page which talks about this. As already mentioned here, though, "anime" and "manga" are pluralized the same way as "deer" and "sheep" (without an "s" being added). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Naruto Task Force

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I just created the page I'm going to add it to the Work group section. Uchiha23 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Naruto articles have always left me with the impression that they are very comprehensive and well organized to begin with so I wonder if there really is a need for a work group on this specific subject. I would prefer to reserve work groups to areas where quite a bit of work is needed, such as when there are a large numbers of stubs or incomplete articles, instead of "just because". It would also better to propose the work group here first before it's created. That way, we can see how much support the work group has first or if it is really needed. --Farix (Talk) 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
He did propose it at the Wikiproject council, though I'm not sure if he announced it anywhere else. --tjstrf talk 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have the support yet. But any work group of this WikiProject should be ran by the this project. Otherwise, the WikiProject would have no control over what becomes work groups of itself. --Farix (Talk) 19:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted two users who do a lot of editing on the Naruto pages before about establishing a workgroup but they seemed uninterested. You would need those users to participate as they already informally manage the Naruto articles anyway. --Squilibob 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Um so should I add the {{inactive}} template or should i propose it for deletion? I could delete.. I wouldn't mind. Uchiha23 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Merge suggestion

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to suggest that every article in Category:Macross_spacecraft be merged to a single "list of" article and cropped appropriately. Most or all of them need some sourcing and so forth, and doing it like this will greatly simplify the logistics of that matter, as well as following some precedent for merging other mecha. Jtrainor 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the ones that are short enough get merged in while the ones that are longer still retain their own article space? Because if you merge them all in, SDF-1 Macross and VF-1 Valkyrie for example are going to blow up the article. --BrokenSphere 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess SDF-1 and VF-1 should remain separate because of their importance. Jtrainor 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if I could get a little help with this. I'm not good at cropping stuff into such articles and I'm afraid I'd just end up with some gigantic unwieldy beast of an article. Jtrainor 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there are not many items in the category, a "List of" may be doable. Putting into a table, it's a matter of deciding what attributes (columns) shall be used for it. Yes, I advocate the use of a table. They tend to be neater. KyuuA4 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lupin III is listed as a Featured Article Candidate

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lupin III is listed as a Featured Article Candidate. Go here to show your opposition and support Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lupin III. --AutoGyro 03:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger of chibi and super deformed

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The proposal of a merger between super deformed and chibi happened December of 2006, and still hasn't been resolved. Anyone interested? The discussion is here. JohnnyMrNinja 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No merge necessary as the Chibi article is 100% wrong. Chibi is used to refer to a child version of an adult or teenage character. --Farix (Talk) 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen chibi used as anything but an insult in Japanese. Admittedly, I don't read the kind of manga that would use that word, but I wonder if it isn't mostly a misuse of the words by English speaking fans. Doceirias 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
English fans often translate it as "small" or "cute", but it's actually a slightly derogatory word for small, more like "runty" or "shrimpy". A good example is in the Sailor Moon manga; the character Chibiusa is intially annoyed and insulted by her nickname. --Masamage ♫ 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it just be deleted as nonsense? Then maybe someone who actually knows what chibi means could make a note on the super deformed page? Looking at the chibi history, is is quite prone to spam and gibberish. JohnnyMrNinja 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It should probably become a redirect to "super deformed", yes, because in colloquial usage they are they same thing, so we should have the trope live at its correct title. --Masamage ♫ 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen the term chibi used as a synonym for "super deformed". But the whole article is clearly original research and I've prodded it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)
Yeah, people will draw somebody all cute'n'chubby and say "chibi style!" or something. It's not limited to Sailor Moon fandom (I first encountered it in Final Fantasy fanart), but I think it probably originated there: we have the older girl with buns and pigtails, and she's Usagi; we have the younger one with shorter limbs and the same hair, and she's Chibi Usagi; then we have the infant who basically epitomizes SD art, and she's ChibiChibi. --Masamage ♫ 01:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Chibi has gone to AfD. The discussion is here. JohnnyMrNinja 08:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate spoiler warning?

