Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article request section need some tweaking

I just removed two item from the articles requests section as it was obvious that they would have not meet the WP:BK criterion of notability nor they could push the argument of (number of languages published + good sense).

For manga article request, i wish in the notes for requests something inciting people to check WP:BK before posting their request, something similar to check WP:FICT before requesting character article.--KrebMarkt 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointers to WP:BK for manga series, WP:FILM for movies, WP:CREATIVE for mangaka, and WP:ENTERTAINER for voice actors would seem to be in order, and helpful, along with the general notability guidelines. (Nothing to point to for a television series, as they're all notable if they're on a national network.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It would also be a good idea to go though the list and remove requests where we have absolutely no information from which to write an article from, not even a basic stub. --Farix (Talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on both accounts and something I'd been meaning to mention myself. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done some minor work on the list myself (added ANN links for all the "A"s I could find a page for), and someone else recently went through and added a bunch of ja.WP links/Japanese names (though there are still plenty missing). Speaking of which, is there any reason the list can't use {{nihongo}}? (and for anyone who doesn't know and is curious, the list we're discussing is thataway) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I presume it doesn't use the template because requests are almost always the work of inexperienced editors; if you know how to use the template, you could probably just whip up a stub yourself. Doceirias (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We should put some rigor. I always try to explain why i remove an item from the requests list and put reasons why i don't remove one. That more writing but at least it will save us discussion about arbitrary removal and we save time by not checking the same item twice or more.--KrebMarkt 09:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent> I'm in a first pass up to letter J, there are points, i want to express about the manga request treatment.

  • Notability can't be inherited if there is NO room & material to develop an article to C or B rating then it is a fail regardless the author.
  • Number of published volumes isn't a criteria of notability for the same reason as above.
  • When i write no publisher in X countries that mean i did cross search Amazon x Google for publishers in those countries and it's in no way consolation prize made-up argument for removed requests
  • I agree for double logs one page history & one in discussion page but i won't handle the archiving--KrebMarkt 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    I would agree with your statement regarding series length not being a criterion for notability; however, similar to the number of licensors, I regard it as an indicator for potential notability - few series could run even as long as 15 to 20 volumes unless they were at least moderately popular. As for the talk page list of refused requests, you wouldn't have to go back and archive past ones (I may do that when I have more time), but it would be simple for you to fill out an entry at the time of refusal. Also, just because an article can demonstrate sufficient notability, doesn't automatically mean it can be taken to C-class - or even to Start-class, for that matter. Notability is quite different from potential for article expansion. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    I removed one request for 45 vols series and one for 58 vols series not on an deletionism outburst but on die hard fact. While it is obvious those manga matter inside Japan, outside it is another story altogether. I would gladly have them put back on the map if anyone is up to the challenge to make Afd withstanding articles out of them.
    I removed request for manga that have relatively notable author but failed WP:BK. Worst example is A gun report, Katsuhiro Ōtomo's first publication.
    For the archive it would be relevant to have the same presentation than the article request page. It may a bit taxing to start it but i guess as the person who re-opened the can of worms, it will likely my responsibility.--KrebMarkt 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    Specific archive created, check here --KrebMarkt 23:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, I was actually the one who originally added the 45-vol and 58-vol requests. ;) Not sure if it affects their potential notability any, but at least one of them (both, actually, IIRC) had blurbs in early issues of Shonen Jump (I'll have to look for them, though). Don't worry too much about the format for the archive, I intend to work on it at some point. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent>First pass of the requested article assessment done :)
KrebMarkt 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Gaupher Eels

A new article has appeared about an anime series called New Gaupher Eels, claimed to be "not very well known outside of Japan". I'm not sure whether it's a valid article that's difficult to track on Google or something someone's made up (it's from a new editor), so I thought I'd ask for input from editors more versed in Japanese animation. Thanks. – The Parting Glass 20:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely non-existant from what I can see. Google hits give 1 hit for New Gaupher Eels at WikiRage, while nothing on the kanji. Seems like a hoax and should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:PROD anyone ? I'm not in good term with such hoax especially after assessing some of them in the anime/manga requested articles department KrebMarkt 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Nominated --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes another Gundam cleanup project

Yesterday, I reorganized List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters. However, there is still lots of work to be done, including trimming some of the character descriptions, adding summaries to characters that currently lack them, finalizing the exact placement of characters on the list, weeding out all of the incidental characters, and a notability review of characters that have individual articles. --Farix (Talk) 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler removal at Umineko no Naku Koro ni

The user User:WhiteKnightLeo has repeatedly removed content from the characters section on this article because they believe said content is spoiling the plot. I have tried to explain that spoilers should not merely be removed simply because one thinks they may spoil the plot for others, as is set out at WP:SPOILER on the article's talk page, but they are not listening. Anyone care to settle the dispute?-- 04:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a number of argument about spoilers recently, and largely ignored them, since it's not a big issue for me. But this is probably a good thread to hijack and see what exactly people think should be in articles. I was surprised to read WP:SPOILER and see that it actually says a spoiler should serve an encyclopedic purpose to justify inclusion - so I guess I'm asking what does and doesn't serve that purpose. Doceirias (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's unclear about it. Wikipedia is neither a fan forum (or gameguide, to stay a bit more on topic) nor a spoiler site. We shouldn't hold back information because it could spoil someone. Nor should we write to spoil. A plot summary (the place most spoilers appear) should give a rough overview of the plot. If that is possible without spoiling people too badly, so much the better. But spoilers should only be removed if they are not necessary to understand the work, character, or whatever the topic is. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That was pretty much my understanding, yeah. Doceirias (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It is basically a restatement of WP:PLOT and WP:TRIVIA. Excessive trivial details should be avoided, of course, but the main article should include all major plot points in its summary, including the ending. Generally, I go with the idea that a plot should give the basics for the understanding, and the major plots points in the series that are really required to get how you get to the ending. For example, in the Tokyo Mew Mew article, noting that Masaya = Blue Knight = Deep Blue is necessary to cover the series in an encyclopedic manner, as it isn't a trivial thing. Ryou = the cat Alto is fairly trivial to the series as a whole, so it isn't noted in the main article (though is noted in the character list and appropriate episode/chapter summaries). Likewise, in Wolf's Rain, leaving out the ending would not be appropriate for encyclopedic coverage, but some specifics of the events, such as exactly how everyone died happened is trivial to the series as a whole in that you don't need to know it to get the ending itself, so those details are best left to the character and episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to discuss this on the article talk page, but certain parties opt to keep messing with the article while the discussion is going on. The spoilers are only from select games in the series, and they are really not necessary, as well as inconsistent. The plot overview and most of the character profiles contain no spoilers at all. Then, suddenly, there are a few characters at the bottom that are massive spoilers and really don't need to be included. Four of them are alter-egos of characters who already have perfectly fine summaries up. Another is a familiar created by one of said alter-egos. There is really no need for these details. The article is fine without them. I tried to point this out, but was accused of trying to "own" the page and ganged up on. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

See my response above, removing alter egos because they are spoilers is not appropriate. That the plot section is in bad shape is not a valid excuse for removing other valid content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If they are alter-ego's then they should be merged into the character's description associated with the alter-ego instead of removed. If the information about the alter-ego is absent, then the character descriptions aren't complete. --Farix (Talk) 06:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you are reading what I'm typing. The poster above says it even better: "Nor should we write to spoil. A plot summary (the place most spoilers appear) should give a rough overview of the plot. If that is possible without spoiling people too badly, so much the better. But spoilers should only be removed if they are not necessary to understand the work, character, or whatever the topic is.". This is not simply about spoiling. If you can give information about the character and plot without massive spoilers, then that is best. Witch Maria, Eva-Beatrice, Goldsmith...these characters are massive spoilers, and their is no point to their inclusion. Fans have worked hard to keep massive spoilers out of the article. If you want to go to such lengths to spoil the game even when it is not necessary, than you are just dong so to be cruel. Just create a seperate article for the characters or for the individual games. You are all attempting to own the page, and you're not looking for a solution that will make everyone happy. WhiteKnightLeo (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Articles aren't written to include or exclude information which some readers may deem to be spoilers. Instead, articles are write to be both complete and concise. If a plot summary or character description is written but doesn't include the major plot points, which many would consider to be spoilers, then it is incomplete. At the same time, the plot summary or character description shouldn't include every event the character is involved in as that would be an unnecessary level of detail. Editors should ignore the "spoiler issue" entirely. --Farix (Talk) 06:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Evangelion "Lilin vs Lilim" problem

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion#Vote on terminology standardization: "Lilim" vs "Lilin"

We're trying to standardize the terminology we use; the problem is that the original Japanese in the original series sort of slurs the line (Engrish) so it sounded like "Lilim" with an "M"...or at least, the English sub/dub assumed this is what they were saying. The word actually never appeared in print. However, the recent "Rebuild of Eva 1.0 : You Are (Not) Alone" film, in the preview for the next film during the credits, actually established that in Latin characters they use the spelling "Lilin" with an "N", and apparently they were always saying "Lilin" (compare to how "Alucard" got slurred as "Arucard" to the point that they honestly thought "it's Dracura spelled backwards!") So the problem is that I think this new appearance, for the first time, of the word in print as "Lilin" in Rebuild of Eva 1, establishes that it was always meant to be "Lilin" and the original English sub just got it wrong. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied there in more detail, but essentially the English usage takes priority over the japanese. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
the problem is that the original Japanese in the original series sort of slurs the line (Engrish) so it sounded like "Lilim" with an "M"...
They say "Lilin" ("ririn" in kana).
(and I'm not sure what Engrish has to do with it) Erigu (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The popularity of Anime in America

This article looks very much like someone's research paper. I'm just wondering if it should be sent to AFD, clean up, or merge/redirected to anime. --Farix (Talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving it alone for a week, to give people chance to dig some more info up. Given the current attitude of certain people outside the project, I believe it's in everyones best interest to do the legwork before going to AfD. No point adding fuel to the fire. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not a week, but a day or two. My own efforts so far can only provide the obvious: Page creator has only made one edit, and that was starting the page. I googled some random sentences, got nothing back, so I don't think it's copied from some random site. I certainly see no reason to believe it's anything other then OR Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I gave a review of the sources the article uses on the talk page. It doesn't look pretty. --Farix (Talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Totally WP:POV and OR. I'm putting it in to watch list. It can't be helped with globalize/USA tag and i'm a member of WP:WORLDVIEW.
If it can't find Some serious backing, i'm going to maul it. Geez at this rate, i can also write The popularity of Anime in Europe or The popularity of Anime in France or The popularity of Anime in Wales adding a High importance tag on them as icing on the cake. KrebMarkt 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and prod the article. I don't see any ground for those two inclusionists to complain about it. --Farix (Talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ewww....endorse prod and removed the two non-free images. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't noticed yet it, an IP removed the prod tags, so now it is an Afd process. KrebMarkt 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg Ayres

We need more eyes on Greg Ayres's article. There was a report from AFansView that he had been hospitalized, but the website is currently down and both Mania and ANN have pulled their versions of the story. That leaves any information about his current health unsourced. However, there have been repeated attempts to inserting unsourced information that is in clear violation of WP:BLP. --Farix (Talk) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving references

While we don't usually need to archive our references, sometimes it is a must do. In those case you should archive your references here Web Citation. I recommend it strongly for references to Japanese websites that delete often their archives or old stuff. A special mention is for Animate (curse them), anime radio show specific pages are removed after their broadcast ended making difficult to prove that the show existed, the dates of broadcast and titles & contents of the show episodes.KrebMarkt 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda cool. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Z American Soundtrack series

I've went and updated this article. Could someone please do a new assessment? Sarujo (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

you should really request an assesment here

WP:BK and criteria 1 (multiple reviews)

There is currently a discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#multiple review do not mean notability questioning the validity of the first criteria of WP:BK and proposing changes to remove reviews as a viable indicator of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not totally correct. He want us to provide continuously reviews & others proof of notability months and years after release to prove notability. That is dead game. Happy to have you for that slugfest ;) KrebMarkt 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...was trying to find a way to first he said one, now he seems to he having another. I also notified the Books and Novels projects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyblade Merges

