Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 30 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 40

Coroners and Justice Bill

Hi. I've been made aware that the Coroners and Justice Bill that is currently passing through the UK Parliament affects comics in a way, because it legislates against possession of depictions of children performing pornographic images. This was raised at Talk:Watchmen, although I don't really think it affects Watchmen at all, it might be of more impact to your field. There's info here. Also, we were thinking we should probably tag Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors and Cartoon pornography as within the comics project scope, not sure if you think they might fall under your scope too. We kind of thought the more eyes on the issue, the less chance there is that one particular view takes precedence. This might be an area the two projects can tie up on, I'd imagine you may have more experience regarding the issues at hand here than we have at WP:COMICS. Hiding T 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that might be a good idea, as it would end up affecting some series. Strange that it was brought up at Watchmen--the only thing even close is a kid wandering into his mom's bedroom at night, but that has been displayed as a humorous incident in other cases (such as The Simpsons). I don't see why it should only affect Watchmen because it was a bit more graphic and much more serious. However, if the bill is made to cover even that, many more manga series will be affected. Thanks for the heads up! The bill might also spark some news from critics, etc, which could help in improving manga-related articles as well. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha needs help

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha could really use a lot of help. Its second and third series were split into separate articles, it had no media section to speak of (I just added a bare bones one), no reception, it had a hideous "media" list that was a ginormous track listing of every CD single marginally related to the series, and it is lacking in many sources. The episode list is marginally better, though it needs a lead rewrite and sources. The character list is in bad shape, with extreme in-universe writing, excessive non-free images, bad sourcing, and no lead. Also several unnotable characters have their own articles. I already sent this Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha terminology to AfD. *shaking head*

So...anyone want to adopt this series? No time myself to do much more than the quick drive-by fixes I just did and tag for issues (and never seen it so no real interest in it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Good Witch of the West also

Another one that could use more attention is The Good Witch of the West. I've done some quick and dirty clean up here, while going behind a well-meaning editor to fix their errors in trying to expand the media section. It has okay bones, but could use more real content, like a reception section. Also seems to be some confusion on what parts of it is and are not licensed (I know the manga is, just because I almost bought it yesterday). A potentially easier project as it has no splits at the moment, and few plot issues beyond being overly brief. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources: Anime Podcasts

Just getting some opinions about the reliability of a few podcasts.

  • Anime World Order ( by Daryl Surat, Clarissa Graffeo, and Gerald Rathkolb. All three contribute to Otaku USA since near the beginning of its publication. I'm not sure if this will allow the podcast to meet WP:SPS. Occasionally have interviews with industry personalities, but it is mostly anime reviews and regurgitation of industry news from ANN or Mania.
  • AnimeNation Anime News ( by AnimeNation. Another podcast by a retail website. Generally used for announcements about upcoming releases. May not be very useful in the long run, though the "Ask John" segments could be mined.
  • Podcast ( This is actually a video cast about convention related news. The only issue with this podcast is that it is still in its infancy (2 episodes) and I don't think it could pass the test at WP:SPS.

I don't know of any other industry podcast or podcast which could pass the test at WP:SPS. Any comments? --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been over 24h and there hasn't been any comments. Am I to take that no one has an opinion on the reliability of these podcasts? --Farix (Talk) 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The rightstuf one should be okay if it appears to be unbiased. The two produced by retailers are fine. It's just another medium like newspapers and television. Anime World Order should be fine for those who worked on Anime Otaku to cite as those are experts. Anyone else would require the cite in general or that person to be quoted.じんない 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, probably more like I stole all your comments by starting the below discussion (I was hoping to avoid that by subsectioning it, but...). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding these to the reference list. That list should be better organized by dividing it up based on type. I've also taken the liberty of adding in general. I'm surprised it was not already on the list. --Farix (Talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

List non-reliable sources?

