Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Task forces

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, I see they've got a lot of very interesting organizational structures. I would like to propose that we steal a bit off of them and start up Task Forces to group people who are interested in specific topics. Beowulph 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As in sorting people by primary series interest, or genre, or what? Because depending on precisely what you are proposing, I may be in full support, or view it as needless with the potential to cause factionalization. --tjstrf 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have enough people to divide ourselves up even more. Military history is a HUGE subject and has hundreds of people in the projects. We on the other hand, have tens of people, and can't even get our Collaberations of the Week to improve very much. --SeizureDog 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, anime and manga are also HUGE subjects, but the quality and dedication of our average editor is far lower, and most don't bother joining the project. We have too many fanboys and speculators, not enough long-term editors. --tjstrf 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anime and manga are really (relatively) small subjects. They are only sub-subjects of television and literature in general. In any case, they're certainly not as important as war.--SeizureDog 19:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing factionalization, actually, quite far from. The Task Forces in WP:MILHIST are essentially gathering places for individuals who are interested in particular topics and places to hold discussions relevant to it. For example, if it were to be implemented here I would probably join a "Dragon Ball" task force (I can think of about 3-4 editors, good ones, who would also likely join) where we would then focus on the DB articles with things like naming conventions, infobox fields, article standards, default headers, cannonicity etc.. Being on one task force would certainly not prevent someone from being on another, in fact, joining all that interest an editor would be highly recommended.

BTW, since I'm new here, what relation do you folks have to WP:Comics? It seems like Manga, which to me is just Japanese comics, would potentially fall under their umbrella as well. How do you differentiate yourselves from each other? Beowulph 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think all you really need to do is find the 3 or 4 other good editors, gather them together, and discuss. All those things can be done via talk pages, and it should be less complicated that way. --tjstrf 20:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw the idea, I though you were talking about creating teams to do specific tasks in reaction to general article maintenance. Such as genre sorting, referencing and verification, formatting and styling articles to comply with WP:Anime's guidelines, etc. However, your suggestion doesn't solve any of the problems related to anime and manga articles. None of the plethora of articles that gets little to no attention now will get any more attention with this idea. Instead, it's simply provides another formalized badge for editors to wear. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Badges are nice... But, a team/discussion over genre standardization would be not only nice but actually useful. For instance, shōnen and fantasy: does shonen imply fantasy, or are they significantly seperate? How many genres should we list? Does every series that has jokes in it need humour, or only those where humour is actually the primary emphasis? --tjstrf 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to make another point: In the Military History Wikiproject, any given person is likely to know at least a little bit about almost every article in their task force, and everyone can add a little bit of information to any article. However, the field of knowledge for us is much more limited. Suppose we made a, say, "Harem anime task force". That's all well and good, but even if you like harem anime you're only going to be able to contribute to shows that you've specifically seen. It doesn't really help to group people together into a task force if conversations end up like: "Ok, let's work on Love Hina."; "Oh, I haven't seen that yet, what about Shuffle! instead?"; "Never heard of it. What about..." Get my drift?--SeizureDog 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A project dealing with reliable sources would be useful, if not desesperately needed. We have a lot of good articles that read like fanpages or trivia columns, just for lack of descent sources (one reference for the -excellent- Cowboy Bebop? Come on). Please see new thread below.--SidiLemine 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think any of you get it. You make task forces for organizational purposes, regardless how many people you have. It collects everything and sorts it out into specific, easy-to-find/manageable layouts. Just because its bigger doesn't mean it should get the only task forces.

Also, you have to think here: What is a group of military men going to do? Keep everything sloppy? I think not! 75%+ of their people I'm sure came out of the U.S. Military, of course their going to have "task forces" (Which in itself is a military term) Colonel Marksman 06:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese-French and other anime

Do we have an article/category/list, even, dedicated to phenomena like Ulysses 31, The Mysterious Cities of Gold or Ōban Star-Racers, just to name a few?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea for a category. --Squilibob 10:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but what category? Category:French-Japanese anime with main article on French-Japanese anime? Somebody should do that :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Canon or Not Canon: Dragon Ball GT