It has been suggested that Beyblade (anime), Beyblade V-Force, and Beyblade G-Revolution be merged back to Beyblade. Views welcome at Talk:Beyblade#Merge. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Akane-chan Overdrive merge complaints

The AfD for Akane-chan Overdrive closed as merge to Mizuki Kawashita. Following the usual procedure for a book to author merge, User:TheFarix redirected Akane-chan Overdrive to the Kawashita article, and added the appropriate release info to the Kawashita article. However, User:Kintetsubuffalo, one of the only ones saying keep, disagrees that the article was merged and continues repasting the entire article to the Kawashita article including the infobox, image, plot, characters, etc,[1][2][3]. He's also complained to the admin and to DreamFocus (only other keeper) about the merge. Additional views at Talk:Mizuki Kawashita#The debate was closed on 06 February 2009 with a consensus to merge appreciated regarding how much of the Akane-chan article should be merged or if TheFarix's actions were the only merging needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A little more background. I initially merged Akane-chan Overdrive into Mizuki Kawashita on January 31, 2009, however User:Kintetsubuffalo undid the redirect part of the merge saying there must be a discussion,[4][5] and after a round of reverting back and fourth threatened to get admin action if I didn't send the article to AFD before merging.[6] To keep from further edit waring, I send it to AFD which resulted in merge. Since the redirect part was the only thing left to do, I reinstated the redirect. That's not to say that there isn't some information that could also have been copied over, but they don't include the infobox with image, the entire introduction, or the plot and character summaries. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay then: so merge the entire thing -- and then edit the result based on WP:UNDUE (which, technically, if you read WP:MERGE closely, is what you're supposed to do). Then it becomes a content dispute instead of a merge process dispute. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Then aren't our bases covered then? ;) Though I find that extra step especially silly and bureaucratic. --Farix (Talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Technically...didn't he already do that (no one said you had to save the whole thing merged first, then trim :-P ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, technically you do need to save it, then edit. This preserves the GFDL audit trail. (Which is also why you have to mention the source article you're copying from in the edit summary.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Quasirandom is lawful-evil :) Merge fully & wait for the rules of physic guidelines of wikipedia to bear effects as a viewer would have eventually request heavy editing because WP:UNDUE. KrebMarkt 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Either would help to have thoughts there too as now DreamFocus is wanting to throw in plot summaries for EVERY one of her works, oh an book covers to violate WP:NONFREE as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
He is also been forum shopping.[7][8]. --Farix (Talk) 10:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Notice its all my doing now? At least he finally realized I'm a she instead of a he :-P An admin has told him, repeatedly, to stop this mess, but *sigh* I'm trying to avoid responding to him but perhaps someone should remind him about Canvas/forum shopping guidelines. It looks like his canvassing is starting to work, as certain sets of extreme inclusionists are now doing the same, ignoring the on-going discussion.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

More fun fun...the merge was done, then reduced to a short plot summary, which has since been removed as multiple editors noted that it doesn't belong in a biography article. Dream Focus disagrees, and after various attempts at forum shopping didn't yield the results he wanted, a new discussion has started. So yet again...views on whether or not a plot summary of Akane belongs in Kawashita's biography article would be appreciated at Talk:Mizuki Kawashita#consensus on summaries -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think he's reached the point to where he is just WP:TROLLing. He continues to be disruptive even after his "position", for lack of a better word, is shot full of holes and rejected by a consensus of the other editors. He goes around forum shopping in order the find someone who agrees with him, even after he has been told to stop, and he's constantly following Collectonian around.
I'm not sure how much a report to WP:ANI or if a uRFC will yield anything as this is a complex case because Dream Focus is skirts close to many of the behavior and disruption polices without actually crossing the line. After all, contently making bad arguments isn't a reason for the administrators to do anything, and it can't be proven that he is deliberately making bad arguments just the frustrate other editors. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be so blunt, but that type of thinking is highly bureaucratic. We are not a bureaucracy, and there are no loopholes or gray areas (at least, there aren't supposed to be). Dream Focus is clearly behaving disruptively, even if he is not technically breaking any rules. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikias as external links

I had this put to me by someone cooperating with the tough task of merging the Ranma ½ characters (it's good to see not everyone who has heavily contributed to articles throws a hissy fit at procedure). The argument is to provide a link for people who want the excessive extra detail I am removing. I have no idea if wikia is a valid external link or not. It's not the end of the world if not as there are other sites to use, but in the interest of good faith and cooperation I thought I should ask. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The large majority of wikia's fail WP:EL, including pretty much every one for anime/manga series. This has been confirmed in multiple discussions at the EL talk page (and I think there are some in our archives as well). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As I suspected, we'll "make do" with just a less detailed RS site (my personal preference) Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Here some material to chew : WP:EL Archive 23 WP:EL Archive 21
First Hurdle : Wikia with COPYVIO = Fail
Second Hurdle : Wikia with too few stability and/or too few participants = Fail
Third Hurdle : Tie-Brake = Consensus among editors on the pertinence of the Wikia ext link proposed.
In the case of Anime/Manga wikias too many fail on COPYVIO KrebMarkt 19:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, Dream Focus is, one again, attempting to add the Gantz wiki link to Gantz, claiming that EL isn't valid after twisting a converstation at the EL talk page. Additional input at Talk:Gantz#The Gantz wiki link to, once again, weigh in on that link's inclusion would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If only we could post faceplam images.... Dream Focus would be getting about 3 a day from me on his talk page Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure

I'm working on cleaning up the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure related articles and plot summaries. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the series is limited to what I read from the first ten or so volumes of Viz Media's English edition of the third story arc and Jump Ultimate Stars.

There were several stand-alone articles for many non-notable supporting characters which I decided to merge into the articles for each arc (did we really needed an article on the Runaway Girl) and even then, most of the current articles are in need of serious copyediting. Especially the main JoJo, which gives little insight of the overall plot and publication history of the series, and Steel Ball Run. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alfred J. Kwak

Anyone care to comment on whether Alfred J. Kwak can be considered an anime series? It seems to have been produced by Japanese studios, but was based on a Dutch theater show. ANN has a page for it titled Ahiru no Quack. Thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, per our scope (emphasis is mine):

Animated or printed works produced for consumption outside of Japan that nevertheless draw on or are similar to Japanese media in terms of content or not fall under our scope.

じんない 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. However, the series was broadcast in Japan, and not just as a followup "well, we made it here, so we might as well air it" mercy broadcasting, as I understand. I doubt that the series was produced primarily for consumption in Japan, but it's looking like it was intended for Japanese consumption from the start. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. Obviously our scope needs clarrification, but it is my opinion that if the primary audiance was intended for overseas market that was not a heavily anime-influenced one, such some of the Saiyuki sequels, then i'd say no.じんない 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing voice actors

Since the first FLC of characters, we have been using ANN to cite every voice actor mentioned in the article. This tends to give every article more than 10 kb with voice actors refs (imagine the Dragon Ball characters who have had several English voice actors). Could there be a better way to source va without expanding too much the length of the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree...I haven't put voice actor sources in TMM and its already loaded with enough sources to cause some loading issues. To be honest...I don't get why an explicit source is needed there at all, since really, the media itself should be the source. Same as film and TV articles don't need credits on the actor names because its in the credits. Otherwise, I'd say cite the first episode their name appears in the credits in (or they appear in), which would compact it some, perhaps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't these articles used named references? It would drastically reduce the size because you'd be using a very short code to recall the references. List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters for example uses well over 40 references from the seperate voice actor pages, when a simple named reference to the main FMA page on ANN (here) will achieve the pretty much the same result, but with a reduced size and tidier reference list. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You know...that is a good question...why are the voice actor pages being referenced individually instead of just one ref to the ANN. The voice actor pages just feed off those anyway so its the same data. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming inexperienced editors. I do know one thing, I won't be changing it as I've got far too much to do already, and that's without working on my GA attempt :P (and I'm just off to bed right now) Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If that were to be done, what would be preferable: reffing the ANN series page 40+ times or having a general reference preceding the {{reflist}}? ~SnapperTo 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Though it will be big, a named ref used 40+ times. Content wise, it would cover such a small amount of the content I don't think using it as a general ref can really apply. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So, from now on using a named ref is preferable? ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say yes, but maybe ask Sephiroth about it, since he kind of started it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A general ref is inappropriate, as it's citing a minor part of the entire list. Citing the individual actor page or the ANN page itself 40+ times doesn't really matter, although I admit I prefer using the former simply to avoid having to use one reference 40+ times. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What about using Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast since that was a model for the Naruto characters list?Tintor2 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
So?Tintor2 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No, as that section is there as part of the general conception/development. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:N drama latest episode

Here the latest episode of the WP:N drama Fold the GNG into WP:V
I pointed out that near every single Manga are referenced on Anime News Network and would pass WP:V just by putting a ref to ANN.
Unless i misinterpreted the implication for WP:Manga, it smells insanity :( --KrebMarkt 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because to me it sounds like an actual SENSIBLE stance! Snarfies (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ugh...they are just getting crazier and crazier over there! I can't even keep any of it in my watchlist, it explodes it and drowns out real edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea enough to fry my Friday night could not do any serious real editing at all :( --KrebMarkt 10:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable manga from notable authors

With certain editors stymieing recent attempts in merging/redirecting articles on non-notable manga from notable, or semi-notable authors, what course of action should the Wikiproject take? Should we start asking project members to avoid recommending "merge" in AFD discussions, or at the very least specify what content should be merged and what content shouldn't be merged if they make a merge recommendation?

This also brings up another consideration about what information should be included in a list of works. Of course we have WP:LOW#Books in languages other than English as a guidelines about what to include and how to format the content, but do we also want to include things such as magazines the manga was serialized in? And if so, how should that be incorporated into the list? --Farix (Talk) 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, for sending a book to its author, it should be made clear that it should be a redirect, or very specifically note what should be merged because of the complaints that it isn't a vlaid merge unless everything, infobox and all, is moved. For the second, I think we should follow WP:LOW. The author's article should note what magazine they are serialized in. If an author switches magazines a lot, maybe group by magazine? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Victoria's The Little Merboy

Does anyone know anything about Victoria's The Little Merboy? IP has been adding stuff about it to various articles today. I'm assuming it's vandalism and deleting all references because i can't find anything online about it. Tempest115 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) They've also used this IP Address

It seems to be a hoax to be as I can't find anything on it. Just some random mentions on voice actors, but no actual plot and stuff. It's often mentioned as Shaman King Victoria's The Little Merboy. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I should have looked at the contribs first. Seeing the plot summary the IP put on What a Wonderful World, I'd say the anime is definitely a hoax. It seems to be a crossover of major anime and there would be an announcement somewhere about it. Can't find any. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I spent about an hour reverting crap about this fake anime last night. No reliable sources confirm its existence, and I'm assuming its a joke because under Vic Mignogna he listed him as playing Edward Elric, and under Johnny Young Bosch he listed him as Ichigo Kurosaki. I think this is a clear case vandalism. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Akazukin Chacha episodes

I just created this article. If anyone wants to help filling in the episode summaries, feel free. I'll get to them as I can, but more people helping will make it go faster. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Darker than Black