Obviously, there's quite some benefit to listing sources we have found to be reliable, but what about those sources we have specifically reviewed and found to not be reliable? Is there any reason they shouldn't be listed in a separate section (those that were failed for being copyvio or fanslation sites shouldn't be linked to - or even named - but a blanket entry should take care of that)? It would be quite useful to be able to look up a certain website that you felt sure had been previously discussed, but you can't remember the verdict, can't find the archived discussion (or are too lazy to bother looking =D ), and can't tell by looking at it. Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 as (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be good...maybe a separate subpage discussion references in which we could move the list from the front of the page and expand it some (maybe direct links to the various publisher sites, notes on finding the publication dates on Tokyopop's cruddy site, etc) and have a section on non-reliable as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea a specific page for references with a section for non-reliable sources with an inwiki link to their RS statut discussion to be the most precise. --KrebMarkt 07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, ideally someone could make something like WP:VG/S. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:VG only lists sources as unreliable if they are/were commonly used. Other than IMDB I can't think of any that might fall into that category. ANN would be a situational source.じんない 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese help with Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms

Anyone who can read Japanese who's willing to help with Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms, the assistance would be appreciated. The talk page has a list of resources that need digesting and incorporating into the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweep FLs for ANN encyclopedia references

Same as the above, but for the Featured Lists -- which we expect to be more difficult and so might require more collaboration. (My, we've been busy with our listmaking.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Both D.Gray-man lists use the same ref, the one for credits (which is used twice on the episode list). You fix the chapter list and you solve half of the episode list. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the D.Gray-man episode list to use TV Tokyo's episode lists and staff page, but couldn't find anything explicitly linking Aniplex to music production; perhaps this is a matter for episode credits. —tan³ tx 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That's been a problem for while now. I'm more inclined to say Aniplex produces it or something. There's nothing to support music production, I've even checked a wayback for the TV Tokyo cite, which is cited as a source for the statement on ANN. They just seem to release the DVDs. I'll go check the credits once I find the time. The problem translates over to the chapter list, which I tried to clean. I'm going to change a citation to the staff list though. Much cleaner than what's there. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed Aniplex from the chapters thinking that Dentsu, who is listed as production, takes precedence over Aniplex, music. Didn't change the ref after all too. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately, I fixed TMM's chapter list with TMM above. Will be fixing Marmalade Boy chapters and Trinity Blood episodes shortly (both have two). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Marmalade Boy finally fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We should also remove/replace references & external link from anime FLs. At least 12 of them are concerned: Black Lagoon, Bleach (season 1), Bleach (season 2), Bleach (season 3), Claymore, Fate/stay night, Gunslinger Girl, Hitohira, Kaze no Stigma, Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2), Naruto (seasons 3–4) & Tsukihime, Lunar Legend.
  • Blue Drop official website is no more so we should go for archives see this FL discussion page for the archives refs. --KrebMarkt 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC) isn't RS? I thought it was...just used it recently on some other "pre-GA" stuff? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
There were one or two threads about it recently. It hasn't been found unreliable, but it hasn't been found reliable either. The burden of proof lies with the reference. So it can't be used. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have have miscounted the Naruto character list one. Point is, there's a lot. I think covering the seiyuu seems easy enough as we have two databases. But how about the English? ~Itzjustdrama C ? 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't the voice actors be referenced to the episodes themselves, or do the English DVDs have the credits removed? (I know some do, and some don't). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You can use {{cite video}} for most cases. Sometimes DVD credits don't list what role the English VAs worked on though. Also for cases where someone uses a pseudonym then you have to cite a RS prove that it is one.じんない 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have not been able to find RS for each of the English airdates on List of Trinity Blood episodes. Unfortunately Razer's site is DOA now that its been renamed. I suspect this one will end up being one to be delisted. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You moved two airdates up per the Click articles, but since those are in the "Repeats" section, shouldn't they be reverted? —tan³ tx 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought I fixed those. Some of the Click's had first, then some had the next day repeats. If I screwed up some, feel free to revert. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


I split the resources into different subcategories as the list was getting quite long and unweildy as just a list. I still think we should model a sources page after the VG Project's Sources page though, which includes some information on retailers and the like, though obviously some of the information is not needed for this project.じんない 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New subpage: Online reliable sources

