Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Astro boy needs sorting

The main astroboy article lacks references Astro Boy and from the Astroboy template I created the characters have no references. Plus the manga chapters need more references too.

Template:Astro Boy

List of Astro Boy chapters

Dwanyewest (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiki's Delivery Service

I'd like to get Kiki back to GA status, so I've put it for peer review. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest placing {{Wikipedia:Peer review/Kiki's Delivery Service/archive2}} here above my request for a peer review on The Noah Family. Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me! Always more reviews to perform... G.A.S 05:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit War over Robotech

As I understand wikipedia mandates we used reliable sources when I try to remove sources such as this [1] under the reasoning WP:SPS it gets put back up am I wrong someone please confirm or correct this stance.

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You would be correct. Anime.net (and any other wiki) fails both WP:RS and WP:EL and such links should be removed. They are not sources at all. Material sourced solely from them should be fact tagged or removed as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Something must be be done below are examples I will produce more later of articles relating to Robotech articles where I have put removed unreliable links. As editors you can do something cause the retards won't listen to me.

Examples

• Bruno J. Global August 13 2008

• Roy Focker August 13 2008

• Lynn Minmay August 6 2008

All these articles have been altered back to their state I will produce more evidence later.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking closer, I don't see any of those using anime.net as a source, but as an external link. That said, it is nothing but a fansite and such links are also not allowed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, the Macross Wiki has been authorized by copyright holders, and there are wikis that are allowed to be added to external links, such as in the Star Trek and Star Wars articles. 1-54-24 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof of this "authorization"? Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." A list of such wikis is maintained at Meta:Interwiki map. Both the Star Trek and Star Wars wikis are on this list of approved wikis for external linking purposes. This Macross wiki is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How would one go about nominating a wiki to be part of the list? -Malkinann (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On that list's talk page is a section for proposed additions, with a template you use to submit a website for addition and its discussed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't a open wiki; registration is required for edits. Anyways, the Memory Beta wiki is not listed in that list above, but it is still listed in the Star Trek article. The same goes for the Doctor Who Wiki. As the rest of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID entry on open wikis indicates, the Meta:Interwiki map list is not an exhaustive one for external link policy's sake, nor is it meant to be. The Macross Wiki maintainer got the authorization while working on the Macross and Escaflowne releases from Bandai Visual and Bandai Entertainment. [2] 1-54-24 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Robotech as I tried to draw attention in an earlier post the whole Robotech related articles need major clean up I have started as many are unreferenced or need major rewriting. I added references to some if look at my contributions. But progress is slow as I only recently started watching and reading about Robotech.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Macross Compendium" is maintained by Egan Loo (who also maintains the "Escaflowne Compendium") and sanctioned by Bandai Visual and Manga Entertainment, Inc. Furthermore, Egan has contributed to magazines like Animerica and Protoculture Addicts and is a recognized "Macross expert".--Nohansen (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, it seems like it meets WP:EL, despite being a wiki. Side note...Loo, write a book already :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'anime voices' Macro

I've noticed that the anime-voices macro doesn't link to actors who don't exist in the Wiki yet.

I know some people like to avoid links to nowhere out of some kind of obsessive cleanliness, but it doesn't really fit with the Wiki philosophy of preemptive linking.

IMO it would be better if it linked whether the page exists or not, like what one would do if entering the thing manually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.236.14 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It was originally like that, but it was changed for some reason.--十八 09:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is will actually link to the article once created, so it is in fact "pre-emptively linked". I presume the reasoning for this is that most of the voice actors will likely never have articles, as they are likely not notable, and as such no red link is shown. (See also Wikipedia:Red link#Avoiding red links). G.A.S 10:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It was changed back in May by The Farix -- he can probably explain his reasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason was so that manual wikilinks can be used in the fields the a without breaking computability. In sort, you can use [[Laura Bailey (voice actress)|Laura Bailey]] directly. My original plan was to completely remove the auto-wikilinking altogether, but that was too big of an undertaking. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- thanks. That's good functionality to have. And, actually, I kinda prefer it the current way -- this way actors who only get minor roles and never become notable won't be permared links. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's better then the kludge I added earlier, which probably should be undone now. I'm also wonder if it would be better to reword the entire thing into a sentence. --Farix (Talk) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you're thinking of? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that could be good, if there was a way to toggle between the short form and the sentence form. For series where the anime is the primary work, the short form works fine, but for series where the manga is first, we end up having to forgo the template to write a sentence form at the end of the description. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commandeered {{anime voices2}}, which was used only once and can now be duplicated by {{anime voices}}, to use the full sentence format. The exact wording can be worked on.

• {{anime voices2|Kouhei Morioka|Hiroshi Kamiya|Jason Liebrecht}}
  Kouhei Morioka is voiced by Hiroshi Kamiya in Japanese and Jason Liebrecht in English.

• {{anime voices2|Naoyuki Asaba|Daisuke Namikawa|type=OVA}}
  In the original video animation, Naoyuki Asaba is voiced by Daisuke Namikawa.

• {{anime voices2|Naoyuki Asaba|Hisayoshi Suganuma|type=radio}}
  In the radio drama, Naoyuki Asaba is voiced by Hisayoshi Suganuma.

Valid type arguments are: ova/oav, game, radio, and tv with tv being the default on an invalid argument. Right now, I have not included any autolinking. --Farix (Talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one needs some gramatical work. Maybe: In the anime adaptation, Kouhei Morioka is voiced by Hiroshi Kamiyain in the Japanese audio track and by Jason Liebrecht in the English one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that is just awful. o_O --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the anime adaptation, the Japanese voice acting is performed by Hiroshi Kamiyain, while the English voice acting is performed by Jason Liebrecht, or something along those lines, maybe? :P -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why use anime adaptation instead of anime television series or original video animation? The latter two are far more specific. The rest is just too wordy. --Farix (Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the full sentence one is mostly for use in noting the voices for an anime adaptation of a manga series, not an anime that came first? "anime adaptation" is more accurate. Can also take a page from List of Naruto characters since its a featured list: "Kouhei's seiyū in the original Japanese anime is Hiroshi Kamiyain, and he is voiced by Jason Liebrecht in the English adaptation". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If we do use the one from Naruto, I think it would be better to drop the he, since it would remove the need to have a gender-specific sentence, while remaining grammatically correct. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I still highly dislike the suggestions and I don't buy your argument. "anime adaptation" is just too vague and no more accurate then "anime television series" and "original video animation". In fact, the latter two are far more accurate. It's the same reason we should say "adapted into a ##-episode anime television series" instead of "a ##-episode anime adaptation was made". In the first example, you know that the adaptation was a television series, in the second example you don't know if you are talking about a television series, an original video animation, or an anime film. Also, I think we should avoid the term seiyū since it is being used as jargon, which should be avoided since there is a simple equivalent English term. --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why are we suddenly campaigning for long-winded explanations of who was voiced by who and in what form? Isn't it just easier to do the old "Voiced by: [name] (format)" way we've been doing it for as long as I can remember? I mean, some of the more popular series get many adaptations: anime TV series, drama CD, anime films (not always the same people as the TV series), OVA series, video games, etc. Not to mention the series that get dubbed in English. I found the short form a lot easier to understand since it's all right there, and you don't have to go through a lot of unnecessary text to find out who voiced Character A in the drama CD.--十八 07:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is something that has come in discussing making sure the character lists properly emphasis the primary work first, not just the anime versions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why all this is necessary. The manga obviously doesn't have seiyū, so the voice acting bit in the lists of characters would obviously apply to the anime. I think this is making things too complicated, and unnecessarily so. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because sometimes, the {{anime voices}} doesn't fit into the overall layout of the article. For example, in List of Shugo Chara! characters, using {{anime voices}} for the four main characters would appear out of place no matter where you put it in the characters' descriptions. In those cases, using sentences is better. --Farix (Talk) 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe you should try to strive for something that will make it harder for readers to find who voiced what character and in what format. The current version is the simplest and has worked fine.--十八 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just write your own sentences, then? --Masamage ♫ 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not create and use a template, especially since the pattern for the sentence is going to be the similar? --Farix (Talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because one article might need to say "X was voice-acted by Y in the Japanese anime and by Z in the English adaptation," but another might to say "A was voice-acted by B in the Japanese anime, except for episodes N through P, when she was voiced-acted by C. In the OVA, she was voice-acted by D. In the English anime she was voice-acted by E for episodes Q through R, F for episodes S through T, G in the first movie, and H in the second movie." You'd have to use extremely complicated parameters for inserting extra information in any given place--or else I guess you could just pile all this stuff into the given fields for Japanese and English voice actors, but all that does is save you about 10 words of typing and make the thing harder to read and while editing. --Masamage ♫ 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sort order for publishers in infobox

Do we have a suggested order for listing publishers in the publisher_other parameter in the infobox? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical by country was confirmed in another discussion. If you're referring to the order of multiple publishers in the same country, I'm not sure (but alphabetical or publication order would both be good bets). —Dinoguy1000 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- must have missed that one. Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Articles Need Help

World Embryo and Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro are both in need of "adopting" to get them in better shape. I've done some very rough, basic clean up on both, but don't have the time to deal with the in-depth stuff. For World Embryo, I corrected some basic errors (said it was licensed by Tokyopop, when its licensed by Dark Horse), did a basic MoS arranging, removed the copyvio plot summary, took a big ax to the very very large character section, added a basic media section, and added the manga volume list. Another editor created a List of World Embryo characters restoring the information I'd axed out. As the series only has four volumes, I felt that it was excessive to have a separate character list, so I redirected it back to the article. Feel free to undo that if you disagree and want to tackle beating all that in-universe plot summary into shape. :) It still needs more basic info about the series' original release. Dark Horse hasn't started releasing it yet, so may be limited in other areas.

For Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro, I removed a bad OR statement, did a very basic MoS arranging such as fixing header names and making a media section, and a split out the episode list to List of Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro episodes with the most basic of leads. I also put it, and its chapter list, in the project. It is in need of a character section cut down, and probably could support a separate longer list having both a on-going 17+ volume manga and a 25 episode list. It is also in very very bad need of the most basic of information about the series. Its manga and anime sections right now have little except links to the lists. And, of course, it needs references. It is unlicensed, from what I can tell, but that needs confirmation.

Both also probably need their infoboxes checked and expanded. I fixed up World Embryo's boxes some to add some basic details, but pretty sure Majin has errors and missing info. So, anyone want a new pet project? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Neuro Nōgami character page is even more of a mess; it was created with semiprotection for some reason, has a couple of random symbols at the top, but I can't figure out why, and it has a massive crufty list of every spell the character has ever used. Added the project banner, but I don't really have time to try and keep that stuff under control. Doceirias (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ewww...I took care of it with some serious boldness. Let's see how long it takes its creator to freak. It wasn't really semi-protected. The person must have just copy/pasted from another article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an article that could go to AfD or simply redirected to the main article or a list of characters. I don't think there is anything that is worth saving. BTW, should we put in the MoS that list of powers or attacks should not be avoided in an article? --Farix (Talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Should or should not? I think they should be avoided in the main article and lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can help. Right now I'm looking up the chapter names for World Embryo as well as other info. Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 17:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Anime voices}} help

Is there a way to pipe links in this template? I've had to change some links from Doug Stone to Doug Stone (voice actor); it shows up with the (voice actor) in the template, and I don't know how to fix it. Piping links normally doesn't work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[[Doug Stone (voice actor)|Doug Stone]] should work. And yes, the square brackets are required. --Farix (Talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, use the l1, l2 parameters: {{anime voices|person 1|person 2|l1=person 1 (disambig)|l2=person 2 (disambig)}}. For some reason, someone removed that part of the documentation, but I've put it back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That will no longer work. The l1, l2 parameters were hacks because we couldn't pipe links in the template. Now that links can be piped, the parameters have been removed from the template. --Farix (Talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Then that needs to be undone. I can't believe someone just removed that without any prior discussion at all, yet no one went through and fixed every instance of its existing use?? It should have been left in to allow it to deprecate! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already went through and eliminated all uses of l1 and l2. And it's not something that needed to be discussed first. Be bold here and fix kludges in templates instead of perpetuating them. --Farix (Talk) 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, if no one knows about the "fixes" then guess what? No one will use them and everyone who already is familiar with the l1,l2 will keep using them because they don't know you decided to remove instead of deprecate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculative info being added to Macross Frontier article

May another editor look at the Macross Frontier article? An editor has reverted a correction to his/her speculation for the third time in row. The editor Kronnang Dunn keeps writing that the Macross Frontier anime will have 28 episodes, based on his/her assumption that the official site's episode listing will form a perfect 4x7 grid of buttons. The Japanese wikipedia article says that only 25 episodes are planned, based on a March 2008 news article:

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/マクロスF#cite_note-0

1-54-24 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for intervention anymore. Kronnang Dunn seems to have accepted the changes with a few nudges in the article's discussion and User Talk. Thanks for reading though, and please feel free to improve the Macross Frontier article anyways! 1-54-24 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlicensed manga and WP:RS

I'm attempting to write a decent article for Vinland Saga, which is an unlicensed seinen manga by Makoto Yukimura. I've decided to work on the hard part first, reception info. There is no notability issue with the series, since it's by an award winning author, serialized in a notable magazine, and is itself award-nominated and occasionally best selling, but as you'd imagine the series has virtually no English presence beyond forum posts saying "OMG THIS MANGA IS FRICKING AWESOME IT HAS VIKINGS", so it's been a bit difficult.