A couple of editors are having a dispute over the definition of canon and non-canon in regards to Dragon Ball GT. Things got heated so I decided to delete the comments and simply direct anyone interesting in getting involved to go to Talk:Dragon Ball GT. No need to drag that argument to multiple talk pages when you are just requesting people's comments. Summarize the debate, link to the talk page, and move on. This is not because you shouldn't talk about it here, but because those involved were becoming very uncivil, and well, lets keep the fire contained in one area, yes? -- Ned Scott 08:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction, the debate seems to be taking place on Bebi (Dragon Ball GT) and Talk:Bebi (Dragon Ball GT). -- Ned Scott 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for being un-civil, but after arguing with a vandal for 16 hours, I kinda get a little stressed.--KojiDude 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It happens. Probably the best thing now is to just wait for some input from other editors. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The "other editors" didn't do jack shit about this. They didn't try to help me reason with him at all; User:3bulletproof16 (one of the editors I was counting on to help me) just made smart alac remarks.--KojiDude 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that we are not the ones who determines what is and is not canon or to what degree something is canon. That is left to whoever controls the DB franchise, Toei Animation and Akira Toriyama. To try to make such determinations without direct sourcing (i.e. they actually say something isn't canon) is not only original research but a gross violation of WP:NPOV. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll also add that no DB article should state what is or isn't canon or to what degree something is canon. Akira Toriyama's lack of involvement could be mentioned with in the base GT article (Dragon Ball GT), and because of that, many fans do not accept it as part of the DB canon, but that should be the extent of it. The subarticles to the GT article shouldn't get involved with the canonization issue. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The main Dragon Ball GT article does mention how little he was involved(creating some character designs, and offering advice). I was not a vandal, I just tried to mention that Bebi's canonicity was debatable. The whole problem seems to have been solved though. TJ Spyke 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with a user who doesn't get it

Okay, I may be overreacting here, but I'm getting annoyed of all the edits from this user.

I've been noticing a lot of activity from 66.65.170.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in Naruto-related articles the past few days. This user's contributions have mostly been adding trivia that's not actually trivia; they're mostly restating plot points, facts about individual characters, speculation or just plain nonsense. A lot of people have reverted this user's contributions, but this user will just put it back. He makes over 100 contributions a day, all of them to Naruto pages, either adding or re-adding his irrevelant "trivia". I've put a {{test2}} warning on the talk page, but I'm wondering if something else should be done about him. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about just removing the trivia section altogether, or incorporating it into the rest of the article? You may also want to refer to WP:TRIVIA as well for guidance. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the Trivia sections that I'm worried about, but rather the users' behavior when it's removed - this user appears pretty determined restoring such sections if they were ever deleted. The user seems to ignore every edit summary that told them not to add inane information to articles. For heaven's sake, this person adds trivia sections to indiviual episode articles where the "trivia" usually is minor plot points from the episode; when these points are removed, this user just brings them back. Ned Scott's comment on the user's talk page summarizes my problem with the person. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Block him. Or rather, explain very nicely to him what he's doing wrong, and if he does it again, instantly escalate him through the warning cycle, then report him for vandalism. I'd have already had him blocked myself, but I'm not exactly forgiving to IP's or trivia. --tjstrf 17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given him one more non-template warning before going through that cycle, in light of this user's most recent edits, which are proving this person is ignoring any messages sent to him. Getting sick and tired of this. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And, as he seems to be ignoring that... I've given him a template notice. --tjstrf 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If he/she doesn't stop, I would file a report to WP:AN or WP:RFI. I wouldn't take this to WP:AIV since it can't be labled as obvious vandalism. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy is really extreme with his trivia additions. When I first read it I thought "that doesn't sound like too bad of a problem", but then you see his contribs.. These kinds of editors don't seem to mean any harm, but cause harm on this scale. I just hope that this guy "gets it" and puts that effort into something a bit more useful, since he's willing to put so much time and effort into Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• This character probably doesn't know you're allowed 1 re-edit in 24 hours. Colonel Marksman 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Help expand my vampire comparisons

Hi, I'm creating a article called comparison of depictions of vampires in media which is currently a draft in my userspace. I've already included all the anime I can think of with vampires in it, but if anyone could come and fill in the details and/or include more manga/anime that involves vampires into the table that'd be a real help! - Phorque 13:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, do you intend to make that an article on Wiki? I think it would be hard not to make it violate WP:NOR; that being said, I'll give it a shot.--SidiLemine 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know about this?

That the WP:CVU is using your logo in theirs? Wouldn't you guys consider this plagiaism? What really ticks me off is that they're having a good laugh about it! I guess the Counter Vandalism Unit are making jokes about using other people's logos before their organization dissolves. (This is the place where I accuse the CVU of making fun of your hard-worked logo: [1]) 74.225.117.237 18:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S, I've notified the CVU of what they're doing, just to try to knock some sense into them. 74.225.117.237 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't really know what "plagiaism" even is do you?