I moved the reference section on the main project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources so it could more easily expand without making the main page too huge. I've added it to the project navbox, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I was thinking of suggesting that. But I didn't. I am bad. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I figured it fit in with the other three pages. ^_^ ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Moved the link to the top navbox.じんない 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It was already in the navbox. I had the link where it was as people are used to the list being there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the subsection and added a short sentence to the top of the help and resources section instead for those people.じんない 04:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Who are "those people"? I have no idea what you're talking about. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"People used to the list being there".じんない 05:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Aha. That works. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweep GAs and FAs for ANN references

I've been wanting to just go through the articles and clean them up, though it could be a rather difficult task to take on by myself. Obviously, it would only be for the encyclopedia articles and other user-submitted information. Sometimes finding references can be difficult, but collaboration will make it a bit easier. Also, it may be a good chance to fix any references that are not reliable or aren't in the proper format.

Below is a list of articles (manga, anime, video games/visual novels, characters, and related articles) to go through. If you go through an article, or have already done so, just cross it off the list. Lists were not included, just because they are going to be particularly difficult and many of them may end up being demoted...

I'd really appreciate the help. I'm not especially familiar with many of these series/games, and overall it's a pretty large task to take on by myself. Not to mention some articles have been more or less been "abandoned" for a year or more. The standards are different now, so a few of them should either be demoted or drastically improved. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the coordination. I'll take on Yotsuba&! and Azumanga Daioh, since I was involved in their GACs. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yotsuba&! is now clear, but List of Yotsuba&! chapters will be next to impossible, given ADV's wiped their website of manga offerings. *headdesk* —Quasirandom (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Did the webarchive get them before it was cleared? If not, what about reviews, AoD's list, ANN's release area (which while it is under the "encyclopedia" URL, does not appear to be user edited), or, last resort, Barnes and Noble or's sites? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
@Quasirandom Deeeuhh. Did we discussed this issue Talk:Yotsuba&!#ADV_Website_dead that leaves only vol. 5 to source, you can either use Amazon or the ANN vol. 5 profile + its ANN review. --KrebMarkt 06:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the Webarchive only caught the main ADV page for the series, not the pages for individual volumes which actually have the pub dates. I've gone ahead and used the ANN release pages (per discussion below that we're still considering those reliable). And along the way finally found the (moved-after-merger) Japanese publisher pages. So that list is solid again. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump checked (figured they didn't have any). Working on trying, desperately, to fix Tokyo Mew Mew which has 1-2, but specifically for the serialization month/years. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Giant Robo and Pikachu are clear (though the latter has some other problems with referencing). I'll search around and see what I can find for Tokyo Mew Mew. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Tokyo Mew Mew done. Thank you Miss Ikumi! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Naruto: Clash of Ninja and Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series) are clear. Took on those because I didn't think there'd be an ANN. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Kanon's single ref didn't cite anything anyway. Air (visual novel) fixed. Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. has none. Replaced one ref in Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 03:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Further, neither Planetarian, Tomoyo After, nor Little Busters! have ANN refs.-- 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just realized I was looking for but is okay. Man. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Not to create more problems for people, but I don't trust ANN's release list in the slightest. I've found it to be wrong before (one of the Ah! My Goddess iirc) and would far prefer an Amazon or similar ref. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found Amazon to be wrong, too, at least as often as I've found ANN to be wrong for release dates. I think all this furor over ANN is somewhat overblown. Yes, their information is occasionally wrong, but it is reviewed and corrected when something is found to be wrong. It's certainly much easier to get something corrected than on IMDB. For the most part (probably 95% or higher), I've found their encyclopedic information to be correct. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Second Nihonjoe on Amazon being wrong at times as well, not just on manga either. I'd think either is okay for a "last resort" since the individual release pages on ANN are not user edited anymore than Amazon is. For the ANN encyclopedia, I've never actually seen any sign that they review anything submitted, as I have submitted quite a few things and ever time it appeared immediately. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
True that. I've done that myself. I suppose they do review the error reports though. Those reports just sit there doing mostly nothing. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 04:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Did replacement of films refs in the Naruto GA characters and in Himura Kenshin and Sagara Sanosuke.Tintor2 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Popotan and Belldandy ones have been replaced.じんない 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I need some assistance with Azumanga Daioh: I've found several references to support the statement that the anime was created as five-minute segments that were compiled into half-hour episodes, but what's needed is a reference that the five-minute segments were broadcast on successive weeknights, which were compiled for rebroadcast on the weekend. Can anyone find a Japanese reference for this? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can look for one, but that source might take some time. For the moment you might consider adding the {{verify credibility}} template after the citation so no one re-adds that site if you remove it and just add a {{fact}} template.じんない 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that the right template to use? I mean, we already know the ANN encyclopedia is officially not credible/reliable. And thanks for searching -- I'll keep looking in English, but I've run through most of the Usual Suspects. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WebCite and reference links orginziation