I lucked into one good review source, MangaCast, which I believe meets WP:RS for the subject because they, while not as mainstream as something like ANN, have paid staff, regularly do interviews with both English and Japanese manga industry people, get press passes for events like the opening of the Asian Art Museum's manga exhibit, etc. (I'd suggest them to other people writing about lesser-known series as well, since they often review rather niche titles.) Everything else I've found, however, has been very bloggish.

So I basically have two questions: First, does anyone know of other good, usable sources that review manga series which have not been licensed stateside? Second, if blog reviews are literally all the English reception info that exists, can I use them?

I'm also not inactive anymore, at least for the next month until I head back to university, so I look forward to working with you all again. --erachima talk 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one I know of is that The Comics Journal once did a long feature article/review of a metric boatload of scanlations. It's from 2 years ago, though, so predates any attention Vinland Saga would have gotten. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they do mention it in passing. But nothing I could really use unless I'm at the barrel-scraping phase. That article looks like it could be useful to our scanlation article, though, as well as Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō. --erachima talk 21:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, I already used it for YKK (and went back there to find the link). Yer right that it'd be excellent for scanlation. And possibly other series. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle Royale

I keep coming across character articles from Battle Royale that appear to be nothing more than a non-notable summary of that character with no real-world context. Anyway, there are 42 character articles that I'd like to trim and merge into a character list, I'd like input from the group before I do it so I can have a consensus. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Toonami Jetstream count as an English airdate?

For a while, the Blue Dragon anime was airing on Cartoon Network. However, between June and July, it switched to streaming videos on Toonami Jetstream. This brings me to my question: if an episode's official English premiere is on TJ (or some other online video-streaming service), does that count as its first English air date? Note that Blue Dragon isn't the only series to premiere on TJ, I also know of Hikaru no Go off the top of my head. See also List of Blue Dragon episodes, which currently treats TJ uploads as airdates. —Dinoguy1000 20:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think technically yes, though some kind of note should be added to clearly note that and/or list both the online date and airdate if the online eps later air? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Robtech Edit war

I have tried to add an official website as a reference First Robotech War [3] but it keeps being removed.

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific or point to some diffs? You linked to two different pages there? Third Robotech War had a huge chunk of copyvio material removed, but not seeing anyone reverting your sourcing? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use these two official website links [4] [5] and put them in the reference section and it has been removed as you [6] I am not copying words or sentences just putting it in the reference sections.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My First Robotech War edits were altered from August 18 -21 if you insist on dates. Check the references section totally malice and without cause.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be resolved Dwanyewest (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Madman Cat population

Following the system that has been done with other companies, I've created categories for Madman Entertainment titles, and subsequently removed the massive lists of distributed titles from its article. Could now use some help populating the various categories from the old list into either the main Category:Madman Entertainment category or an appropriate subcategory such as Category:Madman Entertainment anime, Category:Madman Entertainment manga, or Category:Madman Entertainment American animated television series. I modeled the names/structure after Viz's. Feel free to make additional subcats, as needed, for other media. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do it if you can specify which articles belong in which categories. (It is fine if you can point to sections in the article) G.A.S 15:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) "Anime Licensed by Madman Entertainment" to Category:Madman Entertainment anime. "Cartoon Network Original Series Licensed by Madman Entertainment", "Adult Swim Original Series Licensed by Madman Entertainment", and "Other Western Animation Licensed by Madman Entertainment" to Category:Madman Entertainment American animated television series. Manga from "Manga/Manhwa imported by Madman Entertainment" to Category:Madman Entertainment manga. If there are any Manhwa titles, I think for now they can just go in Category:Madman Entertainment or we can make a Category:Madman Entertainment manhwa category. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working backwards from Madman's own listing on their website adding Category:Madman Entertainment anime. Not sure how far I'll get, but I can work through it on my own over a few days (even if just a section of the alphabet) if needed. It's quite painless despite the volume of pages (paste command makes live so much easier ;) ) Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Even better, as I found the list on the page isn't always supported by the article itself :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm literally just adding the category, the articles still might not mention it, but that could be a phase 2 where needed.

If I am to work from the list, it should be about an hour's work, so would it be possible to update the list instead, even in a sandbox? G.A.S 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to tackle A-M, and I do N-Z then? Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do 5+ per minute, sustained (using AWB - though only tomorrow), but need to know that the lists are correct. Will you mind verifying those, and I will then categorise all of them. G.A.S 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'd normally be all for that, I've done a fair bit already manually and I've used the opportunity to make some simple edits (fixing broken tags, basic tidyup and expansion requests). I've done S-Z already. Confirming the list via the official site and doing all that is working pretty well for me, it's not that much more than simply confirming and editing the list Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I will then start at A and until we meet somewhere mid way. G.A.S 18:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

140 titles (no movies unless they are a franchise with a tv show/ova) from E to Z now done. Albeit with some bad code on a few (oooppss). Thats it from me now. The list has a few non-anime titles, I used common sense as I was only tagging anime articles. Link to list used: http://www.madman.com.au/actions/series.do?method=browse&webChannelId=1 Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done the rest of the list: The following were in their list, not on mine (thus not categorised - please follow up):

• Adventures of Tintin, the
• Angel Sanctuary
• Beast Wars: Transformers
• Cyber City Oedo 808
• Fat Albert - Original Series - Collection

The following were not on their list, though on mine (thus not categorised)

• Burn Up Scramble
• Casshan
• Le Chevalier D'Eon
• Comic Party
• Darker Than Black

Regards, G.A.S 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Le Chevalier was done by me yesterday, Madman have it under "The". I'll sort the rest out Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Pani Poni Dash!

The title of this article presents some problems for me which is not adequately dealt with MoS-AM, so I would need some help here.

The situation of this aeries is that:

1. Original media is manga, titled Pani Poni. Not translated.
2. Most known translated media in the Anglosphere is the anime, titled Pani Poni Dash!.

So I would like to know, in this case, which is more important, original media, as in the case of Hirugashi, or best known name, as in the general naming conventions?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

While that's not an issue directly addressed in the MOS, the MOS does say that franchise articles should be about the original form, with the derivatives considered aspects of the primary topic, the manga. So the article is about Pani Poni, not PPD. If the manga ever gets translated into English, move it to whatever they call it then. --erachima talk 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem is, for now, should this article be named Pani Poni?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think so. It is the first version, like how we put Bleach at Bleach (manga) despite the much more popular anime. The article should start "Pani Poni is a manga series," and then say it was adapted into an anime called Pani Poni Dash!. --Masamage ♫ 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to my understanding of our MOS. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, in this case, because it is likely to be better known in English by the title of the only licensed version, I would also give the anime title in bold early in the lead. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In any rate, I have set up an RM for this article. Please give your opinions on Talk:Pani Poni Dash!#Requested move.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kōtarō Makaritōru!

Kōtarō Makaritōru! is in need of some serious assistance. I ran across it while updating year cats for manga. It appears to have been written by a fanboy based on the language used in the various sections. Anyone who can whip it into shape will be appreciated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Although I probably won't do much. Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Large number of anime images up for deletion

Please see [7]. Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly valid clearing out of an insane number of non-free images, primarily Gundam ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Those that are logos for the shows, the infobox images, it should be pretty easy to fill in FURs for. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help with page

The D-Live!! page seems whacked out. The infobox is messed up and it forced out the image I used for it, which is why I moved it out temporarily. Not to mention with another sort of character sticking out at the top of the page. Thanks Ominae (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. What image are you using, by the way? Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Its the !! in the various fields that's breaking things. Not sure how to fix it other than to take them out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I found the image. You can change the caption to 'The cover of the first Frence release' or something. And Collectonian is right. That's mean's you'll hve to change the name of the image. Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't fix it but I made tiny adjustments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem was the exclamation points in the title of the image. I deleted the one with exclamation points and reuploaded it without exclamation points. You should generally avoid any punctuation in image titles because of this problem. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some others answered the why while I was playing with it. It's fixed now, though. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance assessments

I've been gone for a bit (3 months), and the project added article importance assessment in my absence. Good for us. However, in the couple days I've been back, I've noticed that some of these assessments are a bit odd. Specifically, we appear to be underrating some of the more significant older manga series and mangaka. If I disagree with an assessment, is there some sort of assessment process to go through, or should I just change the thing and see if someone complains? --erachima talk 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Priority scale explains the scale, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Archive 1#Importance scale discusses how it was determined. Per the earlier discussions, High or Top should be discussed on the Assessment talk instead of just arbitrarily changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that older stuff tends to get shunted to Low simply because there hasn't been a big release in English. We know that current article quality doesn't necessarily correspond with importance - so that can lead to older, important series being rated as low simply because the article doesn't do the series justice! -Malkinann (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Evangelion

I am not an expert in this but it seems the Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise violate a lot the manual of style. There are articles for the anime and the manga, a list of media section and some characters lacking out-of-universe info and lots of speculations in which I find original research. Could anybody pay a look? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Evangelion franchise is a monster... it's not like we can adequately cover it in one single article (The TV series article alone is 104 kilobytes long). The one weak point I see in the articles' organization is List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. I think it could be merged into Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise.--Nohansen (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Project banner on images

{{WikiProject Anime and manga}} currently supports, and is used on, both categories and templates. However, there is currently no such functionality for images, nor is there a Category:WikiProject Anime and manga images. Is there a reason for or prior discussion about this, and if not, should we add this functionality and start tagging images with the banner? —Dinoguy1000 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that currently, images get categorized into Category:Non-article anime and manga pages (which, for some obscure reason, is itself categorised under Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles... would there be any objections to moving it up a level, or is this intentional?). —Dinoguy1000 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does our scope include images? What is the norm? Normally, images are the responsibility of the uploader. Remember that we are likely looking at 8000+ images... what is the use in tagging them all? The othet issue is that, unlike categories, templates and articles, images are very dynamic, with regular additions and deletions, so it will be near impossible to keep the category up to date. Furthermore, the WP1.0 bot does not track images. The cleanup listing won'tt help either, as cleanup templates are not used on images. G.A.S 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is intentional, The Farix should know. G.A.S 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the pages that were supposed to go in that category were pages that were still in article space. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) edited grammar so I could understand what you were saying... rv or tweak if I inadvertently changed the meaning —Dinoguy1000 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sort of makes sense, but only supports the argument for splitting images IMHO. I would like to point out, though, that when an image is currently tagged, the banner does not display any message for the image - not even that "this is not an article and is not rated on the assessment scale" - see, for example, Image talk:Naruto Hand Seals.png. So no matter what the decision here, there still needs to be some sort of image-specific functionality implemented in the banner (even if it's only expanding the na-page message to catch images as well). (hmm, it also seems to not display anything for Portal or Wikipedia pages...) —Dinoguy1000 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about our scope including images, but other projects do seem to tag them - WP:ASSESS mentions that some projects do such tagging, and the assessment bot is being updated, with a new feature being tracking non-article stuff, including images. I'm not suggesting we try to keep the category comprehensive, either, but there are definitely images that would be well-suited to it - most of the cover scans for manga volumes and DVD/VHS cassettes that are used in infoboxes, for instance, are quite static. It would also not require some huge tagging push, once people know the functionality is there, they'll be more likely to make use of it, and I would probably be doing a decent amount of tagging myself. —Dinoguy1000 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think images should be, on at least some level. There is a category for manga covers Category:Manga covers which is under Category:Anime and manga images. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I really do not see a point in tagging images. For one, the likelihood of issues coming up with images that someone will be looking for a WikiProject to handle. With templates, an editor may have problems with updating the underlying code, and with categories, there can be issues with organization or cleanup of the articles within the cat. However, with images, what issues are there? Adherence to the NFCC at most. Moreover, those are usually resolved on the talk pages of the articles the images are in. In addition, some editors are increasingly hostile to project tagging in general but especially tagging of things outside of article space. Therefore, since really is not anything to gain from tagging images, we should probably avoid it. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think tagging images is fine. If they are put into a category, though, we must make sure that the category is marked with __NOGALLERY__ so the images aren't displayed. And frankly, I couldn't care less if some editors are hostile about tagging of articles, templates, images, or whatever. The project tags are there to help peple find related projects working on a specific topic, and if someone isn't interested, they can ignore the tags. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think NOGALLERY would be necessary, as we would be tagging the image talk pages, as opposed to the images themselves. —Dinoguy1000 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with tagging images as well. WP:DIGI used to do this back when there were tons of images for each one of those Digimon articles. Most of those images have been deleted, since then, but the logic remains the same. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Shōjo