"derived from Image:Wikipe-tan_full_length.png because sometimes I think there isn't enough suffering in this world"

Not only is parody one of the most consistantly protected 1st admendment rights (lawsuits almost always fail), but it clearly gives the source of the image(s). On top of which, the image is free use. It's not our image anyways. It was swiped from a user over on the Japanese Wikipedia. In summation, I hate uptight people like you. Really, it's just a joke, don't get your feathers ruffled up so much. --SeizureDog 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please let's all be civil. It's a GFDL image. Alterations are allowable. --Kunzite 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's funny. Besides, wikipe-tan deserves more exposure. --tjstrf 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's disturbing...--KojiDude 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke, basically. But it's a good one. --tjstrf 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the name of love, justice and a vandal-free Wiki you will be punished!" :) Shiroi Hane 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not as funny as Disco Guns. --Squilibob 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Structure ?Ratings?

I noticed on a couple of entries for hentai titles that ratings were included. I'd like to see ratings included on all anime entries, but anime is/isn't rated by the FCC. Obviously the anime shown on TV has a rating from the FCC but most anime doesn't. Infact I'd also like to see a new entry on how anime is rated. I honestly don't know myself. And a quick aside, but I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia, but do WikiProjects have leaders/head honchos? Elmer92413 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean (I'm only familiar with BBFC ratings), but examples wouldn't hurt here. Shiroi Hane 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Mezzo Forte (anime) and Kite (film) both have talk about the ratings, although neither one has been rated by the MPAA. Aside from the fact that Mezzo has 2 different versions and Kite has 3, something I plan on putting in the articles later this week. The versions that would be rated NC-17 are 'rated' on the box as 'Suggested 18 UP'. As far as I've seen Anime is rated by one of two ways, a 'Suggested' rating ranging from 7-18 or an actual rating that follows from the US TV ratings system, ie TV14 TVMA. I think it's something that needs to be addressed, as we need a standard way to present this information. Elmer92413 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

As per discussion above, Anime and Manga probably doesn't need task forces for different anime / genres. However, sources are a big problem to us. Anime and Manga are amongst the less sourced fields on the whole Wiki. I suggest a sub-project to tackle with this problem, so as to put our sources together, repertoriate sources available on the web, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

Well, in most cases the source is just having read the manga or watched the anime; it's a bit incompatible with the reference system, but I doubt that a sub-project would solve anything. One could simply put the chapter of the manga or the episode of the anime as a reference, as in Gantz. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a bit poor in terms of encyclopedic articles: I was thinking about influences, themes, and all these tidbits we animefans love to see in articles (and that make the latter seem good, pretty and impressive)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

How about a sub talk page, dedicated to the topic of sources? People can post requests for sources as well as posting good sources that they find. Wouldn't really need a full "group", but a small space set aside from the rest of discussion might be good for organization and emphases on the importance of finding sources. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What we truly need collective effort on is finding Japanese-language sources for reviews and ratings. Otherwise, and given the fact that most academic work on anime as a genre/form/whatever is recent and hard to get, and that analyses of specific works are almost non-existent, I suspect the best thing to do is google aggresssively for English-language DVD reviews from commercial sites. Searching Newtype-USA's website can turn up good leads, with the following caveat: it's difficult to get back-issues in hard-copy (there's no web-subscription that I can tell), and the magazine is kind of fluffy.--Monocrat 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have every issue of Newtype USA except for the preview issue only available to those who went to some con or other. So, if you need me to check a specific issue for a review, let me know. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! That's exactly what I was thinking about. If someone can point out how to make a sub talk page, I'll get to it right away. Cheers! --SidiLemine 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's as simple as doing something like this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Sources. Shiroi Hane 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a partial list of editors with various resourced, which can be found at User:GunnarRene/Sources. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's useful, I'll have to check which issues I have of which magazines (got some magazines like Newtype, NTUSA, Megami, G's, Animaga, Animedia, some other US magazines that are no longer in print, artbooks and guides for various series including a slew of old Digimon stuff). I was also wondering if it would be an idea to have a template for citing events or onscreen text by episode, timecode and source (e.g. R1 DVD, R2 DVD, TV episode or whatever) etc. Shiroi Hane 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

AfDs

Ok folks, I just when through the AfDs and listed 10 new ones on the deletion sorting page. Please be sure to check it and weigh in on the discussions. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles outside of the scope of this project

I would like to include some examples in the list of things that are not considered part of the project but before I add any, I'd like some opinions as to whether such examples really aren't part of the project.