I'm trying to figure out how to best incorporate WebCite ( into the list of links. Unlike the other links, WebCite is a way to archive webpages that we know changes frequently or temporarily.

On a related note, it the list is starting to get big and it's time to further organize the list by types of references. Perhaps along the lines of "news", "reviews", and "misc." I'm not sure how to deal with double listings, such as ANN and --Farix (Talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree for a misc section. We should add that one ( that formats and converts ISBN refs on the fly.--KrebMarkt 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Done for both --KrebMarkt 08:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing the ANN encyclopedia

Notified: Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Previous discussions: "Anime News Network" and "ANN's encyclopedia - RS?"

In response to this edit: During several recent FLCs, user Rambo's Revenge has asked for links to the ANN encyclopedia to be replaced. Confusion seems to have stemmed from the wording on the project page, as it says that the encyclopedia is "not reliable by Wikipedia standards". That is not surprising. The source is either reliable or it is not. We can't just cherry pick what kind of information in our experience is reliable, which in effect only means that it's usually true. When I first removed that particular passage, I wasn't aware of the previous discussions. I took "it is the experience of this WikiProject" to mean that previous FLCs using it passed and that the recent events at named FLCs were part of the ever increasing quality requirements of the featured process. Since nobody objected to the delcaration of the encyclopedia part as non-RS and since I never knew why it should be considered that, I removed that passage.