Anybody know if the "Terminology" section should remain and if so, why? It was readded by an IP, and when I queried him/her, they responded on my talk page and I'm unsure how to respond. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A similar page existed for D.Gray-man, here is the AFD, which links to another AFD. Terminology pages tend to get deleted because they are usually perpetually in-universe and they tend to violate WP:NOT#PLOT. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Rather than being removed completely, the section can be converted from its current format to the excellent one in the featured article Madlax: Fictional setting of Madlax. I feel this is a very good benchmark to which other similar sections could be converted. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I never liked the idea of "Fictional setting of" and "World of" articles. They are doomed to a Start-class existence, a foul compromise. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If this is at all possible, that'd be great. As it is right now, an unsourced list of clearly excessive plot, I feel it should be removed. Thanks for your opinions. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the list of remunerations can be removed. It seems just plain unnecessary. Regressors and Remunerations can be merged into Contractors I guess. If its unknown it can be removed. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, these can easily be moved to the format shown in Madlax, since much of the section appears to be based around the "Hell's Gate" setting and pretty much everything seems to revolve around that. I can get to working on this section and converting it to the Madlax format. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Sections such as Terminology, Setting, Characters, etc. are all part of the in-universe coverage. The question is whether the section's contents is needed to understand the work to an encyclopedic extent or not. Especially for longer series, writing episode summaries for example becomes increasingly difficult without the ability to link certain terms and names. But Wikipedia is not a guidebook. "I came to wikipedia specifically looking for this information" is not a reason to keep the section. If linking to the section's elements is minimal, it might be better to merge it into the plot section or to outright remove it. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
While we're on this note, can someone deal with the ridiculously overused free-use images on the List of Darker than Black characters page? NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I think it can be removed as most of the terms as sufficiently explained in the plot and character sections. The few that aren't explain may need to be moved to plot. I'll take a look at the character list ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll attempt to remove images of some of the less important characters, but I can only determine that based on the info in the sections. I'll need help from someone who knows more about the series. (Posting on article's talk too). ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I know the series pretty well (in fact, I'm trying to write the episode summaries in my spare time). What do you need? I was under the impression that basically all of the images need to be removed aside from the image of the main characters. The rest are generally unimportant, unless a picture with more characters can be found. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there consistent main antagonist? If there is, I think the use for an image is justified. I'll get to removing the rest. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a main antagonist, but he doesn't appear as the main antagonist until the last episode. What you've done is probably good for now until someone who knows the series and is well-versed in non-free images can stop by. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the info. ^_^ ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Passed by that article. I'm rather satisfied on how the OST was handled (Good job) so i added its best chart ranks with a reference to Oricon.--KrebMarkt 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite episode TfD

{{Cite episode}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:Cite episode if you'd like to offer your views.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was reading over the previous TfD and was reminded of what is perhaps one of my best lines yet. Ah nostalgia. --Farix (Talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Alert: Anime Pulse

There appears to be a brewing edit war over at Anime Pulse regarding referencing and cleanup tags. --Farix (Talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Closet warfare. I proposed them to go to Afd discussion so it will bring the issue in the open as both are claiming righteousness. --KrebMarkt 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean. Don't these people have anything better to do? >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
We need some more people to get involved. One IP editor in particular seems to have some WP:OWNrship issues over the article. --Farix (Talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll lend my hand. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
A huge WP:COI red flag has just on up. The IP account that has been showing [WP:OWN]]rship tendencies is apparently connected to the podcast. --Farix (Talk) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Both belligerants have negatives scores in my opinon, between the WP:COI case and the Its Japanese so left to ja:wiki... --KrebMarkt 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
sigh... >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
One of them crossed the line. Personal attack + CIO. (Concurrent podcast).
Maybe this page will need to be locked. potential sore loser ? --KrebMarkt 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is back on track. There's some debate about whether the Podcasting Awards are well-known and independent and whether being nominated multiple times means the podcast is notable. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm going around in circles with Ichigo over whether the Podcast Awards fulfills Criterion #2 of WP:WEB. So more input is needed. --Farix (Talk) 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Style question

So where in Wikipedia's infinitely unindexed manual of style does it discuss what information is appropriate to include in a artist or writer article? Why, exactly, do we want to list only the bare-bones publication details for a mangaka, and not mention at least something about what the works are about? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as list of works go, you would be referring to WP:LOW, in particular WP:LOW#Books in languages other than English. As for why no include summaries for each work, let me turn the question around. Why include summaries when all other LOWs on non anime and manga bios don't include them? Why should anime and manga bios be an exception to general practice? --Farix (Talk) 01:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed...a biography isn't the place for plot summaries and the like, its about the person's life. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily plot summaries, but at least something describing the works, as the works are what they are notable for. I mean, an article on Hayao Miyazaki that didn't talk about the movies he's made would be grossly incomplete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
On Katsura Hoshino, I put talked about the reception of the work, but I guess that's the point. A lot of the manga artists I deal with have short bibliographies, so I forgo the list and write it in paragraph form. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
For particularly prolific authors, would a "Works of ..." or "Bibliography of ..." article be appropriate? (not that I'm asking of necessity, I'm just curious) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GirlFriends (manga)

After the GirlFriends (manga) AfD went off track, it was closed as "no consensus". It is now at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 13#GirlFriends (manga) for revisiting of the closure and a requested relisting to allow further comments. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Started Talk:Yuri_(genre)#Erika_Friedman_RS_Redux to discuss the on whatever Erika Friedman is a RS for manga & anime. KrebMarkt 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I was getting ready to do that -- following over there. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I also posted a notice in Portal_talk:LGBT. --KrebMarkt 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether Erika Friedman's blog is a reliable source should be taken over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead. That's because the discussion at Talk:Yuri (genre) will be an echo chamber --Farix (Talk) 21:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered : Erika Friedman RS for yuri ?
She is RS for yuri field. --KrebMarkt 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Should i put her on the Project references list with all precaution? It will avoid to have this discussion again and again --KrebMarkt 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, although you should make sure to note that she shouldn't be used to source anything controversial or BLP-related (to basically quote Peregrine Fisher word-for-word). On that topic, it may require more discussion in the future. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 06:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea, i asked the RS notice board to inquire about : Comics Village & Comic Book Bin so may have more confirmed RS before the end of the week ;) --KrebMarkt 06:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for that. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to ping the Comics WikiProject to see if they have a list of RS they use. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Better starting a now discussion section for our big RS sources overhaul brainstorming. --KrebMarkt 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode Listing Copyvios

Hello, all. I was recently made aware that taking episode summaries from the companies that publish them (i.e. the episode summaries found on websites, iTunes, and in TV guides) was a copyvio. I have made several of these articles myself (List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 2), List of Speed Grapher episodes) and I would like to confirm that this is in fact the case. While these technically are copyrighted, I would think that such episodes can be seen as fair-use, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'm bringing it up here. If these are in fact copyvios, we will need to CSD/AfD a high amount of lists and rework the way we view lists, and since these may be copyvios, resolving this is of the highest priority. Thanks for your consideration. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are WP:COPYVIO, and can not be used in any way here. I don't think there is really any need to do a large number of CSD/AfDs. From my own recent experiences with one list I found that used the summaries from the DVD, trying to CSD just gets a rejection and a note to just remove the copyvio summaries. Then new summaries written when people have time. I'm not sure it really is an issue of reworking the way we view lists, as it hasn't been a major issue here before (certainly not nearly as bad as it is at the TV project), beyond their usually getting added by IPs (and quickly reverted when spotted). It also is something almost all newer editors to episode lists do, so you've been initiated ;) Though maybe it would be good if the appropriate MoS' more clearly noted that episode summaries can not be copied from other sites nor taken from DVD/promo materials. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll work on replacing those summaries as soon as possible. I have those episodes on hand (but I haven't gotten the time to write those summaries yet). Thanks for the quick response. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No prob :) If it helps, when I do them, I find it easier to do the summary while watching (or right afterwards), then culling it down to the appropriate size after, rather than trying to write it to the right size from the get go. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I usually watch while writing. At least this will make me prepare these for FLC sooner than I expected. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Do remember that episode summaries should be concise—anywhere from 100 to 200 words but no more then 350 words for complex plot lines—and complete, including all important details. This may sometimes seem like opposing goals, but it just takes practice. --Farix (Talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, iirc, G.A.S told me that we should be running 150-300 words... I'm trying to stick to 200-300, but we'll see how it goes. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh. I've been following a note left by whoever did the assessment for List of Aria episodes and keeping it in the range of 150-200 words. Have I been squeezing too much, for those plottier episodes? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Possibly :) The exact guideline is "100-200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines", so between 200-300 seems good to me for most anime series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, Aria is not exactly known for complex storylines -- quite the reverse. But maybe I should aim for 200 but allow myself 250 if I'm hurting to get there. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What wrong with the anime portal ?

The feed for the FA, FA & biographies seems broken. I read that :

Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected series/1.0000000000000000
Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected biographies/1.0000000000000000
Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected lists/4.0000000000000000

It doesn't come from Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected article or the others two as no edit were made there in the last few months.
Any clue ? --KrebMarkt 09:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Related to a software update performed in the last few hours. More information can be found on the village pump. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 09:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Guessing that's the same reason Twinkle is being wonky? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes even Jimbo got concerned by that one ;) --KrebMarkt 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, see WT:TW/BUGS#TW-B-0255. BTW, do you have a link for Jimbo's concern, Kreb? Sounds like an interesting read... =) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Humm i in after though, i think i missread the post but still if you look closely in the Twinkle issues section, his talk inwiki appear out of the nowhere. --KrebMarkt 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Twinkle issues were resolved with rev:47457. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters‎

I'm having a problem at List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters‎ with an editor, Angas (talk · contribs), that keeps changing the location of one of the character, but refuses to participate in the discussion on the talk page. The editor mostly edits under a dynamic IP in the 122.2.x.x range. Most all of the contributions from this editor and IP range is to move the character around and add their own annalists. --Farix (Talk) 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In my short watch list, even it isn't my cup of tea --KrebMarkt 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RS sources overhaul brainstorming

Since the Erika's Friedman issue, i think some RS brainstorming is needed.

My input : Erika Friedman is RS BUT shouldn't be used to source anything controversial or BLP. That from the RS notice board.

I also put Comics Village & Comic Book Bin in the RS noticeboard for input.

Ok i got the RS stamp from the RS notice board for those two websites RS Approved --KrebMarkt 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At Quasirandom request The references pages of the project comics.

Another avenue is to check the parents TransWiki anime-manga project for RS. My first is prob is so-so. French Wiki have already listed the 2 big French manga/anime website as RS. The Italian is near-utter craps references wise but need another check. Japanese Anime/Manga project is too full of links and the language barrier doesn't help.

Please feel free to post your refs or discuss the posted ones. --KrebMarkt 14:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox images (again)

I've got an editor over at Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam 00 insisting that the image in the infobox be an English cover or title instead of the Japanese DVD cover. Comments are welcomed. --Farix (Talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And a sock has came out to play. --Farix (Talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm up against 3RR at this point - seems there is some insistance that this American comic use the animanga infoboxes, which I have addressed on both talk page and edit history - despite which I have now been given a warning that my "unexplained edits" may get me b&. Anyone else care to take a swat or three at this? (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and also tagged for notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the notability problem. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment. But the comic is constantly referred to as an OEL or a World Manga. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make it an actual manga per Wikipedia standards (nor the meaning of the word in American usage). Its an American comic tagged with a marketing catchphrase. If there are reliable sources for it, the article can note that it was "inspired by manga" but it isn't a real manga as far as Wikipedia goes, and it would fall under the auspicies (and infoboxes) of the Comics helm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That one was created right from our requested article list by Extremepro and it's doesn't even need one day to start flames. More seriously, we have stil few OELs in our requested articles list so i propose to refuse any further request for OLE and accept to create article for the fews which are already on the list and have received the probing check. What is ambiguous is that the publisher of OELsare the ones of manga so people tend to make their request in the manga/anime project. --KrebMarkt 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, those MICs need to come out of the list and maybe made more clear that they don't belong there. Not within the project scope and they aren't manga. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Found Juror 13 and Undertown. i may have missed one along the way. --KrebMarkt 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought about that the other day, but couldn't find a satisfactory place they should be listed, so didn't touch it. Maybe we should ask about it over at WT:COMICS... ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
At worst i suggest, we handle them ourself as the references hunting part have been mostly done BUT no more new OEL request. --KrebMarkt 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems that according to the cover, the correct title is Yōkaiden. I moved the page. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Extremepro solved our issue. He created the article for both OEL publication. I boldly took the opportunity to give him a Barnstar for his renewed work in our Requested Article Department. I also wrote something redirecting to the comics requests list for OEL.--KrebMarkt 07:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another reliable site I found this site while searching for episode dates. The published version is listed by Penn Library as one of their main research books for Japanese dramas, a lot of which cover anime.じんない 02:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, then I would say it would be a reliable source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
here - TV drama database - their collection policies detail that they only use "...current core materials of the highest academic quality..."じんない 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

False roles listed in the WP articles about seiyus

As of now, there's no official Japanese versions of Italian TV series Winx Club. However, someone is adding false roles on the articles about Japanese voice actors. Examples are: Ayako Kawasumi being a voice of Bloom [9], and Naoko Matsui being a voice of Layla [10].