I think we need to move the Category:Shōjo to Category:Shōjo manga or Category:Shōjo anime and manga since the article has been moved now. Thoughts? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, I could have sworn we did this months ago. Move the Seinen Shonen and Josei categories as well. I'd be inclined to Shojo manga, rather than Shojo anime and manga; the demographic nearly always coming from the manga. Doceirias (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anime is rarely aimed only at one demographic as it has to have a wider audience in order to be really successful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - lets move them all (Shōjo, Shōnen, Seinen, Josei, and Kodomo). --Eruhildo (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Let's do it. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipped or Flopped

There is a minor edit war going on over at InuYasha over the use of the term flipped to redescribe the early released, and "unflipped" for newer ones. Viz apparently uses the term "flopped" in its back panel discussions, so someone changed the article to use flopped instead of flipped. He has also made the same change to Ranma ½. However, it is my understanding that flipped is the more common term in the industry and amongst the readers, so I reverted the change on InuYasha. However, other editor reverted again, hence minor edit war. I've asked him to stop reverting to give the project time to discuss this. Should Viz articles be using flopped while all others used flipped, or should we maintain consistency and used flipped throughout?

If it aids discussion any and is a minor support of flipped being more common, Google search results for flopped manga gives me about 24k results while flipped manga gives over 1.9 million.

Since this could reach across multiple pages, I think the discussion is best kept here instead of on InuYasha. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of WP:LAME to me. Further, look at the articles flipped image and flopped image, where it states a flipped image is over the horizontal axis, and a flopped image is over the vertical (although I find this distinction not only ludicrous, but seems to be original research, and I'd suggest merging the articles). Considering the edit conflict is over a vertical flopping (as Wikipedia defines it) I'd say first figure out what flipping and flopping mean on this Wikipedia, which could help to end the editing conflict. However, it seems the "correct" term was "flopping", if you take the Wikipedia article at face value, though bear in mind both articles were created by the same editor, and only two months apart from each other about two years ago. And before I get ahead of myself, Collectonian, that Google search example is not accurate. You have to add quotes around the term so that a clear comparison can be shown: 71 for "flopped manga" and 651 for "flipped manga"; not as dramatic a gap as 24k and 1.9 million, I'd say.--十八 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is lame, as it does have relevance. I also think my search is more accurate. Most discussions about flipping/flopping whatever you want to call it does not use the phrase flipped manga, but discuss that the manga was flipped. Also, neither of those articles is very well referenced at all, and I think in this case we should be using whatever the industry and readers use, not whatever the term means in the photography or graphic editing world. Do any other publishers use flopped instead of flipped? Do any reliable sources? I've never seen the term "flopped" used at all until now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that this is WP:LAME, and mostly to interest of Manga readers. For the purpose of articles, I would rather the more generic term, "mirrored vertically"(?), is used – as non-manga readers will be familiar with the term – with a the relevant description in brackets. (Even if you do not like "mirrored", "vertically" should clarify it.)

In any case, this should also be linked to Manga#International markets (This is the only place it is used in this context).

G.A.S 08:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know the reason why Collectonian says that "flipped is the more common term in the industry and amongst the readers." Actually, I did not know that "to flip" also had this kind of meaning before this discussion.

Here's a quote from Dragon Ball vol.1.

Woops! Guess what? You're starting at the wrong end of the comic!

...It's true! In keeping with the original Japanese format, Akira Toriyama's world-famous Dragon Ball series is meant to be read from right to left, starting in the upper-right corner.[...]

[...] Manga or Japanese comics published in the U.S. in English traditionally been published "flopped"--that is, printed in exact reverse order, as though seen from the other side of a mirror.

By flopping pages, U.S. publishers can avoid confusing readers,but the compromise is not without its downside. [...]

In recognition of the importance and popularity of Dragon Ball, we are pround to bring it to you in the original unflopped format.

All Shonen Jump grafic novels I have (Cowa, Dr. Slump, Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Hikaru no Go, Death Note, Yu Yu Hakusho, One Piece) adopt the word "flopped" instead of "flipped". But manga published by Tokyo Pop adopt "flipped" instead of "flopped".

I do not know which should be used. But Flopped image says that "Before digital film editing, a common movie blooper was a flopped image, usually and erroneously called "flipped images"." So, "flopped" might be better.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I like G.A.S.'s suggestion. For starters, "flipped" is the common term used by most people even if it may be technically incorrect. (flipped, flopped, Google Fight) --Farix (Talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Either one could work. I think there's sufficient evidence that if this guy wants to change it so much, he can. Really, it makes no practical difference as long as their aren't multiple edit warriors; it'll mean the same thing to the readers. --Masamage ♫ 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a case of WP:JARGON which should either be explained or alternative and less confusing terms used. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - neither term is really all that familiar to me. I think something like "reversed" might work better. And then of course there should be an explanation of how it makes Inuyasha appear left-handed and such (which I think it already does). I think having an image comparing the two versions would also help explain. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is that big a deal. But if you asked me, "flopped" sounds more appropriate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the InuYasha page does a fairly decent job of explaining what is meant by "flipped". To quote: "At the time, manga was normally published "flipped" to conform to the American convention of reading books from left to right. This resulted in the individual pages being mirrored from the original, so the images seen are also mirrored leaving right-handed characters appearing to be left-handed." A note that Japanese books are normally read right-to-left could be added, though might be seen by some as stating the obvious. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much more explanation might be needed? Other than that, the central issue is still whether to use "flopped" or "flipped." It might seem lame to some, but I think it is no different from either to call Tokyopop's OEM stuff manga or not just because they call it as such (which, we do not and do not even include in the project). So do we use a term that seems to be Viz specific, or do we use the term more commonly used in our reliable sources, by reviewers, and used by the other publishers. If we use the latter, do we stick a footnote or something on Viz articles where flipping is mentioned to note that Viz refers to the process as flopping? Or do we use neither term and just find some other way of saying what is already said on the InuYasha page that uses neither term? I'm also concerned that using "flopped" could potentially lead to some confusion, as a more common meaning for flopped in English (or at least for US readers) is "failed" rather than "mirrored image" so some readers who don't read very carefully may think we are saying it was published to fail. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I also think this is a bit of a LAME argument. This seems to be similar to such things as the date format, the specific order of categories (beyond some obvious, logical progression), or even US vs. UK spelling, where all the guideline pages I've read state that whoever creates the article sets the style, and consistency should be maintained within the article after that, with no arbitrary changes being made without talk page discussion and consensus backing. In the case of InuYasha and Ranma.5, the articles were created, and have used, "flipped" until this editor came in and tried to change it. Precedent seems to be clear, the editor's actions were inappropriate and should be reverted. I would not, however, be against a note on Viz Media stating that they call it "flopping" as opposed to "flipping", and an explanation of flipping manga in general needs to go on the manga or tankōbon (or both) articles. —Dinoguy1000 18:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll go ahead and contribute my viewpoint. If the two largest publishers publishers say it's flopped, then it's flopped, especially since one of them is publishing this manga. The flopped manga vs. flipped manga google search is misleading and irrelevant, as the word flipped is used far more commonly in general than flopped is; think flipped pancakes, etc. Flopped by contrast is hardly ever used in favor of its present tense, flop. Westrim (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page per request. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comics by year

Hi. I'd like the opinion of the project members on something. There are this categories of Category:Comics by year, that, well, categorise comics by their debut year, like Category:1996 comic debuts. But there doesn't seem to be many manga categorised. So, should we use them on manga articles or maybe create our own, like Category:1996 manga debuts? I'm fine with using the generic comics categories, because for older years we probably don't have enough manga in a year to justify a category. Anyway, I think it's a very useful and encyclopedic way of categorising manga. Right know we only have categories by decade. Cattus ^talk 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Manga are categorized by decade: Category:Manga of the 2000s; we recently switched anime from decade to year, and I could see that happening with manga as well. We don't want to put manga into the comics categories, but if we divide them up by year then they would be a subcategory of the comics by year categories. Loads of manga are probably not categorized, which would certainly be something to fix at some point. Doceirias (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Or to rephrase what Doceirias said, yeah that'd be good to do, but we probably need to do some groundwork cleanup first. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been doing it wrong. Does this mean Astro Boy, YuYu Hakusho, Rurouni Kenshin, Dragon Ball, InuYasha, Honey and Clover, Tokko (manga), Ranma ½, Death Note, Saiyuki (manga), Trigun, Cutie Honey, Dr. Slump, Sailor Moon, Bleach (manga), Case Closed, D.N.Angel, Hellsing, Naruto, and Lupin III are incorrectly categorized? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, those are the correct categories at the moment; we may, in the future, want to further divide from decades to years, but at the moment we only have decades. (Although I thought we agreed to only add a category for the first anime, rather than three categories for multiple series?) Doceirias (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one at Dragon Ball differs from the others. Have you seen it? And about the categories for multiple releases, I've been having a chat with Nohansen about it. Though he still hasn't given me a response regarding the ones at Sailor Moon. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Series articles should not be categorized at all by year if there are separate articles for individual releases (such as manga, movie, TV series, OVS, etc.) The individual articles should instead be categorized. If there are no separate articles for the individual releases, then the series article should be categorized. In any case, both should not have the same categories. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, it's also been agreed that redirects, where they exist, should be categorized instead of series articles. —Dinoguy1000 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's what I did for a bunch of anime. They will appear in italics in the category lists. In fact, for Doraemon and a couple other series with a lot of movies, I purposely created redirects for each movie title, and then categorized each of them according to the year it was released. This seemed better than having 20+ year categories on the main article (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, if everyone agrees with the year categories for manga, how should we go about doing this? Quasirandom mentioned some cleanup. What needs to be done? Cattus ^talk 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should follow the pattern of the anime year categories. For example, Category:Anime of 1972 would have an equivalent Category:Manga of 1972. I think it would be good to have a "See also" link on each specific year once they are done, pointing to the manga/anime category of the same year. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm beginning this process now. I'm starting by creating all the year categories for each decade, and then we can sort them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" link would be quite easy to add to the {{Anime by decade category header}} and {{Manga by decade category header}} templates. It would still require going through all the categories (in order to add a |year=year parameter), but it would ensure that all instances are formatted identically. —Dinoguy1000 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the see also link functionality (with an assortment of other tweaks) to both of the templates, you can see how it looks at Category:Manga of the 1950s, Category:Manga of 1950, Category:Anime of the 1960s, and Category:Anime of 1960. This functionality doesn't require any edits to decade categories, but does require a |year=year parameter to be added to each individual year category - something I only did to one each of the anime and manga by year categories. In the event someone does add a year parameter to a decade category, or if someone accidentally gives the year parameter a bad value, the seealso functionality won't output anything. Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to make sure the other category exists as there are some manga categories which do not have an equivalent anime category (due to lack of content). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That would require an #ifexist parserfunction be used... ifexists are pretty expensive and their use is generally discouraged if it can be helped. Is there a really good reason to use one just to suppress the output of a redlink in this case? —Dinoguy1000 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that would be useful to see which pages have not yet been categorized (for the anime, since the manga isn't done yet) is to have a bot go through all the categories for anime series, films, ONAs, and OVAs, and make a list of the ones which aren't in a specific year category. That way we can quickly categorize them without having to search through thousands of articles hoping we catch them all. Anyone have or know of a bot which could do that for us, listing them someplace like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cat year sort (or something similar)? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to have a bot go through and do that, there are several other project-wide tasks that could be done at the same time (for one, updating the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/No banner and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Categories). I'm thinking maybe we should start a new discussion thread to hammer out exactly what tasks the bot should do and (if necessary) how it should do them or what it should output. —Dinoguy1000 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to watch and fix as we can: Category:Anime (date of release unknown) and Category:Manga (date of release unknown). I've placed series in these categories when I can not find anything which gives a specific date or range for release. Any help keeping these categories cleared out is appreciated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can add a link to these categories from the cat header templates, if you want... I would just have to figure out the best position for them and the best text to use to describe them. —Dinoguy1000 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting update

I've finished sorting all of the manga by year except for the 2000s. Any help is appreciated with finishing that category sorting. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Battleship Yamato bloated

I feel this article has become bloated its got very few references and I feel difficult to read. I feel some of the articles should be split into individual articles like I did with Gatchaman. What does anyone else think?--Dwanyewest (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all info related to Star Blazers could be split. That could be a nice, first step in the direction of cleaning up Space Battleship Yamato.--Nohansen (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering how much the source was adapted (not as much as with Robotech, perhaps, but still quite a lot), that would make sense. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Blazers (TV Series) has been created I believe that since its been created and I have provided additional links relating to the subject. I believe that it should be simply named Star Blazers rather redirect to Space Battleship Yamato

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have created some more Space Yamato articles please note I will be improving them in the next few days feel free to add more information.