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

At Minako Aino, we have placed a spoiler warning in the midst of this section. The paragraph enclosed in the warnings details the death of the character in the final episodes of PGSM, which was released in 2004 and which has not been released in English. It seems to me that this warning is entirely justified per several of the points at WP:SPOILER, and doesn't fail any of the "should not be used" criteria. The one at the bottom of that section talks about not using the warnings in character articles except "around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across"; I feel this applies, but apparently not everybody does. I'd like to get a wider subset of opinions. Any thoughts? --Masamage ♫ 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel there should be no spoiler warnings what-so-ever. I don't know how many agree with me, but I feel they break up the encyclopedic tone of articles when they're used and restrict them unnecessarily. Leebo T/C 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. But does this fit the existing policy, is the question. --Masamage ♫ 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're asking, but it's a disputed guideline rather than a policy. I don't agree with it. Leebo T/C 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why exactly would this need a spoiler warning? Also is it really a spoiler or just a plot detail that plays on the viewer's emotions? It is in a section discussing the plot of the live-action series and the series is dated. Just because it hasn't be released in the US isn't enough of a reason to mark it with a spoiler tag. --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Not having aired in the US is listed in the bullet points. And this is for the live-action series, not the anime, so it's 2004. How recent is 'recent'? --Masamage ♫ 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such bullet point. You've already stated that it is unlikely to be aired in the US. So not being aired in the US can't be used as justification for placing a spoiler warning. And I also wouldn't call 2004 recent as far as television series goes, where 6 months isn't very recent either. --Farix (Talk) 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I misremembered its specific point, but bullet two does indeed include "TV shows that have not yet aired in all major markets." (Also, for what it's worth, Malkinann said that, not me. She's probably right, but.) --Masamage ♫ 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That point is meant to apply if it is known that a TV series will air in several major markets. But since that is highly unlikely, that point doesn't apply. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If there was any sign that it might actually be released in the US, then I might support this warning. As is, no, since all the English fans of the live-action series will already know. --tjstrf talk 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is true that those English fans who do wind up seeing it for themselves will be a very tiny subset. Most will have to be fans by osmosing what other people write about it. --Masamage ♫ 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New cat

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created Category:Manga anthologies to help people find anthologies. Please help populate the category. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New template

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created the {{Studio Ghibli people}} template by splitting it off of the film template. I've also added it to all the people listed in it, as well as the Studio Ghibli article. Here's what it looks like:

Enjoy. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Someone proposed the merging of all the Serial Experiments Lain episode articles with List of Serial Experiments Lain media. After checking the said episode articles contain no additionnal data. So I propose the merger be changed to a mass (13 articles) deletion. The articles have not moved in eight months, and I figure that's 13 less stubs for the project.--SidiLemine 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Being an inclusionist, I really don't know how to do this. If someone wouldpoint in the right direction, I'd be most grateful.--SidiLemine 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just redirect the episode articles to the list. That is usually the best method. --Farix (Talk) 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Farix. As long as it gets the number of stubs down, it's good for me ;). --SidiLemine 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, where can I find that nice little table that used to be on the project page, with the number of stubs, start, B, etc.?--SidiLemine 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess.--十八 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot. --SidiLemine 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I've nominated both Template:List of Anime Ep TV and Template:List of Anime English Ep TV for deletion. You can find their deletion discussions here and here respectively. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Magazine infobox?

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I've been thinking it would be good to create a magazine infobox to go with {{Infobox animanga}}. It could include such things as the publisher, when it was founded, how often it's released, what day of the month it comes out (since most monthlies in Japan come out on the same day every month), and language. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would first check to see if there is already an infobox to fit the need. There is no point in reinventing the wheel if you can slightly modify an existing one. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. And what do you know . . . Template:Infobox Magazine --Farix (Talk) 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was only asking about it. Thank you for being so polite about it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I was wanting one that fit into the animanga infobox for consistency through all anime and manga articles. Almost all of the parts to the animanga infobox have less specific equivalents. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would you create one that would fit inside {{Infobox animanga}}? It's not going to be used in conjunction with the other components. The standalone {{Infobox Magazine}} will serve the purpose. --Farix (Talk) 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I can think of maybe one example where a magazine has been adapted into an anime. Some film articles like Akira (film) don't use the Anime infobox so I don't think there would be any inconsistency. --Squilibob 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Very rarely do film only articles use the animanga infobox. And if Netrun-mon is the only case, then a different solution should be looked at. --Farix (Talk) 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Books on anime