Is the ANN encyclopedia and everything in it reliable or not? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The ANN encyclopedia is often referred to as 'user editable', but a test i made a few weeks ago suggest that its user submittable, but should have evidence provided to back it up. It my test, any changes had to be approved by a ANN team member, and were not directly editable by users. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I never edited the ANN encyclopedia, so I wouldn't know. The project page passage in question calls it "user-edited". Therefore that's what I assumed it was. I guess that's what Rambo's Revenge did as well. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I do not like the wording on the project page. It does actually say "the encyclopedia portion (...) is not reliable by Wikipedia standards", however because the Project declares some parts "generally reliable" (e.g. for air dates, producers etc.), I think some editors seem to the think that makes it reliable when covering that information. As Goodraise says I have been objecting in recent FLCs to the use of the encyclopedia section as a source. I have found mistakes in what areas are supposedly "generally reliable", and cannot see how anything in a user contributed section can be deemed reliable. My view is that it may be a good reference guide (like the unreliable IMDb for example) but everything needs confirming with other sources – the wording Projects wording "try to confirm these" suggests it is not required. I consider the encyclopedia section of ANN not to be reliable for anything. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem with ANN is that is does have a lot of inaccurate information. For example, the entire Free Collars Kingdom release date page in inaccurate. The official series pages have the correct dates. I've encountered the same problem with Space Successor Nadesico and especially Tactics, where I'm eventually going to re-reference everything (episode titles are incorrect as well). ANN is good for news articles and reviews, but the encyclopedia part of it appears to messy. I rather just not use it anymore, and have the currrent FA/FL/FAs changed to coincide with that. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that a lot of the time, ANN is the only place to get the information, especially for older shows. Setting aside the ease of always going there for research, it often becomes the defacto reference purely because it's part of a known reliable site. It's very useful when something is well known, but still lacks a "reliable" source. Obviously, thats not a reason to keep using them, but it's the reason they are used to begin with. With Love Hina I'm lucky to have pretty much all of the official printed reference materials, but on other articles, either the printed material isn't available, or simply no one has it. Really, my concern is what to do with B+ articles. Either we need to remove/replace the references, but where alternate sources don't exist do we have leeway or must we demote the article? Or do we just stick to GA/FA nominations in the future? Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That I am unsure of. We're lucky in that the GA/FAs we have now are all newer or popular series, and most information is available. Visual novels and video games, for the most part, do not depend on ANN except for small sections relating to anime/manga. For the future, I think it's best we stay away from those sources, but for current GAs (etc) it would be a task of just cleaning them up and seeing what we have left, then take action depending on the outcome. And, of course, it also depends on what one is looking for. Proof of release dates and publishers can be found on the publisher's site or in the book itself. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it does have its uses - as a general proving the work exists reference, it probably belongs on every stub - but it would always need corroboration before promoting that stub to a good article. Doceirias (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the encyclopedia section being used in an External links section. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Using it as an external link is fine, in my opinion. IMDb is used as an external link as well, though it isn't reliable. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so we seem to agree it is not reliable. Shall we re-instate Goodraise's comment or a modification of it? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
ANN is a good place to start out and so should be left as a resource to check, but probably should not be cited. If it won't pass an FA/FLC and it's already questionable as a RS, there is no reason to have it as a citable source. However, it can still be a good place for those less informed about the anime to start looking about it if they want to expand an article.じんない 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So, this would also mean replacing voice actors refs, but with what ref?Tintor2 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
VA refs can often be cited from the credits or liner notes. Even older anime still have credits.じんない 16:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Or The Seiyuu Database Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Except, of course, that it has been used to pass very recent FA/FLCs, and if we have now decided it is completely unusable, then those will have to be demoted or FAR/FLRed because they no longer meet the requirements for having that classification. Also, let's be clear, this is purely about ANN's encyclopedia section and NOT ANN as a whole, which is reliable.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
With most articles, we have other ways of finding release information and such. It wouldn't be too hard to just go around and fix up only those references, and they wouldn't need to be demoted right away. Sailor Moon has problems, but because people are actively working to improve it, it stays. I'd be willing to help remove citations to the encyclopedia-part of ANN, and help find replacements. Also, shouln't Amazon also be removed as a reliable source for release dates and such? I've encountered incorrect data there, some of their items are bootlegs, and I believe they do something along the lines of user-submitted information. I do remember it was one of the reasons Warriors (novel series) was delisted as a GA (here: Talk:Warriors (novel series)/Archive 10#GA Reassessment). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, for "most" articles there are not any other places with release information, which is why ANN was a usable last resort. Sailor Moon is a big exception on older series because its overwhelming popularity. Most other series do not have that luxury, so yes, most owuld have to be demoted fairly quickly since there are no other sources. Most that are using them used them because it was a valid last resort. And no, I do not think Amazon should be removed as reliable source for release dates. It should continue to be a "last resort" source as it always has been. Just because it is occasionally wrong, does not make it invalid. Removing it would require going through the RS Noticeboard as it is used in far more articles than just ours. The user submitted information is not part of any actual listing, only reviews/ratings, which are not usable anyway. Nor does Amazon itself sell bootlegs and only their actual listings should be used. It has long been accepted as a reliable source for film, TV, and other media for book/DVD release dates in the absence of any official website or press release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, it depends what one is looking for. I've found release dates pretty easy to find. By user-submitted, I meant more of a "contacting them to report something and them taking it too literally." It was a while ago, but it came up when someone e-mailed them to say that a product they were selling was bootleg and they litterally put (bootleg) after the item's name. I've found pages for bootlegs before, as well as merchandise that may be unofficial. I don't mind either way what happens concerning Amazon, as much of their info is accurate, but was just mentioning a past complaint during a GA review, and wondering if it should have been used. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I remember that...AoD forums had a field day with it (and they did eventually get a clue and remove it all together). However, that's an aberration and not the norm. If we discredited every source that had minor number of errors, in comparision to all other data, we'd also have to drop the Anime Encyclopedia, Anime Explosion, pretty much all other books, and every news outlet. None are 100% perfect. Release dates are easier, but not easy, particularly for older series. Air dates, however, are a whole other issue, as well as serialization dates without access to the original magazines or their being noted in the English volume releases. Also, as noted, far more GA/FA/FLs have passed with Amazon recently than have failed. Usually such concerns can be easily mitigated by discussion, if needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Well ANN (encyclopedia section, not the news section) has also been discredited in other recent FAC/FLCs some of those instances because the information was inaccurate.じんない 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
In List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters I had to use amazon to ref since square enix doesnt publish release dates for japs dates. Is there another source I could use?Tintor2 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There are various magazines out there which likely have that information in them. There are probably Japanese sites, too, especially for Square Enix games. I know there was an official PlayStation page which had all release dates for all Japanese released PlayStation games. It was run by Sony. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent> While is agree with this turn of event i'm somewhat dubious with potential prospect of RS. While recurrent cast is can be easily sourced support cast isn't. Personally for Japanese cast, i will double-up ANN Refs with official website refs as not everyone can read Japanese. Well for support cast seiyu personal website ? At the worst i will cite the episode credits of their first appearance.