Films

• Farewell to Space Battleship Yamato
• Space Battleship Yamato (film)
• Yamato 2520
• Yamato: The New Voyage

TV

• Space Battleship Yamato II
• Space Battleship Yamato III

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still updating as much as can find I have improved the Star Blazers (TV Series) I think it should simply renamed Star Blazers and not redirect to Space Yamato.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated Template:Infobox animanga/Drama

In order to allow for one-shot TV drama specials or movies, I've updated {{Infobox animanga/Drama}} with two new variables: "special" and "released". You can see it in use in the Haikara-san ga Tōru infobox (the three TV drama specials), and I've updated the documentation explaining it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Infobox animanga" and Tv movies

Following an incorrect edit to Love Hina (marking the xmas and spring specials as ova's when they were actually tv specials. Although they were marked as normal movies originally) I had a look at Template:Infobox animanga and spotted there was a specific TV_movie function. However using it hides all but 3 of the fields, including ones the template page suggests are usable. It might also make more sense to have Tv_movie be a function of the Movie info box, and not a seperate one (movie's have more available fields such as music)

I've never edited a template, could someone have a go at fixing it please? I'll leave the change to the article until the template is edited, otherwise someone will probably revert the changes when they see all the info has vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Sgt. Frog characters

I'm about half-way merging the extraneous character pages into the character list. I could use some input on my cleanup plan. Particularly as to how to proceed in splitting lists and/or removing certain minor characters. Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lupin revisited

After the previous discussion on this was open to change but with no final consensus, I've taken into account the arguments that were raised and renamed Shin Lupin III and related articles to Lupin III Part II. Although there is some debate about what is the correct name to use (not helped by the japanese companys or Geneon USA) Part II made the most sense to be consistent. Shin is a fan name, and as far as I can tell Part II is official (part III certainly is). Using "Lupin III" as suggested by Collectonion is impractical as it causes confusion with the original series (I need to work something into that page regardless).

I've done the moves, I'm just checking and cleaning up the text and links where necessary to reflect the changes. I've updated the image used by the pages to reflect the move. If any more experienced editors have any objections and wish to change it, you are welcome, but I think this is the best method (certainly an improvement imo) Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

D. Gray-man improvements

Here there is a discussion about merging the several lists from the D. Gray-man characters into List of D.Gray-man characters. This seems to go very good, but some user redirected the main list into D.Gray-man terminology, an article that was previously deleted, should that be reverted? There is also a List of D.Gray-man minor characters that appeared from nowhere and has lots of minor info that should be redirected or merged. On a side note List of D.Gray-man chapters is in peer review to solve some prose problems. Well, this sounded more like a newspaper but badly written... I am just writing this see if that of terminology should be reverted and ask some people in the peer review (he he). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The move was undiscussed (from what I can see) and poorly thought out - the terminology information should have been properly merged where applicable - to the main article, into individual characters' sections, into the episode/chapter lists, etc. Just undo it, and perhaps merge anything of use from the minor characters list. The whole thing smells of a one-person crusade to me. —Dinoguy1000 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

I assume I'm not jumping the gun by assuming we wish to keep spoilers off pages? I've just reverted an edit to Love Hina that was a pretty big spoiler from towards the end of the manga (iirc it's in the final volume) and something I personally think an unnecessary detail to add. I've left a message on the users talk page explaining it, so I'm not expecting any problems, but I'll keep an eye on it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You would be assuming wrong. Wikipedia is NOT a spoiler free zone. All articles should fully cover the plotk including all major plot points AND the ending. I have reverted your removal of the ending of the series. See WP:SPOILER. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What she said. It's usually possible, at least, to keep spoilers in places where people would reasonably expect to find them--say, in the "Plot summary" sections--but sometimes it's necessary to put them in the lead or reception sections if there's important real-world impact to the spoiler. --Masamage ♫ 04:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed, but there's not really much I can do about it seems. Fair enough, but I found end of series spoilers in amongst regular character text to be rather disturbing on a personal level. I was going to remove the talk page entry, but I can see Collectonian has added to it instead Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bummer. Wikipedia used to provide spoiler warnings, but it caused huge problems and we eventually had to do away with the whole thing. :/ --Masamage ♫ 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have to remember, this is an encyclopedia, so it provides total coverage, not just teasers or the first parts. Character sections are not much different from the plot in that regard, and often include spoilers as they should give a good overall view of the character, not just the beginning information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography importances

There's a discussion about what constitutes Top, High, Mid and Low importance to this project currently going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Assessment#Importance_disagreement - please join in! -Malkinann (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Lucky Star characters

I posted this since a 3RR might be occuring in this article.

My side of the story: This article, in my opinion, is full of curft, not surprisingly due to its history of a JA:WP translation, and what I did lately is to add in reference and defining which content is to be removed.

User:Shikai shaw has added about 20k chars to the article yesterday, and User:Fox816 reverted saying even this is a good faith edit, it was crufty.

Shikai Shaw has again added somehow less content (but still 10k+) earlier today; I reverted since I think it's basically cruft (I didn't deny there are usable content). I left a message on his talk page (User talk:Shikai shaw#Your edits on List of Lucky Star characters). Soon after, he made a series of edits-- 22 of them--that increased the length of the article back to the level before my revert.

So as to prevent a possible revert war, please check if the third diff above is being crufty before I do anything.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG, yes that is horrible cruft and you were right to remove it. There is still more that needs to come out, though, which might help stop people from continuing to try to add it. I have a little time so I'll give it a beating. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an Idea to improve the Gatchaman articles

This is the official book relating to how Gatchaman got started and relating to Battle of teh Planets I believe a lot references could be used from this.

Anyones thoughts?

[8]

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's got useful stuff. Don't rely on it exclusively, though, as it's not a third-party source of information, but for many of the basics, it looks like a big help. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also while we are on the subject of Gatchaman this Galactor article either needs deletion or improvement.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This I feel would also be useful as it clearly shows difference between Gatchaman and Battle of the Planets.[9]

Dwanyewest (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup -- that's definitely useful information. Go for it! —Quasirandom (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX character merges

As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chumley_Huffington articles on several minor Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters were supposed to be consolidated into one. Yet, they haven't been merged yet. I'm not exactly sure how to approach the merge. - Should the article title be Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters? or Yu-Gi-Oh! GX main characters? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend that you check with the AfD closer for clarification on its implementation and/or whether the minor or all characters are to be merged. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The characters that are listed in the AfD are to be merged into a list article. The result said "The result was Merge & Redirect to a list article - if anyone wants to do this, feel free, otherwise I will action it shortly." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Going with our usual method, I'd say List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters, merge in the ones to be merged, then look at merging in the minor character list, as consensus in AfDs and here seems to hold up that minor characters should not have their own list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kara no Kyōkai images

I have repeatedly tried to remove a large amount of character images from this article, but a user reverts me, and even cites my edits as vandalism. I have tried to explain why they should be removed, but the user's not listening. Need a little help please.--十八 23:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of the images and they don't seem to have a proper fair use rationale. Would that allow me to place {{non-free}}? They don't seem to contribute anything much either. Maybe bring it up at the talk page? That allows the user to explain the reasoning for marking it as vandalism and if no one comments or contradicts my understanding that's a go ahead. Itzjustdrama? 00:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised they aren't listening, a quick look suggests they've adopted the section as their own. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The group image preference is only applicable in cases where group images exist. In this case I happen to know of a suitable one, and will be happy to assist you in replacing the list images, but it's quite possible that the editor you're arguing with has not seen them or doesn't know where to look. In other words, you may be unintentionally coming across as unreasonable here. --erachima talk 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Having been through the non-free discussions over character lists (including lists in a main article) an insane amount of times, that isn't quite correct. If there is no "group image" to use, that isn't an excuse to flood the article with 8. Instead, it means none at all, particularly in a main article. It looks like an admin is dealing with the new editor in this case. Juhachi's removals were perfectly valid and warranted in this article. His response that Juhachi's removals were "vandalism" just because other articles have them isn't reasonable either. He tried to explain this to the other editor, but the guy just keeps claiming "well then, they would already have been fixed." *shaking head* All in an attempt to keep "his" images, as he was the one who uploaded them all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also been through this debate a number of times, and helped push the "group image" thing through in the first place. The reasoning behind preferring group images is not the smaller numeric quantity of images: since the copyrighted subjects being illustrated are the character designs, whether we illustrate them by use of a single group image or a dozen single images does not alter how much copyrighted material Wikipedia contains. The preference for cast shots is based on the ways that they lend themselves to stronger fair use defenses. Between their commonly promotional nature, the fact that it is easier to have critical commentary for the whole cast than individual characters, and that they generally are better representations of the characters than what you would find in a screenshot, we have deemed the use of group images to be more encyclopedic, not more free.

In cases where such promotional images do not exist, the optimal solution would probably be to use individual images of only the two or three most major characters in the series. But that would have to be decided case-by-case. --erachima talk 02:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Iincho

While assessing some articles I've suddenly came across the iincho article, and am wondering if this article even falls under the scope of this project. As the term really means class representative, and perhaps would better fall under the scope of WikiProject Education, but since it almost half of the article is just listing examples of anime/manga characters, I am not so sure about whether not this should remain under the project (though I think probably not). -- クラウド６６８ 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a relatively well-known character trope, so I'd say it does fall under our scope, as well as the projects on Education and Japan. The page is basically an unreferenced stub right now though. --erachima talk 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Shogakukan Manga Award categories

I've nominated the much-discussed-but-never-decided Shogakukan Manga Award categories for renaming. Please give input on what convention they should follow. --erachima talk 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yay - thanks for that. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some guidance on citations needed

There are two matters that I have found when I'd trying to find verification for content:

1. What is the proper citation format for an episode of anime?
2. What is an acceptable proof that a certain book exists? Publisher's site or something else?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Curtis (talk • contribs) 12:59, September 17, 2008

For item 1, use {{cite episode}}. At minimum the parameters for title, seriesname, serieslink (if not a cite on the article page), and season/seriesno (if applicable). Can also add credits and writers. Adding airdates and network seems to depend on the editor. I don't myself since I am never watching the episodes on air, but from DVD. For item 2, in general the book itself is proof that it exists, though you can also supplement with the publisher's site or, if no other option is available, a retailer site (preferably an Amazon.com or regional Amazon site, or other well established retailer, with no referrer codes). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for 2, an ISBN that can be successfully found through the searches available when you click the autolinked number is also sufficient. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

InuYasha character merges

A discussion is now going on at Talk:List of InuYasha characters to discuss the possible merging of a good number of individual character articles into the main character list. Some additional views always welcome (as is help with merges and/or clean ups of the articles kept). :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Working with WP:ROBO