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Part for my own self and part to help with articles on anime, I'm looking to buy some books on anime. This book caught my eye, and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about it. Also, if anyone has any other suggestions for books on anime. While we're on the topic, those of you who do own books on anime should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that book, but Fred Patten is a good writer (at least what I've read in the past). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I now own this book, though I haven't yet read it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I recommend: Clements, Jonathan (November 2006). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, Revised and Expanded Edition. St. Paul, MN: Stone Bridge Press. ISBN 1-933-33010-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) --AutoGyro 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is branching off into manga now, but considering how closely manga and anime are intertwined, Frederik L. Schodt's Dreamland Japan is good and an update to his prior book, Manga Manga, even if it's more than 10 years old now. --BrokenSphere 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (a very respected work in the field of comics) contains some interesting points on the difference between American and European comics to manga.--SeizureDog 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance Criterium

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

I was wondering if we coul settle the Article Important dispute by using the "what links here" stats, basically saying that the article with the most articles pointing at it (excluding of course WP articles, user pages, portals, etc) is the most important. This has been used by others, and seems pretty consistant to a few exceptions.--SidiLemine 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a dispute. I thought we had a general consensus not to use it. Who is going to maintain importance if we do start using it? We're over 6000 articles tagged now. --Squilibob 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I too disagree with the incorperation of an importance scale. It would take too long to tag all the articles, and in the end, it doesn't really help that much.--十八 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe there wasn't any dispute. I just assumed from the fact that it wasn't used that we didn't agree on anything, and I didn't know we had agreed not to use it. The main idea behind using it was that it enabled things like the AMCoW to function on some kind of an importance basis. Also, when people not from the project, say, people working towards 1.0 pass by, they might say, "hey! That's a top importance article, in a terrible condition! Let's do something about it!", and give a hand. That's basically it. As for maintainance, there's not nearly as much mantainance to do as for quality, and we definitely are using, and maintain, this scheme. Seeing how every single other project does use importance, I thought we might be able too. --SidiLemine 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, it's not true that "every single other" project uses importance. WP:WPCATS doesn't. WP:TOKU doesn't. WP:BUFFY doesn't. I'm sure I could find more. --Masamage ♫ 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, sorry I got overcarried. Maybe I went too far saying "all". I just wanted to point that some projects with great amounts of articles do, and seem to live well with it.--SidiLemine 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is just that we never considered the importance scale to be all that important or useful enough to the project to bother with. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I see the point. I was more thinking about the people outside the project, but importance being strictly project-managed, I can see how this makes no sense. Thanks all!--SidiLemine 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, even if we did decide to use the scale, how would we determine it? What one person considers important, another person may not. The importance scale leads to nothing but problems, one person may think an anime is of high importance and others may think the exact opposite. Using the scale would just lead to more problems than it would solve. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Collapsable Infoboxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgeese has collapsible infoboxes-- let's just make all boxes be like that, then AMIB's complaint about size will not matter anymore. Jtrainor 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That would make the infobox pointless. --Farix (Talk) 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't, because one could just click Show to pop 'em out. Also, I meant to post this to WP:Gundam, I'll go and do so now. Jtrainor 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's still pointless and completely defeats the purpose of placing an infobox on an article in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's as Farix says, we shouldn't be hiding information as it's counter-productive. A radical change to the infobox to make it more space efficient is what is needed, without hiding the important base information. --Squilibob 07:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Parodies/Cultural References in x anime