Video games that are not anime games - Keio Flying Squadron series: Has anime cut scenes but there is no official manga and no anime.

Live Action - G-Saviour

Need a good example for these

Manhwa

ID eNTITY--SeizureDog 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anime and manga inspired webcomics

This should be obvious shouldn't it? Megatokyo. Red String (webcomic) also works.--SeizureDog 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-Japanese anime and manga

Peach Fuzz--SeizureDog 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

--Squilibob 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks they're good examples. --Squilibob 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Woudn't Non-Japanese anime and manga be a contradiction in terms? --TheFarix (Talk) 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. In English it refers to a style, and styles can be imitated. You can paint in the style of the Russian masters and be an Italian, for instance, or with the proper training make German cooking despite your native heritage as a Texan. --tjstrf 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's just like bourbon. You may be able to reproduce it, but if it's not produced in the US, it's just whiskey. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's been discussed a few times; Anime can be seen as a style, but as far as we're concerned on Wikipedia, Anime is animation from Japan. That being said, there really isn't an exclusion inclusion for WikiProjects, it's just, hey, here's a group of articles where we can apply similar ideas. If you can apply an idea WP:ANIME had for some "unrelated" article, then all the better. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand not covering OEL Manga, but I don't see why we can't cover manhwa. If we aren't referring to the style in our title, but rather making a nationalistic distinction, we should rename ourselves WikiProject:Japanese Animation and Comics. --tjstrf 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't necessarily focus on those articles, but I don't think there's anything stopping anyone from applying our ideas and guidelines to those articles. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the point that includes "Anime produced outside of Japan (for instance by a Korean animation studio) created for the Japanese market". I believe that's what non-Japanese anime means and it is there to cover a scenario similar to The Simpsons, animated in Korea for Americans. I think that anime is indeed being referred to as a style and for a specific market, that market being primarily the Japanese. Japanese animation is a broad term and could be confusing in situation such as this: Oriental Light and Magic have worked on the X-Men cartoon. They're Japanese and they helped to produce an animation, so is X-Men an anime? This is WikiProject Anime and Manga and we have two pages to define what we cover, anime and manga. That being said I agree with Ned Scott, on a formal basis, as far as categorising goes, Manhwa, OEL Manga, video games aren't included but that doesn't mean that any concepts that we use aren't allowed to be applied to those articles. As far as what is included in the project goes, we can't be too broad and we can't include everything. --Squilibob 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

One Piece

I don't know how many times this has been brought up, but the One Piece articles seriously need cleanup. I've kinda been part of the group who's been helping to clean up the Naruto articles, and the One Piece articles need a cleanup very similar to the one done on the Naruto articles, though I'm not sure how much the Anime and Manga WikiProject had to do with that. The main problem is that all the articles are extremely inconsistant in what terms/names they use. Some articles will use spellings from the English anime and manga while others will use spellings specified by One Piece's manga-ka, Eiichiro Oda (Zoro, namely), while others use unofficial fan spellings. Some of the things that really need to be done are:

• An official move discussion for Roronoa Zoro to Roronoa Zolo, much like the one for Naruto Uzumaki to finally end that dispute.
• A sweep through all the terms used to try to get it all as uniform with the English manga and anime as possible.

Please consider all of this. --Geg 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Add in general problems with spelling, grammar, and length, and you have an entire category of mind-numbing section rewrites. Which everyone hates doing, so they are left undone most of the time. --tjstrf 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single episode (or read a single manga) of One Piece actually so I'm not going to be able to help with that. --SeizureDog 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Publication info for non-English-speaking countries