If you guys are interested, Gundam, Mecha and Doraemon are all in WP:ROBO's selection list for the V0.7 DVD. I don't mind copyediting them if someone who knows the content will look over them first to see if you want to change anything, then list any articles needing copyediting help at WT:1C. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Anime and manga

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this should be interesting. I notice that a large number of the selected pages are popular but not particularly important (or well-written), and as such should probably be removed from the list. As an initial measure, I would suggest the removal of all sub-GA character articles from the selection, along with all anime series from the last 5 years. --erachima talk 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we toss this one at the Assessment Drive project? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Tag & Assess 2008, please no. I have to mention also that the drive is not done yet, and there are likely C-class articles which should be rated B class (although thus far, the C class rating seems to be accurate in most of the cases). The current B class articles are also of a high standard, and it should be evaluated if they can be upgraded to GA class; normally this would involve a thorough copy-edit. G.A.S 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the list it seems like they attempted to make a random selection among all importance levels and all class levels. Guessing they went by what they felt was important based on most visited. I don't like the idea of just removing all sub-GA articles, particularly when that list is not up to date/totally accurate (I know at least one article on there is now a GA). Why remove all series from the last 5 years? Me...I don't know, maybe I'm feeling more ambitious, but I'd like to try to get those fixed up rather than just go "nah, not good enough." If they are that popular, seems like we should try to make them good works. We should also look to see which ones we want added that aren't in there now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the method used to automatically select the articles is interesting, and it seems to be based on a combination of quality, popularity, and "importance" as measured by links to the article. Given that, my first thought would be whether or not the articles can be fixed, rather than removed. Perhaps it would be possible to aim for a minimum of B-class for most of those articles? Or at least the articles which we deem most important? - Bilby (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian: The selection is decided based on a bot-genned importance ranking which incorporates the project's classification, the rated quality (minimum appears to be start), and the page views/number of wikilinks. However, the auto-generated "importance ranking", at least with respect to our articles, is horribly skewed by recentism and prevalence in the current fandom.
My two specific suggestions, removal of sub-GA pages which are on series which debuted within the last five years and sub-GA pages which are on specific fictional characters, strikes me as an easy and bright-line way of combating this systemic bias. Since WP:0.7 is intended to be based on the criteria of quality and importance, we should restrict the pages we submit to those that meet at least one of those two classifications. I am not suggesting that we remove all low-quality pages from the list, nor am I suggesting we remove all pages which have no proven historical importance. I am simply suggesting that we remove pages which indisputably meet neither. I would additionally suggest picking and choosing the pages we submit for the rather overrepresented Naruto, but that's a lesser issue since those pages are (in general) of good quality.
With regard to GA drives, if you want to do one on your favorite character or recent series to bring it in for 0.7, then that's fine, more power to you. I'd suggest a more useful thing to do would be work on the pages from the High and Top classification that are rated as Start-class though. Either way, we manifestly should not be putting start-to-B classed pages on highly recent anime into a Wikipedia DVD collection. (There really aren't that many articles that break my criteria on the list right now, by the way. At a glance I only see five or ten.) --erachima talk 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The five year limit thing, if we decided to use it, should really be on a case by case basis. For example, I can't see the DVD not containing The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, even though it's an anime that premiered two years ago, and isn't GA. Same would go with Code Geass for another.--十八 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Haruhi might be an exception, since its impact is unquestionable and it was delisted from GA on mostly minor issues, but wouldn't it be better if you just fixed it up to GA again? (I seem to recall you being a major editor on the subject.) Doesn't look like more than a day or two of effort for someone familiar with the subject matter.

Code Geass, on the other hand, I would be quite opposed to including sub-GA, as it was one of the two pages in that list that set off the recentism alarm for me in the first place. It's popular, yes, but popularity is often transient, and there is no evidence yet that the series is influential. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant here: there is a "most popular anime of the year" every year, only a handful per decade end up being significant after their day in the sun is over, and we can't say which ones they are until after the fact. --erachima talk 06:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I might note (as an editor of the Code Geass articles) that the aforementioned "anime of the year" accolades were given two years ago. Near as I can tell, the high interest in the first season has not diminished (despite the efforts of the second season) significantly from that point, with characters from it still appearing high in opinion polls in Japan. I'd add Eureka Seven to the list; E7 has low grade popularity that has translated into staying power, and is a good representative of Mecha not named Gundam. Westrim (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

2 years old? Yeah, that's exactly my point. No offense, and I'm not attempting to pick on your series here, I just don't consider something 700 days old to be sufficiently established as non-transient, let alone significantly influential. Yes, the page views are huge, but that's to be expected when the first season hasn't even finished airing in the US yet. E7 is a decent suggestion though, especially if someone's willing to fix it up to at least B.

Anyway, I'll make a list of pages that I think should be removed from the list, and then post it here where we can discuss the entries. We can then decide whether consensus is to retain them, retain them pending improvement, or remove them. Suggested additions can be similarly nominated. I also suggest that we notify the editors on all the selected pages, both of the selection and of the inclusion discussion. --erachima talk 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. However, I'll note that I was thinking of it's popularity in Japan, not the U.S.- I'm aware of the pitfalls of page views. Also, and not to undermine my own position, but E7 is only a year older. I would like to improve E7s article set, but I'm not sure how; I'm working on cleaning up the Rahxephon pages right now, so perhaps I can use that experience to guide me. Westrim (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• The arguments provided above and below seem solid, but if I may ask: what is the role of 0.7? If the purpose is to be a permanent collection of material that is to provide an ongoing resource well into the future, then it makes sense to only focus on articles which will be of value in years to come. Popularity today, as has been noted, does not mean that it will continue to have relevance. However, if the purpose is to provide a resource now, and thus to provide content that people need to access at this point in time, wouldn't it make sense to improve and include articles which are in demand now? That aside, minor Naruto characters are going to be iffy either way. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Amendment suggestions for WP:0.7 list

In this section, we will attempt to reach consensus on proposed changes to the WP:0.7 selection for articles from our project. The bot-generated default list is available here.

Code Geass

• Remove. This article is a C-class piece on a currently ongoing anime series. It owes its presence on the list to a massive number of pageviews, and while the series is undoubtedly popular, it has yet to prove this popularity is more than transient. I do not believe we can in good conscience add a page on a subject that is neither of historical importance to anime and manga nor an example of Wikipedia's best content to the DVD collection. I would change my opinion to retain if page reached GA status. --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Naruto Uzumaki

• Weak remove. This one is less clear-cut: on the one hand, the article is a C-class piece on a single character from an anime. On the other hand, Naruto appears to be a (or possibly, the) defining series for anime and manga in the '00s, so there's no issue with real encyclopedic relevance, and the creation information and critical analysis are there. I notice that the article has not actually been reassessed since the C-class was implemented. I will change my opinion to retain if the page gets B status there. --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Improving this to GA is within the bounds of reason. I was working on Rock Lee recently, but I have no problem in bringing this up to par. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ichigo Kurosaki

• Remove. While the encyclopedic relevance issue between Ichigo and Naruto is similar, I've worked extensively with this article and know that, while it can gather enough out of universe information to ward off the deletion campaign, it's still lacking real meat there. I'll change my stance here to retain if it can pass GA, but not before. --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Like Naruto, I could take this to GA. I've already taken Rukia Kuchiki to GA, so this is roughly the same ballpark. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam 00

• Remove. I have the same complaints about recentism and transient popularity as in the Code Geass section above. Gundam is a massively notable subject within anime and definitely deserves to be in 0.7. The currently ongoing season of Gundam, however, we can definitely do without. An additional concern is that the second season in Japan is going to be starting at the same time as the 0.7 selection deadline, so it will be impossible to have a stable and up-to-date version of the article prepared. --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX

• Remove. Yu-Gi-Oh! is already on the list, also having the spinoff series GX seems like undue weight to me. --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove — with Yu-Gi-Oh! already present, this is excessive. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Monkey D. Luffy

• Remove. As above, a low quality article on an individual character. Luffy is reasonably iconic, however, so like with Naruto I'm willing to switch to retain if it can reach B with a good amount of OOU info. (Which will take a lot of work from the present state.) --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Numerous Naruto character pages

• These ones are probably best dealt with as one discussion: I believe we should remove secondary Naruto character articles Gaara, Orochimaru (Naruto), and Kakashi Hatake. The three main characters and primary character list are already chosen for inclusion in 0.7, and I think including any more than those would be giving the series severe undue emphasis. I'm normally a strong supporter of the WP:NOTPAPER mindset, but in this case, the size of the collection is limited, so "add more articles to skew the balance back" isn't a feasible solution. --erachima talk 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with this. List of Naruto characters (FL), Naruto Uzumaki (C-class, can be improved to GA), Sasuke Uchiha (GA), and Sakura Haruno (GA) represent the series well. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon character pages

• Remove, for many of the same reasons that the Naruto character pages should be removed. The main page alone should be sufficient. Westrim (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the major Naruto characters are included, why not the major GA-class Sailor Moon characters too? -Malkinann (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...How do I even respond to that? Westrim (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By explaining your rationale further, please? Sailor Mars, Sailor Mercury, Sailor Jupiter and Sailor Venus are all major characters in the series - at least as important to the series as Sakura is to the Naruto franchise. -Malkinann (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. The three main characters of Naruto are acceptable because one is the main character, one is the chief foil, and the third is the female lead (I do have reservations about including the last two). In contrast, if I understand the series correctly, all the other sailors are secondary to Sailor Moon (whose page should be cleaned up so that it can be included). Apologies for my first response. Westrim (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the structure of the show is such that each one of those five is a major, major character, because they make up a sentai. Think Power Rangers--they all have to be there for the team, and the team is the whole point of the show. True, Sailor Moon is the protagonist, but the other four are arguably more important to the story than even the love interest. The "Outer" Senshi, on the other hand, only figure in the last three story arcs and are almost never viewpoint characters. (None of their articles are GA, either.) --Masamage ♫ 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the team structure, and that's part of the problem. However important the other characters are, the focus is still on Sailor Moon, with the other four inherently secondary to her. Nevertheless, I'll leave the ultimate decision on this topic to those more familiar with it. Westrim (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Demographic pages

We need to change the articles included from being Shōnen to Shōnen manga and from being Shōjo to Shōjo manga to reflect the recent page moving that's been going on there. -Malkinann (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, and good catch. I find it slightly amusing that we have now articles about the Japanese words for "boy" and "girl" though. Oh well, more points to User:Nihonjoe, I suppose. --erachima talk 04:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also seinen has been moved to seinen manga. Seinen itself currently redirects there, so I'm not sure what we do with that... -Malkinann (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sex

No, this isn't just a lame attention-grabber. I know wikipedia is not censored, but is it appropriate to include hentai, lolicon, Yuri and shotacon in the selection? -Malkinann (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• SEX!, I mean, retain. Like it or not, those are all significant aspects of the anime and manga subculture, and they should definitely be included. (Besides, WP:XXX's selection includes Deep Throat (film) and Tila Tequila.) --erachima talk 10:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seiyuu albums

Currently I have created pages for 3 albums of Megumi Hayashibara, with more to follow once I finish drawing them up. Firstly, I just want to confirm if these fall within the project's jurisdiction or not. Obviously they are albums from a noted seiyuu, but although they contain anime tracks, they don't do so exclusively. Bertemu has been tagged for the project by a seemingly random user today after the thought crossed my mind, so I wanted to check before I stick the tag into the other ones, and the drafts I currently have going

Someone from Wp:Albums has stuck a Unreferenced tag on the 3 pages, which I guess is fair enough. My issue is that I'm uncertain how to properly reference the bulk of the content - i.e. the tracklisting and/or it's notes (given the minimal content on the pages so far, I don't see what else needs referencing). I've discovered a template they use for citing the liner notes, but that only works for the original titles not the romaji or translation where appropriate. I've been using Animelyrics.com for the romaji and some translations (confirming them where possible) and using google translate combined with secondary dictionary checking when I can't find a translation. Obviously google translate is a rather bad way of providing translations, so any pointers towards suitable alternate methods which can be cited would be very welcome.

In fact I'm uncertain of citing references for anything not in the liner notes. I'm not sure if animelyrics would be considered a proper source by some or a fanpage (and the connotations of that), and I very much doubt there is a english language site I can use that isn't a fansite. From a project perspective if the albums fall under our jurisdiction, could I get away with citing liner notes and animelyrics and simply providing translations (dare I say it?) without sources? In fact, do we have a set way to do any album pages that are within the projects boundary's?