We need some idea to fix the situation like this. And we need closer co-operations with all the editions of Wikipedia and other sites, to prevent false facts being spread over the web. -- JSH-alive talkcontmail 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from listing sources for eachrole (which we should be doing anyway), theres notmuch you can do to prevent it. It's no different to any article, remove and revert unverified data, and source everything else Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi All,

I'm looking for listings of Manga artists in Japan or elsewhere (particularly interested in the UK, China and Korea). Any suggestions? Thanks! --SidiLemine 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See List of manga artists. Note that the term "manga artist" refers specifically to those artists producing works in Japan commonly agreed to be manga (since, for various reasons, not all comics produced in Japan could be considered manga). Korean comics (manhwa), Chinese comics (manhua), and UK comics artists aren't covered in this list, and generally don't have much to do with manga anyways. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lost Universe character articles

P3DRO has created 3 stub articles for characters from Lost Universe with no new information added. I've tagged these for merging and notified him, but should I go and redirect them or give him some time? The articles are bare-bones and I doubt without some very serious effort that any information added would be enough to justify notability beyond the main article.じんない 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but this user is bellow the 50 contributions [11]. Giving it some time (not much thought) per WP:DONTBITE would show some courtesy even if the conclusion is near-forgone with the spin-out reverted and redirects added IMO. --KrebMarkt 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I tend to go the other way. Newer editor who doesn't know better, redirect them and leave him a note explaining notability, spinouts, etc and inviting him to start a discussion for a consensus if he feels those characters can meet the requirements of a new article per the applicable guidelines (with links of course) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Both can be done, wait a bit then shove him/her with a deluge of guidelines, policies & manual of styles :p --KrebMarkt 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I took the middle road. I put the merge templates and posted on the talk page that these articles would likely be redirected unless substantial efforts were made, but I am willing to give the newcomer some time. It won't hurt the long run to do so as I have the page on my watch list if the articles don't improve significantly after a reasonable period of time I'll redirect them.じんない 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Anime source

Over at Samurai X: Trust & Betrayal, a user has re-added the site "Anime Source" as a example of reception. I reverted the original addition of it because on the face of it, it appears to simply be yet another generic anime site. Setting aside that they haven't used a citation template and that they spent a dozen edits this morning on the same page working out anime-nfo is blacklisted, has anyone got any thoughts? Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its an unreliable source of fansub/pirate "reception" and blatantly violates WP:COPYRIGHT as it is a fansub site. I've left him a warning that explains why his actions were inappropriate. I also removed his message on the talk page pointing people to AnimeNFO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I need to get my eyes tested, I didn't see the copyvio before, but i can see it plain as day in the google search summary. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page after my revert, so I've explained the issue with the link and directed him here if he wishes to discuss it further Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the ANN link could be discussed, while we all know ANN is a reliable source, the link and point being made is still based on its user reviews, which we state are not RS Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ANN is a reliable source. ANN user reviews are not, only ANN staff reviews. That link wasn't appropriate -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, surprised it lasted that long, but then the page isn't exactly in great shape. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Very very true. It and Reflection were "kept" in a merge discussion awhile back because people said they were going to improve it to show notability. Since then, no one has done much with either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Here's a question. Why are we including "fan ratings"? I wouldn't think that fan ratings would be reliable, even if it is from a site such as ANN. My view is that on-line popularity polls have no credibility whatsoever. Surely this series has received plenty of creditable reviews to build a reception out of that we don't have to depend on polls. --Farix (Talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Its been removed. Agreed it didn't belong there, and was not a good thing to include (no better than IMDB ratings). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential reliable source?

I stumbled across this site from a seiyuu article here. It's a seiyuu database, but rather then being run by a random fan, it's run by a japanese baseball player! Hitoshi_Doi

The best thing is, the site is in english. Can someone more experienced then me decide if its possibly RS or not. I wish to use it in a few articles, so I'm throwing it out there. If not I'll settle for it being a valid External link if possible Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Doi is pretty damn reliable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope so, that site is a goldmine. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
From the information page: "Special care has been taken to verify the information, but there may be some mistakes." I would avoid using it for this reason. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 06:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Even the biggest RS sites make mistakes Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You asked for an opinion, right? If that opinion doesn't go the way you want it to, don't just shoot it down like that. WP:RS stipulates that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Unless you can prove that this site as a reputation for accuracy, it will not be considered a reliable source. As he admits himself, it is not entirely accurate and nowhere does it mention "fact-checking." Contributions from "LOTS of people" seems to imply that anybody can change the site, which automatically fails it from RS. Again, as the person who brought up the site, you need to prove its reliability, and I simply cannot see it right now. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 06:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
By no means was I shooting down the reply, quite the opposite - I was responding to a potential stumbling block! It was a fair comment, and that sort of disclaimer is common not only on web sites, but in printed media, adverts, all sorts - even if it's worded somewhat differently ("errors and omissions expected" usually in my part of the world).Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
While it might be popular and have some good information, it looks like its more of a personal/amateur site both from its appearance and because of the statement above. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't be the only one to remember a long heated discussion about whether or not Doi's site could be used as an RS? I think the consensus was that it's not because it's a fan site - though I'm inclined to disagree, mainly because I've seen a lot of OTHER sites cite Doi's over the years.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, here it is. I was wrong, it looks like in fact he IS in fact considered an RS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable with the usual limitation related to self published website IMO. Do we have consensus on that or shall we declare a re-match --KrebMarkt 13:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I for one endorse the previous consensus, absent any new information about potential unreliability. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Was not aware that there was a previous discussion on this. In that case, we should follow previous consensus; there has not been any new information published about this source that would deem it unreliable. Sorry for my confusion. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 17:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem ;) We all want to avoid that kind of issue to appear during the worst circumstance namely during Afd like it did with Girl Friends. So better to resolve it here than during an Afd. I will modify the list of RS in the project page to reflect the recent additions and confirmation this weeks-end. Thanks --KrebMarkt 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
KrebMarkt, you should probably also add as per this discussion Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Hitoshi Doi's site is considered reliable by many, many places. It's been used as a resource for numerous periodical articles and books, he's been interviewed many times for articles and even a TV show or two. His site has been there since the beginning of the public internet, and has only grown since then. It's definitely a reliable source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
And thanks to the previous discussion that was linked and the replys since the link, I've already used it 4 times in a sandboxed article :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
When you're using him as a source, don't forget to link to his article in the citation - it helps to give context on him that could be useful to a reader. For example, in fujoshi, a citation links to Kotani Mari (a sci fi critic who wrote a tome on Evangelion), Tamaki Saitou (Japanese psychologist who developed the theory of hikkomori) and Takayuki Tatsumi (Japanese literary scholar). By following those links, you can see how their expertise is in the field and what people have said about them. --Malkinann (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm going to make a case, which I think is fairly compelling, for - a yaoi fansite. Aestheticism was a print magazine in '96 and became a web page in '97. Sequential Tart, in an article apparently written by one of the Aestheticism team, credits it with being one of the early yaoi fan pages. [12] Aestheticism seems to have been a translation hub. [13] It seems to have provided support for Yaoi-Con in its infancy [14] Matt Thorn recommends it on his links page, it's used as a reference in the slash fiction and yaoi entries from the Encyclopedia of Erotic Literature (which were by different people - the yaoi one was written by Mark McHarry), Mark McLelland (university lecturer) used it as a reference in his bonking paper, as has Dru Pagliassotti (university lecturer) just last year, Mark McHarry (independant scholar, working on a forthcoming book with Antonia Levi of Samurai from Outer Space and Dru Pagliassotti on yaoi) has used it and describes it as "Extensive yaoi information, resources, reviews", Veruska Sabucco, an Italian researcher, used their site and mailing list to compile information for her paper "Guided Fan Fiction: Western "Readings" of Japanese Homosexual-Themed Texts", which is available in a book. Basically, whenever you're talking about the 1990s in the English-language yaoi fandom, or you're wanting some kind of a potted definition of all these terms people keep throwing around, or you want to know "Why do girls like yaoi?" or stylistic conventions of the genre (eg. censorship styles), Aestheticism is being cited in the literature. --Malkinann (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support it as a reliable source, based on the information you provide above. Perhaps we should be creating a list of these reliable sources, in the same vein as WP:ANIME/M and WP:ANIME/R? Maybe add them to the latter in a website section? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Instead of just on the front page? I've been wondering about that. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, especially if the list becomes too large. The main page already has a lot of things on it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Can aestheticism be counted as a reliable source when it has translations of manga up on its site? They aren't scanlations (from the one I've seen), as they don't substitute any text into the actual art, but they use prose (Such as "Panel 1: Why are you doing this?"). However, it does contain selected images from the manga. Other than that, a list of reliable sources may be nice... WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as that kind of use would likely be covered under fair use. Just have a translation of something is fine as the translation is considered a separate work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

After two tries on the RS notice board Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/ Wikipedia:RS/N#cal.syoboi.jp_2nd_try, the RS board declined the request.

Can anyone give it a try and assess whatever it's RS ? There is around 8 FL using refs from this website. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 08:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability cannot be verified. It is not referenced by other sources and the info page about the site does not reveal much. While the site is not user-editable (as far as I can tell), reliability does not exist because it is unclear if the site is peer-reviewed or put together by an expert group of people. Safest best is to avoid it (although I have yet to see it be wrong with airdates and titles). NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree on that. We really need to secure for the anime project a RS for original broadcasts dates as it will come to haunt us again with each anime FL review. --KrebMarkt 21:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I can look up date ranges in a few books I have, but finding actual listings of all the dates is a problem. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I created an account there, though that just allows me to change my settings (which channels are visible, etc.) and doesn't allow me to edit the information. I'd say it would be a useful source as long as you can find another source for the information for verification (such as a magazine listing, for instance). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Ok At least can used as a lead to the related TV channels programs page.

Weeks programs can be hot linked by adding ?week_data_id=week_id (see code source for list week id) to the URL. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Class A. What Again !

For reference our last discussion about Class A Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 33#A-Class, for real

Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment started a Rfc about Class A Wikipedia talk:ASSESS#Request for Comment regarding A-Class assessments
Resulting an Irc meeting : Meeting summary MeetingLog
And now things have been taken to WT:CWG and the brainstorming continues in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group

Our project will mostly not be affected as to quote Malkinann :
Part of the problem with A-class is that the content is meant to be "complete" - the people most likely to be able to assess that in terms of the manga and anime project's articles are the ones who are already working on the articles and seeking the assessment.
--KrebMarkt 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One result of that IRC discussion was an agreement that A-Class should be separate from GA/FA-class, as a WikiProject-specific assessment vs. community-wide assessments (according to the Signpost, at least - see the "IRC discussion on various A-Class proposals" summary). What will ultimately come of that conclusion, and how such results might be applied to the assessment system, remain to be seen. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Cough, i was one of the five participants of that Irc meeting :p --KrebMarkt 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Sorry, I didn't know that (haven't bothered to look at the actual discussion log)... I was merely stating the result for anyone else reading it. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant even within the group - for example, in New Cutey Honey's peer review, I was only able to provide stylistic tweak suggestions and some queries, because I haven't seen the show or done my own reading about Cutey Honey. I meant specifically the people who were working on the articles, not the project as a whole. --Malkinann (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it's true that those seeking the assessment probably are the best to judge it's completeness overall, but information on various media can be checked easily. However if it's comprehensive it would require someone with knowledge about the particular item which outside task-forces or the random person is unlikely to be anyone but the nominee knowing if it's pretty much complete. However since an A-assessment is project-based their is a higher-chance than asking someone at random on Wikipedia of getting someone who has watched/read/listened to it.じんない 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Games with anime

Been meaning to ask this, but kept forgetting. Where is the cutoff line for what denotes an anime/manga video game? The issue came up with Rune Factory 2 because it uses anime characters for all personal interactions, but it has been contested. The scope says "Nor do media, particularly video games, in which anime or manga characters make incidental or out-of-context appearances." so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "incidental" usage. Furthermore RF2 also has a manga series based around it as well to help muddy the waters more.じんない 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that, unless a visual novel, it isn't covered under our scope. They are made in the same style, but remember: it's only interactions, nothing else, and it wasn't based on a manga/anime series. If we went by anime cutscenes, we'd get a boatload of new pages as well. Several video games use this style, such as Star Ocean: First Departure and Jeanne d'Arc (video game). Whether or not it has a manga series based on it is irrelevant; I remember a discussion or statement somewhere that we don't cover pages with small sections explaining manga/anime. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it's a bit different than a cutscene as the style is somewhat designed around anime-style and unlike a cutscene it's an interactive non-passive element central to the game (you can skip most custscnes or ignore them in most games, but you can't get around the character interactions and the dating sim aspect of the game. It may still not quite qualify as not enough, but it's not the same use as a cutscene usage in terms of "incidental".じんない 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As the person who originally disputed that RF2 was within our scope, I still feel that it's not, but have already stated I wouldn't fight over it. =) As I understand our scope, we only cover video games when they are either adaptations of an existing manga/anime franchise, or when they spawn a significant animanga franchise; one that requires more than a couple paragraphs' coverage. IMHO, the specific style of the game in question doesn't really have anything to do with it. However, this particular area is rather hazy, and others may not agree with me. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Cite comic}}?