While I can understand the desire to be thorough, I think we need to be somewhat limited in the information we present for non-English-speaking countries in the infoboxes and in the articles themselves. Including Japanese information is fine, as that's the source of everything to do with this project. Including information on releases in English speaking countries is fine, too. But when you get infoboxes like the one on Rurouni Kenshin, things are getting a little out of hand. If people want the information for other languages, that's what the interwiki links are for. I think we need to place a limit on what should be included here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a Show/Hide button would be a good idea to implement into the template for this problem. Though as I said back in May, the information should be omitted or put in the main area of the article. --Squilibob 05:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We should follow the TV and Film wikiprojects already established standards. As movies nor tv shows, show every tv station they've ever been shown on. They show the original tv station only. Elmer92413 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this project is a special case, however, and should show only the Japanese and English stations. Showing in addition Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and so on is just overkill and doesn't belong here. That's what the interwiki links are for. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think, as a reader, though I'm very much involved in editing now, that it is interesting to see in which countries a show has been shown. (Their ratings are interesting as well). It shows the spread of anime, and also justifies the importance of the articles. It's also some real-world information that we have about shows. It's not primarily something used to "market" the shows to our readers, at least in my view. As for keeping that information in the top infobox... perhaps another location is better. Perhaps a box in the reception section? --GunnarRene 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think interwikis are for dumping info not related to the English speaking world. As an encyclopedia we should not be exclusive about verifiable information, even if it's not related to the English speaking world. Or else we wouldn't have articles on African countries and stuff. _dk 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We could do show/hide on that part of the infobox, or just place the info in it's box in a relevant section, as suggested above. Both of those options would seem good to me. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott. It is relevant info, and we shouldn't exclude that. Not only does it show the spread of the show, but it tells a lot about an anime to see on what channel it was broadcast in every country, just like it's interesting to know what magazine serialised a manga. Althought I think it brings a little color in the beginning of the article, which is good, I'm OK with the two options above.

I have now added an optional network_other parameter that can be used in the anime template to provide the show/hide fuctionality. I added it to Rurouni Kenshin as an example. --Squilibob 07:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find it. Where is it?--SidiLemine 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the infobox, the anime section under Network. You should see a Show/Hide link. --Squilibob 10:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Show/Hide link is a little small. The Manga module could use one also, judging by that page at least. Shiroi Hane 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It should also be something other then Show/Hide. Such as "More" or "Others". --TheFarix (Talk) 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Works great! But definitely too small. Maybe a big +/- would do it? And it should definitely be included in the infobox template.--SidiLemine 11:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it too, and agree with Shiroi Hane that the Manga module could use it, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, added it for manga too as translated_publisher. I couldn't think of a better name. The show/hide link cannot be resized or renamed as it is a class of several wikipedia skins such as monobook. --Squilibob 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The link itself cannot be renamed, but I made it so that the words "More" would appear next to the link. "more" will only appear when the additional parameter is filled out, so it won't say more if there is only one publisher. Does that work? -- Ned Scott 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it makes the text so small, though.. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It may look like I'm "looking for the little bug", as the French say; but could it be possible to have the word "More" closer to the link, so as to make the relationship clearer?--SidiLemine 12:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the More thing on a new line. As for having it closer to the link, why not just expand it to say something like "To see other networks/publishers click:" or something like that? --Squilibob 13:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Anime and manga by date

Several people have suggested creating articles about each decade such as Anime of the 1960s (Rizzleboffin had expressed interest in this one). So, in order to help that along, I've created several new categories to help sort all the articles by decade, allowing for easy reference for creation of the articles and a launch point for those who want to create the articles for each decade.

These are the new cats:

• Category:Anime by date of first release
  • Category:Anime of the 1910s (1920 and 1930 cats not created yet)
  • Category:Anime of the 1940s
  • Category:Anime of the 1950s
  • Category:Anime of the 1960s
  • Category:Anime of the 1970s
  • Category:Anime of the 1980s
  • Category:Anime of the 1990s
  • Category:Anime of the 2000s
• Category:Manga by date of first release
  • Category:Manga of the 1940s
  • Category:Manga of the 1950s
  • Category:Manga of the 1960s
  • Category:Manga of the 1970s
  • Category:Manga of the 1980s
  • Category:Manga of the 1990s
  • Category:Manga of the 2000s