On another note, is anyone aware of a source for Oricon chart positions? I've tried navigating the official site, but without much luck Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You can provide a translation without any source at all, as long as it's not a copy of someone else's. Translations are exempt from WP:OR (although not from the copyright rules, so don't quote too much). There are resources for asking bilingual people to help you generate such translations, but I don't remember what they are, so I'll let someone else provide the link. X) --Masamage ♫ 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be good if someone could. While I'm capable of making sensible determinations of translation accuracy when comparing both the machine/found translation along with the kana/kanji to kondansha's furigana dictionary (for example), I can only go by what i'm given, and even then sometimes I can't "accept" and verify the translation I come up with due to my limited japanese skill. I've got two half done lists because I can't justify posting something I'm unsure about Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go for a blind guess here and say that you can probably find the translation request process at either WP:TRANSREQ or WP:TRANSLATE. --erachima talk 05:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta. thats the problem with being new, the obvious things arent necessarily obvious Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, we were all new once. But yeah, in my experience it's a lot easier to find process pages by guessing shortcuts than it is trying to search them out other ways. Even if you guess wrong there are often hatnotes that list the page you're after. I recall there being a shortcut index as well... probably WP:SHORTCUT, WP:TLA, or WP:WP? --erachima talk 06:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a massive editor's index at WP:EIW (which I only found after guessing three shortcuts and following a "see also" link). —Dinoguy1000 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bookmarked, thanks Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I expect you'll have trouble proving notability, which is the main thing you'd need sources to do. Hayashibara may be an important voice actor, but she's pretty minor as far as singers go, and her albums sell to a very niche market. It might be better to make a discography page, rather than individual album articles - which would have trouble passing an AfD, if someone swept through and nominated them. Doceirias (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that on board, although there a several arguements to proving notability even considering the alleged niche market. Thats one of the reasons I'm looking for a historical oricron listing - It's hard to argue a well selling artist isn't notable. My battery is dieing so I'll have to get back to this. Also, theres a lot of room for expanding the individual articles which is one reason I've held off creating new ones in mainspace Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well after having a dig around the official Oricon site, out of 14 albums, at least 6 of them were top 10 and first album aside they were all top 20. I'd say that makes her music pretty notable outside of the "niche" anime market. I agree she's not someone like Koda Kumi, but by no means is she unnotable as an artist. Naturally I will update the existing articles, but I don't see any issues with notability after adding sources like that. Unless of course someone can give me a good reason not too. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums says that seems pertinent to this discussion is that, and I quote, "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." I'm assuming that means reviews and stuff like that. It doesn't even mention charts. Considering this, I'd say those albums are perfectly acceptable articles. You just need to include the independent coverage. ;)--Cattus ^talk 04:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop

See draft in my userspace. Basically, with the advent of good topics, collaborating to produce a good topic is a much less daunting task than attempting to create a featured topic. In recent days, I've noticed that I've been topic hunting of sorts, and wondered whether a centralized venue for this would be fruitful. As such, I've created a draft for a "topic workshop" that would concentrate on collaboration on good and featured topics, as we don't have that many right now :p In any case, with examples of featured episode, chapter, and character lists, as well as good articles on series and individual characters, we basically have model articles for the vast majority of topics, and I think this is something that is entirely plausible. One person trying to create a topic is an extremely tedious and large task (one that I'm quite aware of), and having a project-wide collaboration is a much easier way to facilitate the production of topics. Furthermore, I see this as being more effective than "collaboration of the week or month" types of things, and sets big long-term goals that can be worked on as time progresses. Well, enough of my sleepy rambling. Discuss. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A very good idea, I like it Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a great idea. It adds to the WikiProject's ability to improve manga and anime articles. It also adds a way to keep track of it all and gives a status for all the topic's articles. Itzjustdrama? 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this could be good. Earlier this year, Collectonian and I were effectively collaborating on the Fruits Basket articles; Featured Topic seemed a bit far away at the time, but a Good Topic is quite possible. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this as approval, and move it into project space. Work away. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, the workshop is meant for anyone to go ahead and just create topics, no matter how impossible you think it is (topics are a very long term prospect). Making these topics more apparent to the project will only help the quality of the articles there. As such, propose away. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Real-life timeline

The off-universe requirement in WP:MOS-FICT asked us to use real-life timeline, which raised a problem. Many series was licensed long after their Japanese premiere, and I am unsure which date should I use when a date is needed: the date when the incidence first appeared in Japan, or when the same incident was first sold in a licensed, English form?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean for the infobox? Always use the original release there. In the body section about releases, cover both of course. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the following points that is considered in-universe in WP:IN-U:

• Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves.
• Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published.

So, I interpreted that as when referring to things that happen in anime/manga, we should not use whatever date used in the universe but the date that material was known to the us, ie when that chapter of manga was first serialized or that episode of anime was first aired. However, there's always a time difference between when that happened in Japan and the English world-- so which date should I use?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever medium was released first. But why on earth do you need to even use those dates? When addressing fictional events, you can say "In volume X of the series..." and that's fine. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When anime filler originals is involved.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe 'fictional chronology' would mean the order that things happen in universe, even if they are revealed later. Like, for instance, when talking about the animated Sailor Venus, the part where she's in a warehouse explosion is before the part she meets up with the other Senshi, even though we as viewers wouldn't know about it until 10 episodes later. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions to be moved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result were move the following discussions to this page from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force

---

• #Robotech sorting out
• #Astro boy needs sorting
• #Edit War over Robotech
• #Second Robtech Edit war

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

Gintama vs Gin Tama

An older discussion on Talk:Gintama#Revist regarding the naming of the article has been revived and needs to be rediscussed as the guidelines applied in 2007 have since changed. The discussion revolves around whether the article should use "Gintama" (the "correct" romanization) or "Gin Tama" which is the title Viz used. Please offer your comments there (as a a side note, the article could also use some cleaning up - excessive non-free images, little non-plot content, few sources). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography workgroup

Is anyone interested in helping the Biography workgroup? To be honest, many of the anime and manga biographies need to be improved. I realizer many of them might not have that much information. Itzjustdrama? 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think such a workgroup would be useful. There are certainly plenty of seiyū, artists, directors, character designers, etc., which could use some tender loving care. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we need to write better biography pages, as ours tend to inordinately suck, but I don't think a taskforce is a beneficial means of organizing that effort for the same reason that we don't have taskforces on "character articles" or "shonen titles". Basically, there's not a meaningful overlap of experience or interest within such a broad category. Adding onto that, the main reason our bio pages are bad is that we lack English-language references for most of them beyond their career info, and a taskforce is unlikely to be useful in that regard. (I try to help with the sourcing issue by linking to interviews and whatnot whenever I run across them online, but there's really not that much out there, especially for older authors.) --erachima talk 04:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's an existing workgroup -- been around for a while. That was a plee for more help. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Blazers deserves its own article

The Star Blazers (TV Series) article should be simply renamed Star Blazers. I feel I have supplied enough information to suggest that it is different from its Japanese counterpart Space Battleship Yamato.--Dwanyewest (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. They should be merged into one article. Many other heavily edited series are not separated, and those that once were separated have been or are being merged. I don't see that it is so heavily different as to warrant another article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The two franchises may have been born together, but they've grown up quite differently over the years; that's why we have two separate articles. The split was made three weeks ago. What Dwanyewest means is that Star Blazers (TV Series) should be moved to Star Blazers (which currently points to Space Battleship Yamato).--Nohansen (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should be separate. There is enough difference to warrant separate articles. While merging is fine in many cases, too much merging is damaging, IMO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused about Robotech character template!!!

I am confused whether a character template should be added to the other main character articles because this Lisa Hayes article seems to have one whilst none of the other Robotech character articles don't have one. Plus I believe many of the Robotech articles need a cleanup I have added references for some of them. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. What Robotech character template? Is there one separate from the main {{Robotech}} template? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Hayes character article seems to have her personal info displayed like the template below should it be that similar information be done for the other Robotech characters? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the infobox. Yeah, the article should have one. Though poking about Category:Robotech_characters, I'm not seeing infoboxes on any of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So should the other Robotech characters have infoboxes too then? That was the point of the original question? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. When you said, in the first comment, that "none of the other Robotech character articles don't have one," were you talking about the infobox? Because I'm not seeing infoboxes in the other character articles. If you meant something else, though, then what? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believed the character inboxes were called templates hence why I referred to them as templates so if I may begin the question from the beginning again should the other Robotech characters articles have character inboxes. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that infobox isn't created by a template. The correct template to use is {{Infobox animanga character}}. However, before adding them to the Robotech character articles, they should first be judge if the character passes the general notability criteria. If not, then it may need to be trimmed down before being merged into a list. --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

These two character articles are good examples where multiple sources have been used to show their notability from the official website.

• Lynn Minmay (Robotech)
• Miriya Parina Sterling

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How? They have almost no sources at all and are pure plot. They are showing absolutely no notability whatsoever. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the demonstration of notability requires sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources; the official website (as a first-party source) can be used for referencing, but not for actual demonstration of notability. —Dinoguy1000 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the correct anime inbox surely this is better and I gained the relevant info from the official website.[10]

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is better (but let's not stick infoboxes here, especially containing non-free images: :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added character infoboxes for the following Robotech characters below feel free to alter it, if it is required.

• Lisa Hayes

• Rick Hunter

• Dana Sterling

• Maia Sterling

• Miriya Parina Sterling

• Ariel (Robotech)

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note about video game articles for Wikipedia 0.7

As you are probably already aware, the mad dash to get articles ready for Version 0.7 is underway. Though I'm sure this project may already have its hands full with its own articles, there are several that fall under both your project and the VG Project. We would like to inform you of a workshop page we've set up to help monitor and coordinate the preparation of our articles. The page tracks article status, submitted article IDs, and any suggestions to improve articles. As previously mentioned, several Good articles overlap our scopes and are up for inclusion:

• Air (visual novel)
• Clannad (visual novel)
• Fate/stay night
• Higurashi no Naku Koro ni
• Kanon
• Kirby (character)
• Shuffle!
• Strawberry Panic!

We are trying to prepare as many of the higher quality articles as we can, and if some Anime and Manga editors can assist us with these articles it would benefit both projects. If you have any questions, please drop us a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Help with commentary about Narutaru/Shadow Star characters - Japanese speakers needed

Hi! I found here http://www.kids-station.com/minisite/narutaru/seiyu.html that the seiyu are talking about the characters from Shadow Star - but I need help determining what about what the seiyu say about their characters should be added to the List of Shadow Star characters article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving Robotech Articles step by step

I think some sections of the Robotech articles need improving especially the character section I thought should be started on first. I have added character inboxes to the characters below feel free to alter them if you please.

• Henry J. Gloval
• Lisa Hayes
• Rick Hunter
• Miriya Parina Sterling
• Scott Bernard

This is a particular bugbear of mine I feel that there are too many characters without citations to prove what people or saying is true or statements in a neutral fashion such as stating a character is the most skillful without evidence to back it up. I do feel these characters should be merged for the reasons stated below please discuss.

Should be merged to character list

• Emil Lang (fictional character) lack of citations
• Marcus Rush lack of citations
• T. R. Edwards lack of citations
• Jonathan Wolfe (Robotech) only made one appearance in the show
• Lazlo Zand

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball merging

In Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters, there is a discussion about merging some characters. Several users ignore several facts such as notability saying that the character is important and that wikipedia has the lamest guideline. Could some guys go to discuss? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the users there may not get what notability's about and be overreacting, but that was still a very poor merge suggestion overall. (About five of them are arguably mergeable, the rest are obvious keeps.) Sure, nobody's gone and added third party references to the pages yet, but arguing that primary DBZ characters are actually non-notable (rather than just have poorly written pages) is silly. --erachima talk 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Goku and some of them can not be merged, but other articleas are very short and pretty over-detailed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They may be "obvious keeps" to some folks, but I'm not seeing the obviousness. Mostly I'm seeing keeps with no explanation, no back up, etc, which are fairly worthless. People really need to "state the obvious" if it is obvious, and provide some evidence to back up the claims. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing the obviousness? The potential for expansion with real-world information is clear, the only hard part will be tracking it down.