I've noticed that the project seems to be leaning toward manga artist articles using {{Infobox comics creator}} and cover images using {{Non-free comic}}. Would this line of thinking extend to using {{Cite comic}}? I mean, manga have more in common with comics than books in general. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see the advantage over cite book for the project. For starters cite comic requiresthe full publication date, something not always available for manga (in my experience, we have to reply on Amazon providing it, which isn't always an option. Tokyopop for example, only give the month and year). The only field I can see being any use is the volume field, but tbh theres no reasn not to list the volume numbe in the title field of cite book Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Panel could be useful too. However the required date rather than issue or month/year would be a showstopper for a lot of manga.じんない 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, a lot of examples on the documentation use month/year, like here. The (w, p, i) is slightly annoying though. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
To me, {{cite book}} does just fine and per above better suited for our needs in most cases. --Farix (Talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually as the only thing I can see being useful not already in cite book is panel, it would be easier to see about adding that to cite book in the rare case that citing a specific panel was important.じんない 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that's what caught my attention. The panel thing. Can story arcs be implemented using cite book? I have no idea about that one. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I would bring this up at {{Cite book}} as it seems that for manga that template is still preferable. I can't see why they would refuse it with a reasonable argument of how it could help for graphic novels considering they already have tons of specialized use variables already.じんない 03:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary, nor really appropriate as most "arcs" are fan divisions not supported by the actual manga volumes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Arcs, no panels yes. Graphic novels are often covered by cite book and citing a specific panel can be useful, like citing a specific page statement.じんない 06:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I just can't see any usefulness in attempting to cite a panel at all, particularly the way manga panels tend to be laid out. Citing a page is specific enough, without citing a specific "sentence" or "word" which is what citing the panel is equivalent to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I can think of several reason. Articles where you are quoting text from a text-heavy manga such as Death Note is one good example. Another one is when you are citing something that is printed in small text or the picture may not be apparant to the causal reader, such as citing the usages of xxxHolic's prolific mentioning of obscure anime/manga/pop-culture references.じんない 09:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC)I never use {{Non-free comic}} for any images and I do not think that it should be used for manga covers unless the image really is a cover from its original serialization (extremely rare). I usually replace any instance I see with {{Non-free book cover}} as that is a more accurate indicator of what the work is. I would also strongly oppose the use of cite comic, as it just does not work well for manga at all. {{Cite book}} is far better suited to the media, particularly as almost all citing is done from English volumes, not the original Japanese magazine runs, which are just not the same as a comic at all in format, media type, etc. I think the whole panel specification is just getting excessively specific (and rarely actually useful) would be like trying to cite a single sentence...heck, just use the "quote" parameter at that point if such specificity is really needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I got the {{Non-free comic}} from a browse of some of the featured chapter lists. Pretty weak argument on my part, if I should say so. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Video Games based off Manga

A bit off topic : Can anyone tell if a video game adaptation of a Manga is an evidence of notability strong enough to pass WP:BK#3. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase WP:BK#3 for you: "The manga has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable piece of art." -- I would certainly consider video games to be a form of art. And if the game is a direct adaptation of the manga then that would certainly be a significant contribution. The key word is "notable piece". If the game itself is notable, then the answer is yes. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that will give me more avenue to assert notability --KrebMarkt 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Evidently, Tanoshimi has ceased acquiring new licenses or releasing new manga volumes, although they have stated that they intend to continue reprinting those volumes they've already released.[15] Can anyone find any press releases or other reliable sources talking about this? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 04:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. That's exactly what ADV Manga said they were doing, when they went on hiatus at the start of 2008. They in fact never reprinted anything and without announcement released the license to their far-and-away best-selling series (per BookScan, half of what they sold in 2007 was Yotsuba&!). Not a good sign for Tanoshimi, even if they're a Random House imprint with deepish pockets. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
ADV as a whole has been a bit of a joke for a few years, despite being one of the key publishers of the late 90s/early 2000s. They even closed their Uk office, with ADV in the states blaming piracy for the decision (ignoring the fact they had no decent titles being released in the uk at the time, and Manga Entertainment UK had completely revived themselves by having..... decent titles!) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, Tanoshimi seems to have been completely out of it for some time... The latest release according to their catalog was June 5, 2008 (and the last news entry on their website is dated September 16, 2007). In addition, the pages for some of their earliest releases seem to have all but vanished - Tsubasa 1, for instance. The link I provided in my original comment just happens to be the first mention of what's happened that I've been able to find. And I'd really like to be able to read more of Y&!, I really like it... ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not encouraging signs for Tanoshimi, those. I'm not finding much newswise though -- sorry. Yen Press has picked up Y&! -- next volume in September.Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole thing is rather disappointing, and actually somewhat surprising, considering some of the titles they were releasing, combined with the fact that they're the UK equivalent of Del Rey, which is pure awesomeness in and of itself IMHO... That'd be great, but I haven't even read volume 5 yet... =( ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested article on Anime Tencho

An anonymous editor just added a request for an article on Anime Tencho, with the following description: "a character who has appeared in several comedy anime, most notable Lucky Star. However, he is an official mascot of the Animate store, and has had his own manga and a short anime produced by Gainax, and thus has some amount of notability." It sounds interesting, but a (very cursory) search on my part isn't turning up muchmore than fansubs and passing mentions. Any thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the Japanese name? That possibly could find more sources as I doubt it is in English in Japan.じんない 09:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any kanji, but an on-wiki search suggests that the Lucky Star character Meito Anizawa is Anime Tenchō... ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wanted (manga) redirect discussion

A discussion has been started to determine if Wanted should be redirected to author Matsuri Hino's article for failing WP:BK. Discussion can be found here: Talk:Wanted (manga)#Merge. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensed in Germany Pirat gesucht! von Matsuri Hino, Carlsen Manga
Licensed in Germany Italy Wanted di Hino Matsuri, J POP
I'm sorry that publishers outside outside English speaking area exist. To go further those non-English licensor are noted in the manga ANN profile so fact checking could have been easy. By adding those evidences of notability with those already presented: licensed in US and Australia + 2 RS reviews, merge should be precluded. --KrebMarkt 07:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's gotten notice in German as well (see the talk page). Looks multiply reviewed enough for me to oppose a merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(As a general thing, I've coming to the conclusion that we should discourage PRODs of manga series articles and only merge titles after posting to a central noticeboard. Manga are international, and we need more eyes looking for sources before assuming there aren't any, just because they aren't in English.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry all, but being licensed WAS rejected as a BK criteria, so they really do not indicate notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't give it more meaning than it should. We ended that discussion that in the case of Manga: Being published in multiple foreign languages is a strong evidence a notability You are giving the interpretation that being published in various foreign language = Nothing = Craps. For reference: Wikipedia_talk:BK#Translations_.3D_Notability. And i'm using the right word Evidences of notability --KrebMarkt 15:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As KrebMarkt says, licensing does indeed indicate notability -- it doesn't prove it to the letter of WP:BK, but it means more care is needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Page two & three of Google search results : Pop Culture Shock short Review Mania Review Comics Village Review that should settle not enough of RS reviews issue --KrebMarkt 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could copy to the article itself...related to below, I don't think it does the article nor its potential editors much good if all the sources are here instead of there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Done thanks for remembering me. --KrebMarkt 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaborating on finding notability

Pulling out a comment made above, and elaborating: Given that more and more manga are not only being licensed in Europe but reviewed in those languages, I'd like to personally urge WikiProject members to not PROD or propose merging manga series articles without first posting notice to a central noticeboard (such as here), so that more eyes can look for evidence of notability in languages other than English. Stub series articles generally are generally not on many watchlists, so simply tagging one often doesn't result in much collaboration in the necessary searches.

Manga is international, as are reliable-source notices -- and we can't assume there aren't any, just because there aren't in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but really it needs a dedicated project page. I'm not convinced it would be workable on the generic project talk Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Something like an International Notability Workgroup, you're thinking? Hmm -- I'm not sure that'll be watched enough. Could be wrong. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd support some sort of Notability Workgroup, it could probably work quite well with WP:ANIME/REQUEST, and would be quite useful for whatever series article an editor happens to be working on at any given time. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see the difference nor the need. Merge proposals should generally be announced here anyway unless its likely to be totally uncontroversial, and if there is all this evidence of notability, having it recorded in the article's talk page is the best place for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Recording the evidence on the article talk page is best, yes -- if anyone knows there's an immediate need to go look for it. I also suspect (though I cannot prove) that most merge proposals aren't raised here -- you're the only one who does so regularly. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not on the article itself, as a case of further reading? This has benefit to the reader in that it gives them somewhere to go, and it shows Wikipedians that there has been coverage of the topic. --Malkinann (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign languages and notability. Last take

Ok, it's seems that this discussion Wikipedia_talk:BK#Translations_.3D_Notability in WP:BK ended with everyone having its home made, personal conclusion.

So, i want a clear consensus on this matter. (Being the one who concluded the previous discussion and passed for an idiot in the process)

  1. Being published in multiples non-Japanese languages isn't sufficient to give alone a free pass for Notability.
  2. Being published in multiples non-Japanese languages is however a strong evidence of notability and should be added with others evidences to pass the Notability check.