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Are there any existing guidelines or precedents for discussing parodies or cultural references in x anime outside of trivia sections, especially in their own article space? I just found List of School Rumble season two parodies, and as much as I'm a fan of the series, I doubt it would survive an AFD nomination on OR grounds. So what to do with it? --BrokenSphere 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that topics such as that are little more than trivia and should not be included in Wikipedia per WP:TRIVIA, though I'm sure there may be exceptions.--十八 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The relevant guidelines are here for such pages. --BrokenSphere 02:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the main reason these articles get delted would also have to do with a lack of references and, as you said, original research that cannot be verified.--十八 04:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on a similar topic a few months ago, and I think the consensus is that if it's not referenced, it's not allowed, and 99.999% of this stuff is not just unreferenced it's unreferencable (apologies for that horrible Frankenstein of a word). Confusing Manifestation 05:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When I began editing the Lupin III article, those sections were mostly un-referenced, but even after I found references for them, I felt like they do not add much to the article and so moved the sections to the talk page so that they may remain there for future reference. --AutoGyro 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I mantain a Cultural References article for The Big O only to keep the "Influences" section in the main article void of fancruft and original research. I added a few items I considered cool —and verifiable— but these sections/articles never amount to much.--Nohansen 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That looks pretty good. SR is full of influences/parodies, but the major problem would be how to source them adequately. --BrokenSphere 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So, are we talking about cultural references within an anime, or references to that anime in other sources? --Masamage ♫ 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My original inquiry and the subject of that article I mentioned, which I won't contest the proposed deletion of, was re. the references within an anime. --BrokenSphere 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gundam

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I appreciate the efforts by WikiProject Anime and manga. However, your child WikiProject, WikiProject Gundam, is based on an unreferenced flagship article Gundam and seems to be a WikiProject dedicated to generating more unreferenced articles. I started a thread here in hopes to improve the efforts of WikiProject Gundam. It would help if those in WikiProject Anime and manga would assist WikiProject Gundam to become a Wikiproject to "collaborate on encyclopedic work" as stated at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gundam is pretty much a ghost ship. None of the listed participants appear to be active. Complaining about it, and making incivil accusations about its goals, aren't helpful really. I'd like it if a seasoned administrator like yourself would assume more good faith. Kyaa the Catlord 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the parent projects should always be responsible for their child projects, a lot like in real life where parents aren't always resposible for their children's actions due to the child having a mind of their own. Likewise, these child projects tend to branch out away from the parent project and only really have a slim connection to the parent project, especially when you go from something very broad such as WP:Anime to something very narrow such as WP:GUNDAM.--十八 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Add to the drama that WP:GUNDAM was saddled with all the non-Seed related pages by someone who was not really related to it last fall. Could the pages be improved? Sure. But coming to this page and complaining about it isn't contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, imho. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Granted that Gundam related articles are in serious need of cleanup, consolidation, and across the board rewrites. But to hold WP:ANIME responsible for the actions, or lack of actions, of WP:GUNDAM is beyond the pail. Of course, the WP:SCISSORS campaign a few months back didn't help matters either. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. On the other hand, asking politely for help is always okay. --Masamage ♫ 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:GUNDAM is an effort to improve these articles. The group has done a lot of good with centralized discussions and group goals. But, people can't do everything at once, and not everything will be perfect just because there is a WikiProject related to the topic. WP:GUNDAM is whatever you want it to be. Propose things there, inspire people to fix things, that's what it's there for. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The main thing with WP:GUNDAM is that I think originally, there was just WP:CE, which was people interested in Gundam SEED stuff. Then it kind of all got shovelled into a big pile to be WP:GUNDAM, which produced a problem since there are not many people who know enough about UC Gundam stuff to be able to update it properly. Jtrainor 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all of the reliable sites

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I've planning to rewrite Blue Submarine No. 6 (using my own sandbox currently), but I want to know if any of these for reliable for writing a reception section. I don't see any thing on the main page specifically listing reliable sites.