Or if you're referring to the more general concept, notability is based on the prominence of the subject, not the presentation of that prominence in the current revision of the article. It's similar to the difference between "verifiable" and "cited": any information that you could find a reference for is verifiable, even if it is not cited in the current version of the page. Yes, even obviously notable subjects should give the evidence why, but to anyone remotely familiar with the medium, the claim that the main DBZ characters are non-notable --that no potential for expansion with third party references and analysis exists-- is pretty much absurd. --erachima talk 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we do is we merge for now - Once we discover additional information, we then split as the article grows. I did this with the Death Note characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of those articles need to be be merged. Which was my reason for wanting to merged the two Trunks articles into one. But I keep getting grief about it from people who apposed it. I merged and rewrote it back on the 17th of August and it was reverted the next day. All people are citing is that they are two separate people with differences too great to be listed or assumptions that a one Trunks article would be "junky". I just don't see either of these. Their not two people their two incarnations of one person. What a person does, how they live, or who their friends are is erealitive, as life has demonstrated that people change over time. Whether it be events, environment, interactions with other people, or simply with age. So who's to say that either incarnation would become more like the other. Although, I do treat them as two, have not attempted to jumble them like everyone assumes will happen. and have divided them into two serparate sections. Although, I know that nobility and real world content are very important. I'm not concerned with that at the moment as I do know of some, but I'll hold out another merge atempt until I can get proper sources to backup my finding, do some more spusing on my master copy of the article, and if can get some some more support from my survey as seen here. Which is looking sketchy right now due to the current situation, and some editors giving off vibes that I don't have a leg to stand on with this matter. Sarujo (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues

The closing of some of these discussions as merge is now being challenged at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Merge (and someone keeps attempting an RfC at the bottom and failing) claiming that the merges are against consensus and demanding they be undone. There are also claims that the project was not made aware of the discussion and the merges are being done in a secretive fashion. Right now, the specific closures being argued against appear to be Tien Shinhan and Cell (Dragon Ball) (none of the keeps, of course). Additional project input would be appreciated.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Goro Goro Iki

Anyone heard of this show? I can't find anything about it anywhere other than here. There are some related articles which I question as well: Samuel B. Prime, Terracotta Warrior Iki: Mechanized Typhoon Knight. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

I tagged the My Neighbor Totoro article for having several issues a few days ago. Two editors, however, are demanding the tags be removed. Neither seems to really be disputing the actual tags themselves, but rather both dislike the appearance of the tags and are in the club of editors who thinks articles should never be tagged. I have explained why I added each tag on the article talk page at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Tags. As one of the editors is requesting consensus for/against the tags, can some folks from the project take a look and offer your views as to which, if any, of the tags are valid for the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, while tags can be helpful, it's also good to note what is wrong on the talk page explicitly instead of just adding the tags. And even if you do explain why you included the tags on the majority of articles you tag, I believe it's sufficient to note the problems the article has on the talk page, because that is what the talk page is for, instead of also adding the tags. You can put me in the group that "thinks articles should never be tagged" if you like, only because I dislike their generality, not necessarily because they look bad.--十八 09:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is probably an issues that should be brought up to the village pump or maybe ANI if it is getting out of hand. To me, it is a silly reason to get into an edit war, but that is exactly what is happening. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It did get heated thanks to one editor coming from the Dragon Ball merger dispute to make a lovely round of personal attacks, and continuing to remove the tags when others supported and readded them. For now, I've just gone ahead and done a quick and dirty editing of the article to at least get it back to a decent shell. It would be nice if some others from the project could help out in editing it. I know this film has a ton of sources and I can't imagine why it couldn't fairly easily and quickly be brought up from a start class article to a GA or possible FAC. It hasn't been hit by the Assess group yet, but I'd guess this is one of our High or Top importance articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd assess it High, certainly -- a classic, iconic anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Miyazaki - and Satoshi Kon - films I checked were a mess, so I tagged them all as needing attention. These are all the biggest lights anime has, and it's sort of a shame they've been left in such a shabby state. I'd sort of assumed they'd all been made at least B long ago. Doceirias (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At least this one has gotten a nice boost from all the attention. I've taken it off my watchlist after the events on the talk page, but if someone from the project is planning to work on it, Anime Explosion mentions it on quite a few pages, including briefly discussing Westerner audiences mistaken tendency to ascribe impropriety to the scene where the father is bathing with the girls, a discussion of "Sampo" them and other music, how the film reflects a time in Miyazaki's own life when his mother was hospitalized for two years, and it has a two page review/examination in which Drazen notes that it is "arguably the finest children's movie ever made." I can scan any/all in if someone wants to use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be of interest to adding in the article: Totoro Forest Auction Earns an Estimated US$201,236. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Animated films task force

A joint task force on animated films has been proposed on WikiProject Films. Interested editors are encouraged to discuss and sign up. If there is enough support, the task force will be created. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How to identify the RS parts of Mania.com?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

News items should still generally have Chris Beveridge's name as the author, or otherwise be linked to from the main "AoD" entry page. For reviews, the RS/Official ones are still in a similar format as the originals, like this, should have the full reviewer name on it, and should be linked to from the anime/manga review list.

---

A while ago, AnimeonDVD.com which was considered a RS was bought by Mania.com - whilst working on Haru o Daiteita I came across many Mania.com reviews from the series, (temporarily housed in the External links section) but I'm unsure as to whether they come from the reliable portion of the site, or not. How does one go about telling this? -Malkinann (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

News items should still generally have Chris Beveridge's name as the author, or otherwise be linked to from the main "AoD" entry page. For reviews, the RS/Official ones are still in a similar format as the originals, like this, should have the full reviewer name on it, and should be linked to from the anime/manga review list. I think the user reviews are all in a separate area of the site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems that the reviews I've found are indeed the official ones. ^_^ -Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Lupin edit war

Lupin III Part II has been getting some edits by an unregistered user. Nothing major, but it was reverted by another editor twice, and then made again. I've reverted it again partly because it's just inaccurate (both the replacement terms were never used on that series officially) and less detailed then the original. However the naming conventions for Lupin aren't exactly straightforward, so input is welcome. MoS dictates we use the english name for the series but then we get a clash with the original series (currently solved with a disambiguation). Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted link clean out

All links to Onemanga.com, anidb.info, and animenfo.com have finally been blacklisted to keep folks from continuing to readd them! However, there are 61 links to OneManga[11], 26 to AniDB[12], and 270 to AnimeNFO[13] that need to be pulled from various articles. Anyone want to help clean these out. They primarily need to be removed from articles, images, and from article talks that haven't been archived yet. User can remove them from their own user pages if the links are blocked when they go to edit next time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AniDB is done (easy set). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help just as soon as I get home. School comp ;P) I'll take on Onemanga.com if they're still around later. Itzjustdrama? 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but a quick question. Should Mangafox be blacklisted too? It's similar to Onemanga, but it's not really as bad. [14] seven results total. Itzjustdrama? 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say so. For now, I think just removing the links would work since there are only 7. If it gets to be a problem like some of the others, then a request for blacklisting should probably be made. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, and thanks. Itzjustdrama? 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And remove all links unless it's on a user page or archives, right? Itzjustdrama? 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all links should also be removed except from user pages and talk archives. In regular article talk pages, I've been noting [LINK REMOVED] just so folks know something was there, but otherwise just straight removal works.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just finished now. Itzjustdrama? 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently working on animenfo.com list from the bottom up. Itzjustdrama? 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As an update, OneManga and AniDB are done. AnimeNFO is down to 113 links so getting there! Thanks Itzjustdrama for tackling the bulk of those :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Finished cleaning out AnimeNFO list. :) Itzjustdrama? 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To make a long story short, no scanlation sites should be linked on Wikipedia. Although, it is fine now. — J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. If anyone spots any others getting heavily added, give a shout and we can get it blacklisted. It seems like the only way to really keep them out long term. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

list of Robotech characters is confusing and unweildly

List of Robotech characters is in need of reform and links formatted because its hard to read as its unweidly and has no consitancy. I added character inboxes to the most notable characters and this is a list of characters I feel should be merged and split

• Sera (Robotech character) minor character
• Corg minor character
• Macross operators minor characters
• Emil Lang (fictional character) lack of citations
• Marcus Rush lack of citations
• T. R. Edwards lack of citations
• Jonathan Wolfe (Robotech) only made one appearance in the show
• Lazlo Zand

These are the articles I think should split to avoid confusion

• Roy Focker should be split to Roy Fokker
• Bruno J. Global should be split to Henry J. Gloval

Dwanyewest (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning from 118.137.x.x range

Word to anyone watching anime articles; keep an eye out for any anon users editing from the 118.137.x.x IP ranges. I've noticed an anon user in the last day or so has been adding incorrect information to various anime-related articles, implying that companies and series are owned and distributed by American companies like Disney and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer when they're clearly not. So far, the address I've seen this vandalism happen on include:

• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.21.140 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.20.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

The articles this user(s) hit can be seen in their contributions. If you see a user in this IP range who's adding that kind of information to anime articles, please revert and report. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 10:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Found another address he's doing it from: 118.137.48.87 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been handled and IP range blocked for three months. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumbor Barutronica

Here's an odd duck found while working through the urgent attention backlog: An article about a series that lasted 10 chapters in Weekly Shōnen Jump before being cancelled. Sounds like an open-and-shut non-notable subject except there's an extensive ja.wiki article, possibly because it was Hiroyuki Takei's first project after completing Shaman King, and even ANN deigns to notice it. So I'm bringing it here for advice: give the {{notability}} tag a chance to scare up some evidence, or go straight to a proposal to merge to the author's article? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The author is certainly notable, and there is precedent for pages on one volume works by notable authors. Of course, those works have usually been translated...pretty borderline. If someone had gone to the trouble of translating the Japanese article, I'd say let it be, but since it is just a plot summary, it should probably be merged. Doceirias (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Right -- I'll tag it for merging and see if anyone objects. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request

I would know if anybody could make a little copyedit in Fullmetal Alchemist. The article has passed through a peer review and reassessment and seems it only lack copy edit before a GA nomination (more important the production section). Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start working on it a little bit. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of voice actors

Hi. I've come across a List of voice actors, but almost all of the people listed seem to be from the U.S. Was it decided somewhere that Japanese voice actors shouldn't be included there?--Cattus ^talk 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because seiyū is a different article and category from voice actors? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to understand is if the project thinks seiyu should also be listed on that list, or if the category is enough. The list, unlike the category, has notes for each person, mostly with the main roles they've had. It just seems weird that a list of voice actors would have only one (!) Japanese voice actor. If there is no objection, I'd like to add some more, at least the main ones... --Cattus ^talk 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Record of Lodoss War

The Record of Lodoss War article is in some serious need of help. Its an extremely confusing mess, unreferenced, with a ton of lists and a complete lack of some basic details. Anyone have time to tackle it? I'm trying to clean up the episode list as its at AfD, but can't make enough heads or tails of the main article to even get details from there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the JA version, it looks like ours is mostly a copy of that one with translation (or visa versa). Also the List of Record of Lodoss War episodes could use some decent summaries and the rest of the Japanese titles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the rest of the Japanese titles along with the relevant rōmaji. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Muhyo and Roji's Bureau of Supernatural Investigation

Erp. I saw a new user adding a story arcs section, and advised the creation of a chapters list instead. They created it - at Muhyo and Roji BSI List of Chapters, for some reason - without any formatting at all, and it was promptly tagged for speedy deletion. Anyone want to swoop in and try and get things on track? I'm really short of time today. Doceirias (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the title and will be working on fixing up the format over the next hour or so. Anyone want to tackle the main article? I did some quick MoS work and redid the lead some, but could use more help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anime and manga by year of release