Feel free to read the previous discussion log and give your interpretation on how ended that discussion. I may be an annoying barking dog but i want this settled down one way or another with no way to diverge in the interpretation either in inclusion or non-inclusion side.
Thanks you for spending time with my latest tantrum. --KrebMarkt 15:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously from above, I disagree on this conclusion. It seems very clear to me that the idea that the number of translations = notability was completely rejected. Some felt that because they cost money, any translated title "must" be notable, while others said it might "indicate" notability, but neither idea was accepted by consensus as being accurate nor something that should be included in WP:BK. At best, for our project, knowing that there are translations might open avenues for other languages to search for sources for, but should not cited as an inclusion guideline nor a reason to keep an otherwise unnotable title that has few to no reviews. In other words, at best, multiple translations might indicate the need to do broader searching for sources, but that's all. It isn't even a "strong" evidence of notability, just another avenue to explore, the same as sales figures were rejected as a notability criteria, but considered something one might explore to find real notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately those who point out the existence of foreign language publishers are also the one who explore the most those new avenue. Those who don't give a damn to it are the ones free of the burden and duty to explore those new avenue for proof of notability (Good faith doesn't exist) and also the most eager to have the thing folded quickly. All of this mixed we end up, in my personal case like facing a prosecutor. That say a lot on the mutual respect between editors. --KrebMarkt 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, if you can't read foreign languages, its pretty hard to go around exploring that avenue. Online translators are only so useful (and usually suck), and can't tell you if a site is reliable or not, particularly with niche areas where there will a lot of specialized words. The only reason I can even use Japanese sources for stuff is because dates are generally still written in roman numerals and some serious guess work in trying to decode the output of a translator. I don't think its an issue of a lack of respect on either side (at least I'd hope not), but it is reality. The bulk of editors are English speakers and most are unlikely to be able to read/research in foreign languages, particularly beyond the ones regularly taught in public schools (i.e. Spanish, French, etc). Why do almost all of our articles lack Japanese reviews? Lack of existence or lack of Japanese readers with the time to go find and translate them for others? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if i was a bit too strong with my words. I just have the unease feeling that i'm a lawyer trying to save Saddam from being hanged. More seriously i agree with your points but left some opening for foreign languages stuff which could give some interesting inputs (France is 3rd Manga market for information).
PS: Collectonian, you are a gutsy and great editor but awfully difficult to deviate or to stop once you set your objective. A 10 tons hammer won't do with you ;) --KrebMarkt 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I just don't want to see us leaving ourselves open to anymore criticism that we "disregard" notability guidelines and make up new ones to benefit our "pet" articles (something thrown at us in some recent notability discussions). And LOL, often times, yeah...though I do try to see both sides and will bend when convinced (unless I'm just in a bad mood, then I just get obstinate for obstinates sake and usually get away from the comp for awhile :P ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent> Foreign languages should not be used as the primary argument in most discussion but should rather be used as tie breaker during those discussion. With our concerted effort, i think that a bunch of manga without English publisher are kept and will be, so people won't called us evils non-English haters. The point is that those articles are rather difficult to develop quality & verifiability wise. Translating reviews in English can be daunting. --KrebMarkt 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that number of licensors is an indicator of potential notability - the same as I feel for sales figures, popularity, and series length. However, I'll also be the first to agree that these factors in and of themselves do not establish notability, it still requires more. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's true as notable mangika often have a lot of series not all of which might be notable by Wikipedia standards.じんない 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

For an example - Zetsuai 1989 was one of the most famous series in English yaoi fandom in 1995, but it was never licensed in English, so there are few reviews, and it doesn't look notable at first glance. The Russian article is quite something, though. --Malkinann (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga overhaul proposal

There is a proposal to overhaul {{Infobox animanga}} at Template talk:Infobox animanga#Template consolidation that hasn't gotten much participation. Anyone care to go have a look and comment on it? (you'll want to make sure you've got a bit of time; the collapsed text is pretty lengthy) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall I think it's good, but I'm not sure Drama should be merged in with the others as it's a different medium.じんない 00:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, my own proposal isn't so extreme as TheFarix's; he's proposing a merge of all video components (anime, drama, OVA, and film) into one. I'm not too familiar with dramas (never work with them), so I'm not really the best person to ask if it would be appropriate to merge the drama component in with the other video components. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I would oppose merging the video game info because offhand I am working on one right now that would be seriously hurt by that as the video game and anime are very dissimilar, and I know that there are others like it. The main thing with dramas is that I believe most are live-action which isn't applicable with anime or animation. Either that or we combine them and make a new one for everything live-action related (which there are also a few movies like that: Death Note FE.じんない 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh? I never mentioned a merge involving the video game component, and I would be completely opposed to a merge of it and the anime component. As for the live-action bit of dramas, that can be handled simply by |live-action=yes, which I believe the anime component already supports. --Dinoguy1000 as (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Films do, but not the rest.じんない 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are getting that {{Infobox animanga/Game}} will merged in all of that. It was never mentioned other then being "left alone". However, the purpose of the consolidation is to merge components with almost the same fields, thus reducing duplication and the number of templates to maintain. There are currently 9 components excluding the header and footer. The end result will be reducing that number to 5. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some numbers and ranking

Because i'm lazy, i'm dropping here some RS references links up to you to exploit them.
2008 Top 50 Manga, Oricon
2008 Top 10 Manga series, Oricon
2008 Most Interesting Manga, Oricon
2008 Top 25 Manga License, ICV2

Those numbers are all reprized in Comipress 2008 batch of results
I have more to write that will be for later. --KrebMarkt 15:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Highly appreciated. Thanks! -- Goodraise (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Some interesting disjoints between sales and interest there -- both Nodame Cantabile and Nana (manga) are rated higher than they sell, in Japan. Hmmm. Also, I'm interested to see the second and third North American series are both shoujo. And to see an OEM on the list. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That one 2ch Jump Log Warehouse isn't RS but the sources used there are near-all RS, ranging from news communiques to Shonen Jump Ad scans. Careful reading required thought as the numbers are declared in tens-thousands books sold. --KrebMarkt 17:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anime peer review

A peer review has been opened for Anime at Wikipedia:Peer review/Anime/archive1. Please comment on the review so that we can finally bring the article up to featured article status. --Farix (Talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Mars

Battle of Mars was prodded. I deprodded it because I think it should be merged into First Robotech War. (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was prodded and there doesn't seem to be major resistance (which i don't see), you could just be bold and merge it yourself.じんない 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Both articles — along with Battle of Saturn's Rings, Second Robotech War, and Third Robotech War — should be deleted as they are major violations of WP:NOT#PLOT policy. None of the articles has any third-party references from reliable sources. And while I haven't looked at the articles that closely for original research, seeing a section titled Aftermath throws up red flags. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on this. None of those articles should even exist. In addition to violating WP:N and [{WP:PLOT]], they violate WP:WAF - fictional wars being treated like real ones?? Ugh...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Support merging into a more appropriate location. I like plot summaries, to be honest, but those Robotech ones go too far. And this comes from someone who likes the Gundam articles. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Members of WP:MILHIST would be shocked ;) --KrebMarkt 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, once the Robotech wars have real world consequences, I'd support having articles on them. :P Hail Khyron! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated this articles for deletion : First Robotech War, Battle of Saturn's Rings, Battle of Mars, Second Robotech War, Third Robotech War and iam not sure if this article Robotech Wars needs to be deleted too?. It is timeline. Is it needed?.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting third opinions: List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters

I need some 3Os here about whether describing the actions of one character as murder is a neutral point of view or not. --Farix (Talk) 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Graphic novel list more than one release?

How are you supposed to deal with {{Graphic novel list}} if you want to have more than one date and ISBN in the right-hand side? (ie. original Japanese, but also covering the German and French editions, as in Zetsuai 1989, a series which has never been licensed in English.) I feel that when a series is not licensed in English, covering licensing details of other languages is helpful, as the stories could be followed, if one was especially keen, by purchasing the French edition and then spending some quality time with MediaDico. --Malkinann (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just add the information like in List_of_Aria_chapters#Aqua. Use <br/> tag to go to next line.
Cough, i'm French what so kind of assistance do you need ? --KrebMarkt 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Given that it seems to be out of print in France, I kind of doubt there are any reviews floating about on the web, but thank you for your advice on the ISBN issue and offer of assistance. :) --Malkinann (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't, IMHO. Only the original and English releases should be detailed in the graphic novel tables, even if it hasn't been licensed in English. Only the original releases should be detailed. People from non-English areas can look at their own Wikipedia's or other sources to find individual release details. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd rather keep the info for now... - the Spanish edition seems to still be in print, and when I try to make a single-language {{Graphic novel list}} the template breaks on me. :( --Malkinann (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You have to make sure to add OneLanguage=Yes to all of the individiaul listings as well as the header. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Is that hidden somewhere on the Graphic novel list template documentation page? --Malkinann (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Its listed in the paramater list and in the "Three-column view" example, though I think it could be made clearer. Only reason I remember now is having messed up several lists before catching on LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've put a note in the documentation at the bottom about the onelanguage parameter with a real list example. --Malkinann (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to delete a mass series of images on Commons

See Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan. If successful, this can set a precedent that will result in deletion of all cosplay images from Wikimedia projects.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Articles involving Robotech and it series has loads of serious issues such has failing Notability guidelines. Yesterday i have merged some of the characters to List of Robotech characters and today the User:Hyperionsteel has reverted all the changes if this keeps going the only thing that is needed is to AFD them so a proper consensus be reached. Also there is several more articles that need consensus. Such has:

Optera, Tirol, Reflex Point, SDF-1 Macross, SDF-2 Megaroad-01, SDF-3 Pioneer, SDF-4 Izumo, Garfish class cruiser, Tristar-class cruiser, Veritech fighter, VF-1 Valkyrie, VFA-6 Alpha, VFB-9 Beta, VF-8 Logan, Rick Hunter, Lisa Hayes, Breetai, Exedore, Claudia Grant, Max Sterling, Miriya Parina Sterling, Macross operators, Dana Sterling, Scott Bernard, Ariel, T. R. Edwards, Haydonites, Invid, Robotech Elders, Robotech Masters, Maia Sterling • Zentradi, Zor Prime, First Robotech War, Battle of Saturn's Rings, Battle of Mars, Second Robotech War, Third Robotech War.

Suggested proposal is Deletion and Merging. All of this article fails notability and does not deserve to have own articles.

Articles to be merged List of Robotech characters:-.

Articles to be deleted:-

Not sure what to do with this: Some of them can be merged to Universe of Robotech.

What are your opinions?. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Robotech vehicles might be okay. The wars should be merged (and significantly cut) into the main article. The battles redirected to the relevent section with possible minimal information added. Keep for now Rick Hunter, Lisa Hayes and SDF-1 Macross as they are central elements of a well-known series. Merge Optera and Invid (Robotech) into 1 section under Universe of Robotech. Redirect Reflex Point to that section. The other races I'm not sure of their promience offhand. Either merge or delete. They should not remain seperate.じんない 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Articles should remain separate

I strongly disagree. There are too many characters to be merged and most of their articles are too long. Putting them all in one article will make it too lengthy and impracticable. They should remain separate. I've reverted the changes (twice now) because I feel strongly about this. I would appreciate more discussion before taking such an far-reaching course of action. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Find enough verifable real-world information on them. Right now they all violate What Wikipedia is not. I am willing to admit that the 2 protagonists and the main ship might be able to be kept, especially the ship, on sheer recognition value.じんない 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
They are sourced from the Robotech Novels, the official website, and from the Robtoech television series. The characters are notable because Robotech is one of the earliest and most successful presentation of Japanese animation to western audiences. Robotech is extremely popular and deserves prominent mentions in wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
Notability isn't inherited in the way you seem to think; fictional elements must all establish notability themselves (such things as episode, chapter, and character lists are largely exempt because they are understood to be split-out subsections of the main article, which should already be demonstrating notability). First, the novels, official website, and television series can not be used to establish notability, since they're all primary sources. Second, popularity doesn't equal notability (although it indicates the potential for notability - but it's not a sure thing). And third, your original argument, that merging all of these articles would result in one article that's way too long, is an incredibly tired and overused, and inherently flawed, argument, that stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly merging entails. When an article (a character article in this case) gets merged to another article (a character list), not all the content gets merged - original research and unsourced material get cut, as well as excessive plot summary. I'd be very surprised if any of those articles you're wanting kept separate would ultimately require more than two or three succinct paragraphs after they were properly merged and sourced. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 04:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether they stay or not depends largely on if they have received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Sourcing everything to first-party sources, such as the novels, the TV series, and the official website, isn't enough as it doesn't establish the characters' notability. Looking at a few, they all violate WP:NOT#PLOT for containing an excessive amount of plot details with little to no real-world relevance or context. The descriptions need to be severely trimmed if not entirely rewritten to make them concise. I can understand that you feel protective over these articles because of all of the work that has been put into them. Perhaps transwiki these to a Robotech Wiki before merging/deleting the article here on Wikipedia would be a viable solution. --Farix (Talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Early in my Wikipedia career, I edited quite a few of these articles and even started a couple of them. As you can imagine, seeing them (and all the time and energy that went into them) merged or outright deleted would make me pretty sad. However that said, as a relatively impartial administrator on this site, I recognize that the vast majority of these articles fail -as independent, stand-alone articles- to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Even using the "easier" notability criteria in the proposed WP:FICT notability guideline ("An element of fiction may satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article if it is central to understanding an important work of fiction and is the subject of significant real-world coverage from reliable sources."), I doubt that even a quarter of these articles could be saved. Long time editors of Wikipedia will immediately recognize this issue as one of reasons why in-universe wikis like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia got their start (those not familiar can get the gist of it by reading the first paragraph or two of Wookieepedia#History). --Kralizec! (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

These articles have remained separate for a long period of time without all of the controversy. Considerable work has been put into them. And again, merging all of them into one article - which would be of considerable length - would make such an article too long and complex to be viable. These articles do not contain controversial or sensitive information. I hardly think that keeping the articles in their current form is as big a cataclysm as it is being depicted. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
Also, there are plenty of articles shorter than these on wikipedia that haven't raised so many objections.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)_
As I explained above, the resulting length of the list is a false argument. These articles have not been touched before simply because no one has taken the time and expended the energy to attempt a cleanup. And we are not making a "cataclysm" out of this; on the contrary, everyone here understands that we're not working under a deadline and there is no need to rush. That being said, if you ask for a certain amount of time to attempt to save these articles, and no significant improvement is made in that time, merges may proceed posthaste. Ultimately, more than anything, we'd like for you to cooperate in this cleanup, since it's quite evident that you're close to the series and thus probably know better than most of us what information is necessary for an overview of each character. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


It's clear I'm alone in opposing this, so I won't fight against the inevitable. I've put a lot of work into many of these articles so I'm a little upset that you want to either delete or minimize them. I'd like to try and reach a compromise.