Thanks, THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they're ok. I wouldn't rely too much on the smaller ones, like animeworld, amr, and animeacademy). AOD, THEM, Sci Fi and ex.org are very good choices. Might see if anime news network reviewed it as well. Kyaa the Catlord 22:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments by Kyaa. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Anime on DVD is also very good. You might want to check AniDB and Anime Jump too.--SidiLemine 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. OAD. Anime on DVD. Understood. Going to bed now.--SidiLemine 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, not quite yet. Get all your reception section packed with the metacritic from animecritic. --SidiLemine 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Doujin notabilities

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

I know that doujinshi are inherently non-notable unless proven otherwise. The question is: how do you prove otherwise? No matter how well a doujin sells at Comiket and doujin retail outlets, there is no record of those statistics on the internet (except, say, on export services where they would provide a ranking but no statistics...and those sites are of questionable notability/reliability too) As for reliable sources to prove notability...are there any magazines in Japan that mentions doujins (doujinshi, doujin games, etc)? I ask because some dojins really are notable (for example, Tsukihime and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni even before their anime adaptations), but it is really difficult to prove they are notable especially to an oblivious deletionist Wikipedian in good faith. _dk 09:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The only one I can think of is the booklet they give out to the Comiket visitors on what's going to be at the event. I'm sure that more high-profile doujins would get more coverage in something like that, though I really am only guessing. The only other way to test it would be to wait for a doujin to get mentioned in a mainstream gaming magazine like Comptiq, and possibly picked up for a manga/anime adaptation. Apart from Tsukihime and Higurashi, what other notable doujin games are there?--十八 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of the games in Category:Dojin soft are notable...(but most of those articles do nothing to prove that notability). In particular, Touhou Project is really famous, as it ranks among Higurashi and Tsukihime (aka top notch), though its format really prevents it from being animated (but there are commercial novels and manga being serialized). And then there are Melty Blood and Ragnarok Battle Offline which were so great they were acknowledged by the source material's companies...and then there are the critically acclaimed Eternal Fighter Zero, The Queen of Heart, Glove on Fight (by critically acclaimed I mean from English review sites; I wouldn't know if the Japanese mainstream picked up on them). I'll stop myself here.
Well, the reason I'm bringing this up is because User:JohnnyMrNinja has placed a {{notable}} on Immaterial and Missing Power, part of the Touhou Project, and I'm having trouble proving the game's notability (Not because it's not notable, but English reliable sources just cannot be found for dojin games). It is very easy to prove that Touhou is notable, but less so for IaMP, except that it is part of a very notable series. I can't really say "It is notable because it is part of Touhou, which has a myriad of serialized manga and novels"....I'm sorry if this discussion seems out of place, but since this discussion should be about dojin in general I thought it would be better to bring this up here instead of WT:CVG. _dk 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm no expert, and that user has complaints on his webpage for overreactions, the IaMP page itself looks fine. I couldn't work out why there was a non-notable claim for it. Then I went and looked at the Touhou project page...and that's the only game in the series that has it's own page. Maybe that's why the notability tag was added for? Why does that particular game get a whole page when none of the others do? Doceirias 08:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Because I haven't gotten around to making the other articles....orz _dk 08:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Either way, it looks like User:JohnnyMrNinja added the notability tag without explaining why in either the edit comments or the talk page. The article makes a fair claim to notability, so I would either ask him to defend his actions or take the tag off as unjustified. Doceirias 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, does the subject meet the notability guideline for WP:CORPorations, and can to provided the reliable sources demonstrating that notability? --Farix (Talk) 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Remember that you ARE allowed to use other-language sources, especially if there's a lack of English ones. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, all doujinshi (and doujin) pretty much stays non-notable unless:
  • A) The doujinshi gets a non-doujin adaptation. (i.e. The anime version of Higurashi no Naku Koro ni)
  • B) The doujinshi gets re-released by a "real" publisher. (i.e. The PS2 version of Higurashi)
  • C) The doujinshi is a past work of a now established manga-ka. (i.e. I dunno, old Clamp works?)
--SeizureDog 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is unfortunate, since that would be saying that Higurashi wouldn't be notable if not for the anime and the remake (which I believe is not true, but is a systemic bias based on the lack of knowledge about the doujin scene). Although, as I said, it is difficult to prove that such doujin are notable and thus the above standard would inevitably do as a compromise. I have some problems with point C though: Ken Akamatsu (mangaka for Negima and Love Hina) drew H doujinshi on the side (they are derivatives of Final Fantasy 7, etc), but the doujinshi still wouldn't be notable.... Thus gives rise to another question, does the notability of a work establishes the notability of the author? If it does, does that notability establishes the notability of the author's other works? _dk 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be a more subjective issue, but think about it this way: Obscure (usually early) works by notable authors become notable because after the author makes their popular works, people seek their early stuff out and make it notable after the fact. That old Akamatsu dojinshi isn't going to be notable because there is nothing to say about it. The entire article would read "Golden Saucer is an H dojinshi by Ken Akamatsu, based on Final Fantasy VII. In it, Aerith Gainsborough, Tifa Lockhart, and Yuffie Kisaragi have a threesome. It reflects Akamatsu's typical art style." (Why do I remember all this, anyway?) If there was some interesting incident about it, we could merge it into Akamatsu's personal article, similar to when authors do one-shots. --tjstrf talk 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Cause Golden Saucer was hot? :P It probably warrants inclusion in the Ken A article, since it isn't listed. Kyaa the Catlord 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Solution: If the (now famous) mangaka created a number of such doujinshi (I dunno, more than 10?), then a List of dōjinshi by MANGAKA could be made. If they only created a handful, then they can be mentioned as small blurbs in the "List of works" section of the article for the mangka.--SeizureDog 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