Okay, I got a bot to go through our articles and make a list of articles which are not categorized by year yet. It will take a little fine tuning as this is just the first pass, but we now have a list of over 6300 articles to go through in order to sort them into the appropriate Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Manga by date of first release categories. If you find an article or category which should always be excluded in the future, please add it to the list on this page. Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like the majority of the articles aren't actually about anime or manga series... at least not main articles. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A large, large number of them are people. I'm also seeing visual novels (many with no apparent anime or manga adaptation). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always list them (or a specific category) on the ignore page. This is more fine tuning (see my post below). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And pretty much *all* of the "List of X" articles should be removed as well. I may go through and list a bunch on the ignore page. —Dinoguy1000 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more effective to find out which category all the "List of..." articles are in, then list that category. This can also allow you to make sure the list isn't over categorized or categorized in both a parent and child cat. I found a lot of that when sorting articles into the individual year cats. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:Lists of manga chapters, Category:Lists of anime television series episodes, and Category:Lists of anime and manga characters (all three are subcategories of Category:Anime and manga lists). —Dinoguy1000 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added them to the ignore list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How does the ignore page work? IF (<has project banner> AND <is in category on ignore page>) THEN (<ignore page>)? It doesn't seem to include subcategories, either... —tan³ tx 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's maintained by hand. IMHO, it would have been better for the bot to go through and only look at articles which have an animanga infobox, but... meh... I'm too tired to really think about stuff like that right now. —Dinoguy1000 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You can see the original request here. Yes, there are some articles which shouldn't be included, but that's more an issue of fine tuning the bot results. I'm waiting for a response to see if the ignore list will work. This first list is only a first pass. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The second pass, which used the ignore list, knocked over 2000 articles off the list. I've expanded the ignore list a bit and just asked to have the bot run through it again. Hopefully, it should knowck another decent chunk off the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The third pass has knocked another 2000 articles off the list, so it's much more manageable now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the alphasorting finally got fixed... (I'm not OCD, honest! I'm CDO - it's like OCD, only with the letters in order, like they're supposed to be!) —Dinoguy1000 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar image

Found this image on Commons. Curious whether we should recognize this (IMO, the BarnSakura is better, but this isn't bad either). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aww, it's cute. And it's very different, so we could maybe come up with different scenarios for using each. --Masamage ♫ 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is cute. Maybe this is the BarnKawaiiko? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... on the one hand, the sakura looks more professional. But on the other hand... awwww, I want one! --erachima talk 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Masamage, deciding different scenarios for using both sounds like a good idea. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnsakura for article contributions, barnloli for project contributions? --erachima talk 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Barnloli...(^o^)...I like the idea of having one for each. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its cute and it would be nice to have some different barnstar options depending on the kind of work. I like erachima's suggestion of one for article work, one for project stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. So BarnSakura for article work, and BarnLoli for project work? (And FYI, this might encourage all of the above —including me— to clear all our backlogs for this thing :p) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think User:G.A.S should get the first one. --erachima talk 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Let's wait until his RfA ends though, so he gets the double drama of having the mass of thankspam on his page plus this awesome barnstar. ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Well deserved award. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Too late... I was worried someone would beat me to it. --erachima talk 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I probably would have spent too much time thinking of an adequate caption in any case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! And thank you very much! Now for the question: Is there a similar ribbon for it? (In the style of the other one?) ;) G.A.S 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to be a bit late in this conversation, but oh well... I definitely like the barnloli (LOL...), and IMHO, the BarnSakura (and cherry blossoms in general) speak to me more of Japan in general than anything specifically anime/manga related (Sakura Haruno aside, of course). That being said, I also like (but not quite as much) the idea of one for article work vs. one for project work, and am now mooning after one myself (but I suppose, if I keep working, I'll get one eventually ^^). (by the way, do all these parenthetical thoughts annoy anyone?) —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the BarnSakura was invented before Wikipe-tan was. (Only slightly.) --erachima talk 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I just presented TheFarix with a BarnLoli for all his hard work updating the transclusions of {{Infobox animanga}} back in June, something that he never got rewarded for (other than maybe a slap on the back and a "job well done"). —Dinoguy1000 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. While getting awards is not my purpose, I do appreciate when I do get them. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On another side note, Collectonian now has one as well, for general overall goodness and such with regard to WP:ANIME. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Project banner

On a slightly related note, I recall a discussion a while ago about updating the project banner to show a different Wikipe-tan image for every level of article quality (like we do now with GA/FA). With the assessment department, we've now established the differences between start, C, and B-class, so I think this is pretty viable. Any opposition to asking User:Kasuga for designs for each? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would very much support different images. I find that it is a bit odd that we have an image for GA class, but not A class, which is technically of higher quality. G.A.S 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think A-class is utilized much by our project, so I don't think that's there is a specific need for it. In any case, I'll go ask Kasuga about this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:( I know. I would like to get A class up and running, I have already drafted the instructions on WP:ANIME/ASSESS (commented out), but unless more editors are involved in reviewing for A class, this will not really go anywhere fast. G.A.S 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, we actually had an A-Class article or two a long, long time ago, but it was before I ever got involved with the project (or anime/manga articles in general), and I have no idea what articles those might have been (the only way I even know is because I occasionally like to snoop around in page histories). As GAS said though, there just don't seem to be enough editors interested in A-Class for it to get started up - I guess, after getting an article to GA, most editors either lose interest and move on to other work, or are too focused on achieving FA to worry about A. —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did at one point have two A-class articles. The exact definition of "A-class" has never really been clear though, and frankly I'd prefer that it either be merged, with the GA and FA classifications filling the spot, or else correspond with the featured/good topics classification for "peer reviewed" pages of limited purview. --erachima talk 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess I'm also uninterested in taking advantage of A-class as a ranking, peferring to stick with GA and FA. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to erachima] I copied on of the larger Project's A class definitions, and tweaked it to be useful on our type of articles, (Wikipedia:ANIME/ASSESS#Assessment guidelines), [Reply to Dinoguy] and but I believe WP1.0 currently require 2 or more uninvolved reviewers to agree that an article is A class (Hence I cannot do it alone). [Reply to all] As is the definition on WP:ANIME/ASSESS currently stands, this would be reserved for our top GA's, those which are just out of FA's reach. Maybe upgrading a few of them would give this idea a boost? G.A.S 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we rather go for something like this? G.A.S 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! All right! Let's do this! [/Joe Swanson] —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We have that sketch version of her that could be used for stub and/or start class. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

More barnstar images

• More barnstar images
• 
• 
• 
• 

Found more images on Commons. IMO, having too many barnstars is a bad thing, but the project should probably be aware of everything that is available. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We can always leave this open to the editors' imaginations;) G.A.S 06:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the third would make a nice clean up task force barnstar :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...that works. List the barnstar at WP:ANIME/CLEANUP. What's the name of the barnstar then? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BarnMeido? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would say we add it to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP as a reward, WP:ANIME is going to get quite crowded with awards otherwise. G.A.S 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Makoto Kobayashi (artist)

Makoto Kobayashi (physicist) is now a Nobel laureate. And Makoto Kobayashi redirects to the physicist page (some one made that change and it's OK for me). So I have changed some of the links to Makoto Kobayashi with Makoto Kobayashi (artist) because after the redirect the links weren't right. May be it's better that you check my changes and make others if needed. Thank you.

• Pages that link Makoto Kobayashi
• Pages that link Makoto Kobayashi(aritst) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearofthedragon (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's why the change -- I was wondering. Thanks for doing the work. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime and Manga Project redirects

I've never heard to the animanga project referred to as the "Anime and Manga Project" for the purpose of documentation, project, portal, category, or template names, etc., and this is reflected in the naming of our project categories for both templates and categories. Would there be any objections to renaming this one, along the same lines, to Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects? —Dinoguy1000 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be Category:Anime and manga redirects after Category:Anime and manga templates. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, without the "WikiProject" in front. That didn't make sense at first, but then I thought about it. BTW, would there be any objections to implementing a "Redirect" class in our banner? it wouldn't require active tagging (especially after the very recent push to remove our banner from all redirect pages), but would be nice to have. —Dinoguy1000 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I would like that - it's convenient for when an article gets merged into another one. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I too would like that, although it did not gain much support in the past. Will we be adding the banner to the existing redirects, or not, and how we will find them? (Not all redirects are listed in the above category, e.g. Alternative spelling, Alternative capitalisation, With/without Macrons, etc. etc. We are likely looking at thousands of redirects.) G.A.S 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said when I suggested it above (and as I also said about implementing similar functionality for images), I'm not recommending active tagging if this is agreed upon and implemented, although if any one person feels up to the task of hunting down and tagging all those redirects (and images, since I'm considering restarting that particular discussion to hopefully establish a clear consensus on whether we want image tagging or not), they would certainly be welcome to, and - also as I said in the previous discussion - I would likely be doing a decent amount of tagging myself, although this might be a nice little side project for a bored AWB user as well (it's certainly the type of work AWB was meant for). —Dinoguy1000 19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would actually oppose adding a redirect class to the template or tagging redirects. I really don't see a purpose in it other then acting as some form of billboard. --Farix (Talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I recently added messages for Project and Portal pages and images (those are sample links BTW), and for |class=redirect, but keep in mind that these all still categorize into Category:Non-article anime and manga pages. —Dinoguy1000 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And just what is the point of tagging redirects, project pages and images? This doesn't seem like a good idea and is entirely pointless to me. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracking of contribs for merged content, for one, or just doing redirection maintenance. However, if it were me I would just use a category to the redirect itself, as done at Category:Redirects by WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that a number of our project pages and several images and portal pages have been tagged for more than a year (at least, for longer than I've been a member of the project). Having the functionality present doesn't imply a requirement to use it, it's merely there in case someone wants to make use of it, or decides to tag a page as such even without being aware of the functionality. There are no empty categories to be populated by this new functionality, so I hardly see why it would spur someone to tag on that basis. I previously stressed the fact that I wasn't expecting an active tagging effort in response to the addition of this functionality, and I'm continuing to stress it. —Dinoguy1000 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, I guess. There might be a case where it is beneficial to keep the banner on a talk page for a redirect (discussions regarding merges, for example), so might as well tag it as such. *shrug*. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltron needs to be split its become bloated

Looking at the Voltron article I have a few queries if that is ok?

1. Is it OK to split some of this article into smaller pieces particularly the character section and popular culture section as I feel its become unwieldy and hard to read.

2. According to the discussion section its rated a C grade article how? Because no reliable references are made about many aspects such as the comics, DVD Releases are not referenced is it OK to make a start article.

3. The third question I believe Voltron: The Third Dimension (TV Series) should be renamed Voltron: The Third Dimension as I feel I have provided enough basic evidence of the shows existance and notablity.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Its bloated because it has too much stuff in it that it doesn't need and it needs a major overhaul to give it a better structure. The entire "References in other media" should go, and the Comic book bios as well. Almost the entire thing is unsourced, which makes me suspect "Changes from the Japanese version" is pure OR. Clean, cull, and redo first, then look at splitting if, after its redone and in good shape, its still too long. I've also lowered the assessment to a C. It is missing to much of the basic sections of a good article while having too much "cruft' to even be C. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created a character section for Voltron List of Voltron characters and I have popular culture references section since there are no reliable sources to confirm them.

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article is confusing, though, since I can't tell for sure if its saying Voltron is an anime that was then dubbed and edited, or that Voltron is a blend of two other anime series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are YouTube clips permissible to use as evidence I used the official World Events Productions clips channel to demonstrate my points as references.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dwanyewest: The Third Dimension's "existance and notablity" have nothing to do with the article's title (you said the same thing in Star Blazers deserves its own article). It is just a matter of requesting Voltron: The Third Dimension's deletion so the article can be moved there.--Nohansen (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, I don't think YouTube links are considered reliable sources, but it depends on what you are sourcing (and if its clearly established that the clips are on an official channel). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that because youtube is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, we shouldn't link to it at all. -Malkinann (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says "there is no blanket ban on linking to [YouTube] as long as the links abide by the guidelines". If the clips are on an official channel, like AnmaFinotera said, I think linking to them would be alright.--Nohansen (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the World Events official Channel [15]

These are the clips [16][17] make up your own minds if its legit

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that profile indicates or supports the claim that it is an official channel, so I agree they should not be used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltron.com, which bills itself as the official Voltron website, does not link back to the YouTube profile. -Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried contacting Voltron.com via webmaster@voltron.com and tried to confirm or deny whether this [18] is their official YouTube channel but have recieved no response if any one else wishes to try to contact them to find out is welcome to.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention that your correspondence has to be verifiable? (The easiest way for the Voltron.com webmaster to do it would be to link to the youtube channel and call it the official Voltron.com youtube channel on the Voltron.com website.) -Malkinann (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see I have greatly improved the Voltron article its by no means perfect but at least the information is cited from reliable sources. But if I can prove that World Events page is official can I use their videos to illustrate the different plot changes between Golion and Voltron.

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone is reading this part anymore but I believe that Voltron should be renamed Voltron:Defender of the Universe as it is official name listed by the company and the name it was broad casted under.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by the official Voltron website forum that World Events do have an official YouTube.

[19]

Dwanyewest (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)