I've started populating them, but it's a big job. Anyone who wishes to help is welcome to do so. I've been going through the Category:Anime by genre list to try to hit them all. I'm partway through the Action anime category, so feel free to pick another category so we don't duplicate efforts. Perhaps we can coordinate here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Super Robot#List of Super Robot shows list might be of interest! —Philip N.✉ 17:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks good and all, but shouldn't they be phrased like "1910s anime" or "1980s manga"? I thought that was the standard form for these sort of cats. --SeizureDog 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen cats both ways. As long as they are consistent, I think it should be fine. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go by year like Category:20th_century_musicals .. at least for 80's to present --Kunzite 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should sort them by decade first, and then worry about individual years. Then they'll at least be sorted somewhat even if we never move on to individual years. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What about manga and anime that span multiple years/decades? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been adding them to both, although in most of those cases there's been the start of an anime in one decade and an OVA in another, so even if we didn't include more than one for spanning decades it would still count for the OVAs, etc. I think there was one that I skipped because it was mostly in one decade and only two months in the other. I don't see the harm in listing it for more than one decade, especially if the bulk was in one but started in another. -- Ned Scott 00:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The categories did define themselves as "by first release", so how long they span do not matter. _dk 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the whole point is for navigation and being able to find things by date. If an anime first aired in December 31 1989 and ran for 4 seasons, is it a 1980s anime or a 1990s anime? -- Ned Scott 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I specifically indicated "first release" because I didn't want to add too many more cats to each article (especially given that most of these articles already have twice as many cats as normal—one for anime and one for manga. Some of these articles have insane amounts of cats, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the definition of a "first release?" Is it the absolute first appearance in publication, including dojin works? Or is it the start of a serialization? For example, Locke the Superman is predominantly an 80's manga, but it first appeared in a dojinshi in the 60's, with a pilot-run in the 70's. It's currently cat as 60's.--Mikeats 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem a little confused, but I thought "first release" was pretty clear. It's the first released, regardless. So, in the case of Locke, the first release of the manga is the doujinshi in the 1960s. The first anime release is the 1980s. In the case of this article, more of the Japanese article needs to be translated so the infobox can be updated to include information on the earlier releases. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the "by first release" requirement could be softened up a bit for series that spend most of their time in one decade rather than another. Just because articles have a large amount of categories shouldn't be a reason to not add them to a category (although there are lots of pointless fictional-related categories out there that probably should be taken to WP:CFD). It would help make finding things a lot easier, which seems to me to be the whole point. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So, perhaps moving the categories and dropping the "of first release"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishōjo game nominated for FAR

Details may be found here. JimmyBlackwing 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishōjo game is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists

I was wondering why, since List of science fiction anime was deleted and List of anime deleted and protected, List of fantasy anime and List of manga remain? Or to put it another way, should List of fantasy anime also be deleted and would List of anime have survived had it been formatted like List of manga? Shiroi Hane 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just haven't took the time to verify List of fantasy anime so that it can be put up for AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope

If Keio Flying Squadron is not within the scope of the project, why does it still have the tag? ColourBurst 05:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, G-Saviour which is another example that's given. ColourBurst 05:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They are removed now. --Squilibob 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why is everyone so concerned about what is not "in our scope"? Not that I care, or anything, but it would seem to me that articles like G-Saviour would definitely benefit from an anime WikiProject. The only reason we should exclude something is so our main discussions and efforts don't get "derailed" from an anime and manga focus. This isn't a club, people, so calm down already. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not like we've got a budget to split or anything. --SidiLemine 10:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It matters so that we don't get out of hand and expand ourselves to be the Entertainment in Japan Wikiproject. There's nothing wrong with going ahead and working on articles that are outside our scope, but we really shouldn't whore ourselves out just to put our tag on as many articles as possible. Besides, it's not like the article really benefits from being in the project. I'm willing to wager that the article will expand just as much (or little) without being under our banner. --SeizureDog 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we include non-anime and non-manga article in the project. There are just some articles that are somewhat related (like games that anime/manga elements to them) where people are a little unsure. I think it's fine to include these as long as there really is a decent connection. It's certainly not going to hurt the project or the articles any. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it runs the risk of a slippery slope though. The less strict we are about which articles are in the project the less focused and more cluttered the project gets. If we want, we can expand ourselves to live-action adaptations; I don't mind. I just don't want there to be exceptions to rules. Because that always can cause a major headache when we constantly have "if THAT is in, why is THIS out?" being asked. Should we go ahead and propose a motion to include adaptations? I'll support I suppose. Though it's pretty rare that the adapatations end up being in a different article. A clause would also be needed to point out that the reverse isn't part of the project: that is, manga/anime adaptations of live action (e.g. Battle Royale would not count dispite having a manga adaptation). --SeizureDog 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I think the adaptation itself is under out scope, but that anime and manga-related content and editors are of use to it. I agree with Seizure Dog that with the huge range of entertainment we could easily loose focus. I was thinking about this, and maybe we could have a second banner template that is a "see also" for WikiProjects. This would show that the WikiProject might have something to add, but it isn't an anime or manga and isn't apart of the main efforts of that project. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ned Scott has an excellent idea. We could make a (small, non-intrusive) banner which says something along the lines of "This article deals with material similar in nature to that covered by Wikiproject Anime and Manga. Though it is not officially part of that project, you may be able to find applicable suggestions and guidelines there." and place it on those articles which do not have their own direct governing Wikiprojects. --tjstrf 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reguarding the Naming Policy CRITICAL

In the Debate over Zoro Vs. Zolo, an interesting point was raised, there is a loophole in the clause in the naming policy that states "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form."