The two Lynn Minmay articles should be merged into each other. They are after all the same character in essentially parallel universes. Given that Super Dimension Fortress Macross is the primary work, the character page should reflect that, with a section on her Robotech differences (where appropriate). The same for Lisa Hayes (you can make Lisa Hayes a redirect to the other article). While I think it's a good idea to leave the major characters until the other pages have been merged, they still need to prove their notability at some point. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As suggested, we could start with the ones you're willing to concede should be merged while you work on finding real-world info on the others, with the exception of Lynn Minmay above. 1 article is enough for a character.じんない 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the following articles being merged: (Lazlo Zand, Emil Lang, Nova Satori, Anatole Leonard).

With regard to Lynn Minmay and Lisa Hayes, I don't think merging the Robotech and Macross articles is a good idea. Robotech and Macross are not parallel universes. The English Robotech is a completely separate story arc from Macross. Also, Lisa Hayes in particular remains a notable character beyond the first Robotech Saga, none of which has a parallel in Super Dimension Fortress Macross.

My past experience is that mixing Macross and Robotech articles is too confusing and complicated due to the different story lines, characters, translations, and events outside of the 36 original episodes.

For more minor characters (such as the Macross operators, this does work, but not with characters with long and complicated histories.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I think the VF-1 Valkyrie article can be salvaged, since it has third party sources that can be put into the article, because it was a popular toy, with mentions in toy magazines. As for the other vehicles, they can be merged into the list of vehicles. A Robotech universe article sounds like a good idea. I think that Zentraedi and Invid should remain separate articles, since they are main features of this fictional universe. Robotech Wars should also merge into the universe article. (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

-Possible third party sources, should anyone have the print issues -- Protoculture Addicts and Mecha Press (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd post that question on some other relevant wikiprojects.じんない 09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you know which issues of the magazines have Macross/Robotech information? If so, you could ask the individuals associated with the issues on the magazine reference library. Some of the general books on the book reference library might also have information. (*cough*Anime Explosion*cough*) --Malkinann (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone posted about this on the wikicomic project - having looked at some of the articles, I'd suggest you get merging/transwiking pretty quickly before people like me start AFDing the articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here know about the sources (probably hundreds of independant RSs) that are available in Japanese? Is that a consideration? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 11:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Robotech is an American phenomenon, with recut/heavily edited/changed stories, so most of the Japanese sources on Macross, Southern Cross and Mospaeda do not count. (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Though for VF-1 Valkyrie, that's a joint Robotech-Macross article, so Japanese sources are fine for that one. (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Though for SDF-2 Megaroad-01, that's a joint Robotech-Macross article, so Japanese sources are fine for that one. (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Is an eligible target for transwiki? The articles before we start merging things together, as-is, might be transwikied there. (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it can be added there and it can be added at wikia projects such has this [16] and this [17] --SkyWalker (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


I have merged this following articles for failing WP:Notability and WP:Fiction guidelines Lazlo Zand, Emil Lang, Nova Satori, Anatole Leonard, Dolza, Lynn Minmay, Marcus Rush and Maia Sterling

The articles which have not been merged yet are :- Breetai, Exedore, Claudia Grant, Max Sterling, Miriya Parina Sterling, Macross operators, Dana Sterling, Scott Bernard, Ariel (Robotech), T. R. Edwards, Robotech Elders and Zor Prime

More discussion is needed. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Claudia Grant, the Macross Operators, and Zor Prime could be merged. However, the other characters are more central to the Robotech plot and the series as a whole (which spans 3 generations). They should not be merged.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

If the characters have not received significant coverage by third-party sources, then they must be merged, deleted, or transwikied. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If it can help to estabilish notability, Scott Bernard and Ariel (Robotech) were the testimonials of the spot produced by Harmony Gold for the United Nations 60th anniversary (see Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles web site with the video in english and spanish [18]), but i don't see mention of this in their articles. --Yoggysot (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reassess stub class

Stub class prevents an article from becoming a DYK. Could you reassess Viper's Creed to a Start class? Many DYK articles that are shorter and less developed than this article are not rated as a stub class on the talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To ask for a reassessment, the Project's Assessment department is the place to go. :D ~Itzjustdrama C ? 01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It is imo a stub class, however it is close to being start. The reason it is still a stub class is it does not really have a reception/impact section nor related media section/music section. If this is a series, then there are undoubtably multiple forms of media. The sections don't have to be significant (that's for higher grades), but the lack of either shows that it is still a stub.じんない 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Not always. Looking at the Japanese Wikipedia page and the official website, there's no mention of other media, and besides music is almost always merged into the episode lists now, so it's not applicable. That said, I also see this article as a stub, as it's lacking many sections detailed at WP:MOS-AM including characters and reception. Normally, I wouldn't bring up the subject of reception for an article to be assessed Start (as not even C class articles always have reception) though in this case (per the utter lack of other media types) I feel the article would need the additional information. However, it also has extensive referencing for such a tiny article, so this may be an exception. Either way, it's been reassessed as Start now, I see, so good luck with the DYK.-- 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It does have extensive referencing for it's size, I'll agree.じんない 04:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation assistance pls?

Could someone with nihongo skillz assist with the names and titles listed in High School Debut#Light novels? I'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gah, that's a hard one. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
tan³ (TangentCube) has done it Again ;) --KrebMarkt 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
At least the romaji -- still need a couple titles translated. But yes, thanks to the 3-dimensional one for the assist. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Searching the archives

I've added a search field in the archive box to allow searching of just the archives of this page. Enjoy! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another RS question

How does The Anime Critic measure up? --Masamage 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that would pretty clearly be a complete failure of RS. Its a personal, self-published website by, basically, a nobody. Pete Harcoff designed the THEM Anime website, but wasn't a contributer, so no borderline notability from there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty then! XD Thanks. --Masamage 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

List of GA seiyū's

Can someone provide me with a list of GA or B-class seiyū's? I'm trying to get Mamoru Miyano's article (which was a mess up until yesterday) up to a GA status but I have nothing to base it on. So if a list can be provided it'll be a great help. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They should all be listed here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks, I don't know why I didn't look their first. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we even have one? I know we have two B-class biographies, but neither is a seiyū. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I checked the GA link. It's just anime characters. Oh, well I'll just build it up to the best I can and hope it passes a GA nomination in the future. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia in general seems to have a lack of quality voice actor articles. Focus now on referencing, but it may do you well to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Many video games have voice actors, and the article structure between a voice actor for cartoons and one for video games would be nearly identical, if not so. WP TV covers cartoons and WP Comics can overlap with comics such as Batman and Superman, which were all made into animated series. Good luck! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You may also try focusing on the really well known ones outside of Japan as they will be more likely to have references you can use: Megumi Hayashibara, Sumi Shimamoto, Kappei Yamaguchi, and Kikuko Inoue are four which come to mind immediately, and all of them have a decent start on the articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting picks there, the 3 leads from Ranma ½, and the female lead from Maison Ikkoku? A Rumiko Takahashi fan Nihonjoe? :p I agree though Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really a Ranma fan, but I love Maison Ikkoku. I was mainly trying to pick a few that were very well known in the English-speaking world. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested, we have the Biography Workgroup. There's only four members right now so we're kind of limited in what we can do. We have a Seiyu stub category but as far as I know we don't have any developed Seiyu articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll join. Maybe Miyano will became the first seiyū. That would be such an accomplishment. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear you there. I'm trying to get Katsura Hoshino to be the first manga artist. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters update

The mergers have been slow, but going well. Sourcing has improved on the character list tremendously, though there is a lot that could be done. Still, I'm battling lots of insertions of original research and of excessive plot details and I can use some help here. I could also use some help with the growing charges that I'm not actually cleaning up the articles but "merely destroy [sic] other Wikipedians' hard work". --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to my watch list. I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the series, but it's pretty easy to tell when information should or should not be added. As for the accusations, they can either come to my talk page or start a discussion if they feel that my edits (or others edits) are "destroying their work." WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not the list that is the target of most of the OR/excessive plot insertions, it's the 21 remaining character articles. Many of them grow by a paragraph or two a week. --Farix (Talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I'll add them as well; they're soon to be merged, correct? So, it's mainly protecting them from becoming congested until they can be merged. A cleaner article is much more easy to merge. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nagatachō Strawberry -> Mayu Sakai

A discussion has been started at Talk:Mayu Sakai#Nagatachō Strawberry merge to determine whether Nagatachō Strawberry should be redirected to its author's article as it fails WP:BK. It was already redirected, however DreamFocus (as usual) reverted it. The article survived an AfD in January, but on the basis of only two comments both of which were based on the now non-existent notability criteria that was also rejected in WP:BK discussions. So additional views on whether it should be redirected/merged appreciated at the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ANN reviews reliability?

If the ANN encyclopedia section is regarded as unreliable, how about the reviews section of ANN? I believe that if their news section is regarded as reliable, so too should be their reviews. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga." From the project page. I don't believe there's anyone arguing against the ANN reviews, and there's certainly no reason to, either. The concern is solely about the encyclopedia, because of the user-editing.kuwabaratheman (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's not a user review of course. We had an issue over that recently Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there an easy way of telling a user review (unreliable) apart from an official ANN review (reliable)? --Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
ANN hosts user reviews? I know that they have user ratings (unreliable) and some fans post reviews on the forums, but that's about the extent of it. Every formal review I've seen in the review section has been by a staff member. You can also find other reviews in the "Shelf Life" (Bamboo Dong), "RIGHT TURN ONLY!!" (Carlo Santos), and "Buried Treasure" (Justin Sevakis). You may also find reviews and analysts in columns like "Hey Answerman!" (Justin Sevakis, Zac Bertschy), "The Click" (Brian Hanson), and "Chicks on Anime" (Bamboo Dong and friends). --Farix (Talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I seem to have confused the two. Now i think about it, the issue was regarding user scores. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Manga: The Complete Guide

I came across a mention of the book Manga: The Complete Guide, and I realised I had enough reviews and interviews on it to make a notability-passing article on it, plus there was a red link, and we all know that Wiki abhors a vacuum. ;) However, now it needs attention from someone who's actually read the book, or better yet, owns a copy. Thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do later -- got it from the library when it first came out and only raided it for info from series articles I was interested in at the time, but I've at least opened the covers. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if we knew the names and qualifications of the other contributors to MTCG, it would be a really big help. --Malkinann (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I now have this book. What exactly is needed? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow! :D A sentence on how Thompson describes his collaborators' role(s) in MTCG, and a list of who they are, (with, if possible, a short description of their quals.) would be really great! :D --Malkinann (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I need the page(s) of the entry on Yotsuba&!, if you happen to have the time. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags in the Infobox

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Flags in the Infobox regarding the use of flags in the infobox. Views appreciated. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Change to infobox categorization behavior

Earlier today, I removed the image check in {{Infobox animanga character}} that automatically categorizes the article to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga if it lacked an image. Instead, I added the check to {{Infobox animanga/Header}} instead. I did this for two reason. First, most character article are of non-notable characters which should be merged. It's simply a waste of time to sort though the chaff to find the wheat. This point was previously discussed in an earlier discussion. Second, we generally want the main articles to contain an illustration, whether it be the cover of the first volume, film poster, publicity image, or whatever. Rarely do we need to merge articles at this level. It is also much easier to obtain these images and create non-free use rationals for them. Hopefully, this change will make the category easier to maintain. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are now over 1,400 articles lacking an image. Some of those articles will likely fail WP:NOTE, WP:BK, WP:V and WP:NOR. But if anyone wants to work on finding and including Book and DVD covers for these articles, go knock yourself out. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear, dear. When I have idle time, I'll see what I can do. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source check

Before I head off and start nominating some article in the Hentai category, I like to know the status of two websites for reviews. First, Animetric ( is referred to as both a self-published website and "reliable source", but I'm not seeing any discussion about it. Are there any examples where its reviews were quoted in more mainstream publication, as the description on the project page states? The best I can find is that they were quoted in a handful of ADV press releases in '04 and '05.