07th Expansion up for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article was first tagged with a speedy delete, but I changed it to an AfD so a discussion could take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/07th Expansion. And yes, I realize that this page is only loosly connected to this project, but I thought the people here would be the best to comment about it.--十八 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This case is a prime example of what I'm worried about on the above section. Although 07th Expansion is out of their dojin phase already... _dk 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Fullswing

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

could anyone help improving this page? I'm reading translated version (currently volume 6) and anyone more knowledgeable than me about this manga please improve (especially nihongo thing) --XNZ 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

List of Shin Lupin III episodes is a current Featured List candidate. Please discuss and vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Shin Lupin III episodes. Thanks. Kariteh 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this wikiproject dead or what?? No one's voting! Kariteh 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope not. Lots of anime stuff to be edited and fixed.--AutoGyro 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Title for the multi-format series.

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

WP:TV-NAME suggests that the "articles about series that have been presented in multiple formats such as radio, television, or novelization where a significant portion of the article covers information other than television and disambiguation is needed use (series)".

So, you can consider move Bleach (manga) to Bleach (series) and Naruto to Naruto (series).--JSH-alive 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Naruto is fine the way it is no need to change it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
And Bleach has the problem of not being big enough compared to the chemical to warrant the Bleach page being a disambiguation page with links to Bleach (manga) and Bleach (anime), but the anime does follow the manga close enough to not really need to warrant its own page (minus the Bount saga). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
But since the manga came first, that is why we use the designation of (manga) to the end of those. Typically, pages in WP:Anime use this convention, like Air (visual novel).--十八 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Air is a good example, as neither the visual novel nor the film can be considered "series", which I think is a major reason use of (series) isn't so great.--SeizureDog 22:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject merger

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been suggested by myself to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels into Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games as a task force. A rationale is viewable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Proposed WikiProject merger. Please place all comments there; this is merely a notice to inform related parties.--十八 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First completed English release of a manga series?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My little bit of research seems to point to Mai, the Psychic Girl being the first manga series to ever be completely published in English. Can anyone help support or deny this claim? For the record, Mai was first completed (in English) on July 1989.

Other contenders that don't make the cut:

  • The first publishing of Barefoot Gen in 1978 didn't get past the first couple of volumes.
  • Stuff like "I Saw It" (also by Keiji Nakazawa) doesn't count because they were a one-shots (not series.
  • Lone Wolf and Cub (which started being published in the same month as Mai) didn't finish its series until April 1991.
  • Kamui and Area 88 (published at the same time as Mai) didn't finish their epic double digit volume runs (at least not in comic book form).

Any help to establish my original research would be much appreciated.--SeizureDog 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_19&oldid=1136417903"