The user Geg pointed out that this can be interpreted to only mean the "Official" English publications. Now, this creates a MASSIVE problem, because it has a loophole that undermines the very meaning of the clause, because the "official" publications only use the "official" name they made. The clause either needs to be carefuly reworded to include: "If the native form is more used, or better known BY FANS, then use the native form"; or removed, because there is no point in it's existance if this loophole with it's own zipcode stays. (Justyn 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

I've changed it to "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." Sound good? -- Ned Scott 06:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a vast improvement. This will have a very hard time being twisted or misconstrued, but if someone finds a way, I'll let you know. (Justyn 06:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

I've reverted the change. It's just a copy of the official wikipedia policy at WP:NAME... Someone is interpreting it wrongly, if they are interpreting it that way. --Kunzite 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Which interpetation are you claiming to be wrong? --tjstrf 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, so we should change it there too. This isn't a big deal, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with the new wording. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I take a short wikivacation and this comes up. Why limit it to just most common usage by fans? Limiting it to a subset of English-language speakers engages in a systemic bias and is contrary to wikipolicy on naming conventions, which includes all English-language speakers. Also, determining most common English usage can be very difficult at it is, but determining which is "more recognized by readers" will be impossible. My rule of thumb has been to use the spelling/naming of the official English-language publications unless it is indisputable that the native spelling/name is in wider use. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I find this relevant to the Case Closed vs Detective Conan debate, I'm jumping in. I want to have a definition on English Speakers, since even WP:NAME didn't even define it-- it refers to the Anglosphere-- which "English speakers" redirects to-- or just people who know English? --Samuel Curtis 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I usually take it as people who know English as a native language or are highly fluent in the language since childhood. The Anglosphere contains the bulk of English-language speakers, so it servers as a good sample to determine common usage. But there are also Anglophone regions in India, Africa, Oceania and the Caribbean. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor semantic quibbles aside, does everyone agree that it refers to english-speaking people, rather than only the official publications? --tjstrf 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy refers to people. But, for an anime aired on TV, I think the non-otaku (English usage) would rather use the official name unless there are special occations when some other name is more used. --Samuel Curtis 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(arggh, edit conflict) There are some complications with the 'official' English spelling when there is more than one - e.g. anime licensed by one company and the manga by another, or there's just one company who cannot make up their mind. An example of the latter would be Kiddy Grade where FUNi made some mistranslations for the dub scripts which are also used on the website, uses different (usually more 'accurate') versions for the subtitles but then tends to vary the spelling and/or make typos in the subitles and credits... so in those cases I usually just hang the sense, go with what is 'right' and hope noone disagrees. Shiroi Hane 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This weekend I will try to re-start the fictional character naming negotiations at WP:MOS-JA. They need to be set to help us avoid this type of constant argument over dub names. --Kunzite 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Convention Wikibreak

Here is my gift to WP:Anime, use when you're at a convention, just as you would a Wikibreak template.

User:Roninbk/Convention Wikibreak

This user is currently at an Anime convention and may not be able to respond swiftly to queries.

Nice. I'll be using this next weekend, for sure. ^^ Confusing Manifestation 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of tagging talk pages fast... I'm working on a bot (User:Dark Shikari Bot) that will automatically tag all Anime and Manga stubs. Its all ready and pretty much through the approvals process, but it does have a slight problem: they want it to stop whenever someone posts to the talk page, so it simply fetches the talk page every minute or so... except that the Pywikipedia Framework its written in caches the talk page, and so doesn't refresh the latest version. Anyone here have any idea how to turn it off or bypass the problem? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 21:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How about having something like "If you wish to STOP this bot immediately, add your reason to the User_talk:Dark_Shikari_Bot/Stop", then the bot can simply test to see if the page exists. Won't be a caching problem then. When someone actually adds to the Stop page you can delete and archive it or you can just make the bot test a new non-existant page --Squilibob 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that could work, though it would require an admin to delete the page. Good idea--I'll probably code that in to avoid stalling the bot's development further. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Square Enix