Second is Hentai Neko (, which also appears to be a self-published website. However, I can't find anything about the contributors of the website to tell for sure. It's connected somehow with Otaku Fringe (, which judging from its "about" page is not a reliable source because reviews are user submitted. --Farix (Talk) 11:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how "Animetric" can be considered a reliable source. Its a self-published site by a single person who doesn't seem to have any industry connections nor notability within the field on their own (i.e. not an expert). I'd also be inclined to fail "Hentai Neko". Reviews are all user submitted, and while supposedly "Reviewed" by the editors of the site, but there are no real details about those editors and from the submission guidelines, it doesn't seem like the reviews are required to be quality, from experts, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That about sums up my views. Though there is one thing is that I'm sure that I sure will come up during an AfD. That is some editors will point out that these are the only two websites that regularly review hentai anime and manga, therefore they should be considered experts. --Farix (Talk) 23:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...people will probably try that arguments, but that still doesn't make them experts. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed Animetric from the list give the current discussion. --Farix (Talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
None of the 3 websites is RS. Fell free to Prod & Afd those which don't have enough RS third party coverage (many of them IMO). Unfortunately i won't help much in that issue as i am negatively biased on Hentai Anime/Manga and unsure of my objectivity. --KrebMarkt 08:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've already nominated the first one. However, right now, it is just me and Dream Focus, and we already know what Dream Focus's position is. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Animetric I proved as a RS being published for it's opinions by other reliable sources. A quick check of ANN comes up with 2 of them and I had a couple more from more exhaustive google search.
As for whether they deserve an article...that's debatable. However they do meet the qualifications for WP:SPS.じんない 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the 2 press releases were already cited i'll skip those. Here are 2 more though: animefridge, Rightstuf (major distributor and English licensor) Connections with the industry is a plus, but it is not a requirement to be considered an expert. If others who are reliable for their opinions per WP standards consider you an your opinions valid, reguardless of your connections you are considered by WP standards an expert.じんない 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think having a sentence quoted in a press release qualifies one as an expert. The AnimeFrienge website only provides a brief descriptions of various anime websites, including several copyvio sites, but they didn't republish anything from Animetric (a requirement for self-published websites). And finally the Right Stuf link doesn't show anything connected with Animetric. In fact, I did a Google search of their entire domain and came up with zilch. You're coming up empty here. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Weird...i swear I found it on rightstuf yesterday... Not even that long ago. I found them shortly before posting...じんない 14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Character list changes

An new user has boldly reworked List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. I was probably too wordy in comments on the editor's talk page, but I thought the previous organization (by faction) would be easier to source, while the current organization would be much harder to source. Either way, please comment about the changes and which version you feel is better. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs more work, but overall, its a good start. Now just need to merge those character articles into the list. --Farix (Talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Farix. He did just fine (and he really isn't that new of an editor, been active in the project for quite awhile now and has been editing as a whole since 06) and appropriately reformatted the list in an out-of-universe fashion. I'd guess he saw the current work along the same vein being done in one of the other Gund lists and wanted to help with the others, which I think is great. I don't really see how the organization affects the ability to source the content in any way? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Farix and Collectonian, the start of a proper cleanup (a rare thing, especially in character lists). Don't see an issue with difficulty in sourcing between the two, other then the obvious lack of current sourcing itself. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I too agree, granted it needs some work but it's off to a good start and should be worked on further. Deus257 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gundam SEED vs. Gundam Seed

The above discussion gives me an excuse to ask about something that's been bothering me for some time now: is there any particular reason the various Gundam SEED articles use that capitalization? Having read one (two?) of the Seed manga series, I can't see any reason for it to be completely capitalized (it's not an abbreviation or anything). Thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Per naming conventions, it would seem like it should be Seed? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If it's not an acronym, then it shouldn't be all capitalized. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall a scene in the original series where SEED was fully expanded, after the Archangel arrived at the Orb Union. But beyond that, I don't think it was ever explained. --Farix (Talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'll have to watch the series. I picked it up a while ago, but haven't gotten around to watching the whole thing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is an acronym [19] and thus should be capitalized. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, then. Case closed. It should be capitalized. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced myself, but then, I'm not sure what the guidelines say about acronyms that are explained exactly once (from what I can tell) and then promptly ignored... if they even cover this case, that is. Regardless, I'm fine with it staying capitalized, if that's what is decided. I mostly just wanted clarification that SEED was/was not an acronym. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if it is an acronym, it depends on what indenpendant reliable sources use most often. over at WP:VG we had the issue come up with Wild Arms/Wild ARMs. The former was kept with a mention in the main article that the latter is also sometimes used because more independant secondary sources used the former and I think a similar evaluation of the Gundam SEED/Seed usage is appropriate here.じんない 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The source is Bandai, one of the main producers of Gundam (along with Sunrise). If they are saying it's an acronym, it doesn't really matter what any other sources say. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NYT now has a manga bestseller list

Started this month, but I only just found out about it. A separate sublist of the New York Times "Graphic Books (sic) Bestseller List", that is. You might be able to guess who's dominating it: the week of 28 February, it was ALL Naruto except for two Dark Horse titles, and last week all Naruto except for a volume each of three other Viz titles. Something to keep an eye on, and possibly add to the reception sections of MPD-Psycho (which needs an article move), Eden, Bleach, The Gentlemen's Alliance Cross, and Black Cat. Oh, I suppose Naruto as well, if you think it important. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MPD-Psycho move done. The official U.S. title is MPD-Psycho, however, so I'm not entirely sure if this is proper. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 22:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point I think Naruto can just be summarized with: selling like crazy! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking like hotcakes myself... —Quasirandom (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (mmm, hotcakes)
I've been learning that Seravy makes excellent hotcakes. I think maybe I'll make them tomorrow for dinner. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Source Check

With ANN's encyclopedia no longer considered RS, I'm trying to find new sources for the Tokyo Mew Mew episode list air dates to salvage its future FL status :) In hunting around, I found one possible sources that appears to have all of the series airdates, but I can't tell for sure if it meets WP:RS due to the limitations of translators. has Takashi Murakami's name on it, which would seem to make it very likely to be RS. The top logo says "Anime Information Survey Office", but I can't find any kind of "about us link"so further views definitely needed. Help! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC) appears to be some kind of impressum, but the automatic translation is rather unhelpful. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
lol I find that Google translate is always rather unhelpful. It only helps when you translate two words at a time. It looks to be a list of likes though. Not far off the mark there. Food, drinks, music, movies, etc. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be reliable. It contains the same information I can get out of Newtype and Animage. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's hope it is. That page is a gold mine. However, correctness is at best an indication that it meets WP:RS. FLC and FAC reviewers won't be satisfied with that explanation. BTW, do Newtype and Animage contain complete sets of airdates? They are prime examples of reliable sources after all. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
They do as each month they list the upcoming shows for the next month, tell a little about them, and when they will air. They also contain extensive credit lists for the various shows. In fact, based on the way the information is presented on that site, it is very likely one or both of those magazines were used as sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Was thinking the same. It has airdates going back quite a ways! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've brought up the question of his producership at Talk:Takashi Murakami. I've also tried to find RS pages, or such that look reliable, that link to it. So far I've only found this: (example) -- Goodraise (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on plan for List of GetBackers characters

I devised a new organization scheme for List of GetBackers characters, I was wondering if someone who was familiar with the series or had experience with character lists could take a look at it. The plan is here. Also, is GetBackers the appropriate capitalization of that name? Shouldn't it be Getbackers? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this one should be Getbackers per the Wikipedia naming guides. I know that one is not an acronym. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not an acronym, but the official Japanese website lists it as GetBackers. [20] Edward321 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia naming conventions, that sort of stylization is dropped for our purposes (hence VIZ being Viz, and FUNimation being Funimation). So it looks like all of the GetBackers articles need moving and tweaking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability for Manga

I'm working on a new set of notability guidelines for manga series that should be slightly more lenient than the current WP:BK, which is extremely hard for manga to pass. I've noticed that very few manga pages that fail WP:BK are in fact nominated for deletion (series like Bitter Virgin). However, for series like Hunter × Hunter or xxxHolic, which do not currently pass a strict interpretation of WP:BK, notability needs to be declared. Please see User:NocturneNoir/Sandbox/Notability (manga) and perhaps comment on the talk page. At this time, this idea is very very sandboxy; I would like criticism and not an outright vote. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

HxH could probably pass the GNG due to the series being the first (and maybe still the only) series that weekly Japanese Shonen Jump has allowed the author to take breaks without canceling the series. xxxHolic should have some anime reviews and since the anime and manga differ so little it would still pass notability. The GNG is there for such series as well.じんない 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:N and WP:BK does the job just fine. There is no need to have a separate notability guideline just for manga/anime. Nor should we support ideas that were already rejected by WP:N and/or WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I really do not need to see any need for this, nor do I see this being passable as it is too niche. WP:BK and WP:N work perfectly well, which is why we recently argued and achieved consensus to have manga reincluded in WP:BK. The proposed additions have been soundly rejected by either WP:N and WP:BK and rightly so. The first and third are purely arbitrary numbers which are not appropriate in notability guidelines at all, and are based on irrelevant and meaningless criteria. The second is based on sales numbers which are not even used for mainstream novels nor any other media that I'm aware of, and should, of course, not be used for manga. Also disagree with #4 which is not by itself that indicative of notability. Notable manga series can and have very easily passed WP:BK with no problem. Both of the series you mentioned can also easily pass WP:N as they have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources which is the core of all notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I shall withdraw for now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would ask, though, if there is any reason we couldn't enumerate some rules of thumb that would help someone figure out what series might be worth the time spent trying to establish notability (e.g. length, popularity, number of licenses, adaptations...). As long as it's made completely clear that they themselves do not constitute notability criteria, I don't see any problem. Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 as (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems more like an in-project set of notes, which probably would be okay, but then again, what would the rules of thumb be and how would we make it clear that just because a series doesn't meet them doesn't mean it isn't notable? Pearl Pink, for example, is an article I came across today after seeing it for sale at BookCloseOuts 99 cent manga sale and was curious about. My first thought was: doesn't look notable. Only 4 volumes, unnotable author, only 1 license (even if English) and at first glance, no adaptations. But in quick checking before tagging it, I found four reviews for it, and that it was adapted into a drama CD. It still wouldn't meet most likely standard rules of thumb. I think really, the best rule should be, "go look for reliable sources" :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt look for RS yourself and don't just stop at the end of the first google page.じんない 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Discussions

If you have a moment and some interested, why not browse the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga list. There are nine articles currently up for AfD, and a few of those discussions discussions which are not generating enough comments so they are starting to have to be relisted. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been aiming to get to some of those AfDs. It's just that I've been busy in RL to do the checking up on the articles before making any comments supporting deletion, merging, or keeping. --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Already joined 4-5 bouts and two PRODs :p I will try to find some time for the others but Real Life first. --KrebMarkt 07:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)