As having produced Last Order: Final Fantasy VII, isn't Square Enix a bit related to us?--SidiLemine 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, SquareEnix is also a manga publisher...of all things. _dk 11:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So does that justify the mentionning of the Square Enix Wikiproject on the project page?--SidiLemine 12:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In all reality, we shouldn't have a WikiProject Square Enix in the first place. Linking to all these different projects is kind of like over-linking to other articles within an article, or over-liking to a vast number of Wikipedia guidelines that really aren't related and / or helpful to that topic. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#WikiProject merge notices -- Ned Scott 16:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because they didn't link to us. They now have linked to us. --Squilibob 01:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reason to remove a link, then.. WikiProject's aren't clubs, and this isn't a "us" and "them" kinda thing. If there was no link to us then we can add it ourselves, just as someone would correct a link example on a guideline page. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, but there was no damage done. --Squilibob 02:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review: Serial Experiments Lain

Lain is being peer reviewed. PLEASE (T_T) leave your comments, suggestions, impressions, corrections, and general opinions here. Thanks in advance.--SidiLemine 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to help with a list?

I need the anime/manga section filled on this list page: List of supervillain teams and groups. I've started it, but it needs alot of work. The section on the list page is for both anime and magna: so don't seperate it. I would prefer notable teams mainly, so the page doesn't get flooded with many lesser teams. RobJ1981 04:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I donno, thought these kinds of lists were generally discouraged and usually prone to OR and such. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so it would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. --Kunzite 16:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It works a lot better as a cat.--SeizureDog 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ANN template up for deletion

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga doesn't cover templates just giving a heads up that template:Ann anime is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 25#Template:Ann anime. Shiroi Hane 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly worried. I tagged the nom as an {{spa}}, as their only edit to Wikipedia was to nominate the template. I'm pretty sure this nom is gonna fail, as per WP:SNOW --Roninbk _{t c #} 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As the template's original creator, I've added my 2¢ to the discussion. But there have been a number of AfDs using what amounts to "throw away" accounts recently. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It has just received a speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL --Roninbk _{t c #} 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Although.. I didn't realise that non-admins (and, indeed, people with less than a page of edit history) could close delete discussions. Shiroi Hane 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It probably wasn't kosher, but do we really want to take this to deletion review? --TheFarix (Talk) 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it has been reopened, let's see how the debate plays out --Roninbk _{t c #} 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's now closed, by a real admin, as a keep via WP:SNOWBALL --Roninbk _{t c #} 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trigun

At User:zippedmartin's suggestion, I am looking for someone to moderate over an argument I am having with zipped on the Trigun page. I believe the anime and manga should be on separate pages and he does not. Any input would be appreciated. mosesroth 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We tend to keep the two together unless there is an absolute need to seperate the two, such as the anime and manga being so different from each other that they really can not be considered the same. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also note that the manga should be the primary focus, unless it isn't the original. If this is a serious problem, I'd suggest an episode list article to explain the differences. --tjstrf 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

addendum ...or a complex franchise, such as Tenchi Muyo. (Bah! Tjstrf commented before I could modify my own.) --TheFarix (Talk) 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't have reverted the remerge after taking a bold action without discussing and coming to an agreement with authors who originally disagreed with your split. But generally, splits should be discussed first in order to build a consensus before the split takes place. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say for sure "Yes" on Winter Days, and likely "Yes" on Book of the Dead if we're fine including Japanese stop-motion anime. As a side note, Hayao Miyazaki is a huge fan of Yuriy Norshteyn. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Including stop motion in our scope? Ehh... I would support it if it didn't mean also letting in a number of similar formats like 3D animation (e.g. Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children) slip in as well, which would start cluttering our scope.--SeizureDog 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, FFVII: Advent Children is a CGI anime. It's like a higher quality version of Transformers SD. -Iopq 02:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If Advent Children is a CGI anime then FF7 is a VG anime. It can be argued, but it dilutes our scope.--SeizureDog 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop motion is another form of animation. Stop motion opens with "Stop motion is a generic general term for an animation technique which makes static objects appear to move." Animation is not just 2D. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree CGI and stop-motion are both forms of animation, I just don't think they're anime.--SeizureDog 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of recent anime OP and ED sequences have been stop motion/claymation and they're still part of the anime. (Honey and Clover, 2x2 Ninja Shinobuden, Coyote Bebop, er, Coyote Ragtime Show are good examples.) Kyaa the Catlord 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunabouzu had a live action OP, but I've yet to hear anyone claim it is not an anime because of that. Shiroi Hane 13:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)