There is another point mentioned during those reviews. It's the broadcast dates references verifiability and at this game some of our current FLs are lacking RS references in that area.--KrebMarkt 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see one article at least has already been affected, plus the page I was just about to submit to peer review may or may not pass GAN now Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a verdict for this? I use ANN (I must confess) for my anime/manga article contributions in wikipedia, mostly news and episodes, since I can't access the official Japanese site (if using Flash, which I cannot link as a reference) or whatnot. I'm just concerned that I need to do twice as hard in getting more references, for instance in List of Ga-rei: Zero episodes. It didn't pass B (IMO) standards based on this. Ominae (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought that we asserted that the production companies, release dates, and voice actors were considered reliable (or somewhat reliable). Everything else I really don't care about. So what's the verdict on this? — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always found ANN to be generally reliable for most of the info in their encyclopedia. Not always complete, but generally reliable. They do have people who review all submissions, too. I always try to find other sources for any bit of information, too, but there are some cases (especially with older series) where that is very difficult to do. I don't think ANN should be discounted so much. If we find an error, we can fix it (and I can submit a correction to them as well), but let's not be so hasty to discount a huge resource altogether. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The above could be said for IMDb. Not always complete, often reliable, they review submissions[1]. However we (rightly so) do not include that as a reliable source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean this article fails based on our discussion? If that's the case, I may need to cite episodes as references. Ominae (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues the first is obviously sourcing anime that predate the boom of Internet and the second issue is the culture habit of most japanese websites to not have archive making sourcing a big lottery. You either pass the sourcing issue at ease or have hellish difficulty to do it. --KrebMarkt 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese credits tend to be fairly thorough, they can probably simply be sourced directly from there, right? The bigger issue would be sourcing English voices. Many English releases only have a list of voice actors in the credits, with no indication of who voiced who. If ANN is out, that pretty much leaves us with just their own personal websites, and the occasional other source.kuwabaratheman (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm mainly talking about the First airing date sourcing. Most Japanese TV Channel don't have any archive so you will have a lot of fun proving the first airing date of each episode of an anime series. I disagree about the voices actors as while the main cast is always mentionned the supporting cast is not often mentioned.
Exactly! Release dates is pretty easy, even credits generally are (with a few notable exceptions), but original airdates of episodes can be extremely difficult, but are a requirement for any FL episode list. I've already pretty much given up on the Tokyo Mew Mew featured topic plan because it will now be pretty much impossible to get the episode list to FL, even with the rest. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This may have been brought up already, but I'd like to point out that the bottom of each page on ANN Encyclopedia you can click "lookup sources" and that will place links next to every fact on the page. When I'm using facts from ANN I usually check what source they're using for their information, then report an error if there isn't a source listed. Generally, their information come from other reliable sources, just like Wikipedia except they have editorial control. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats quite useful, but the source for a fact I need to verify before submitting for GA is a random fansite. If we don't allow random fansites for that reference here, should we still knowingly use a reference that is based on a random fansite? Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thats why its useful. You can sometimes disregard the information if it turns out to be from a fansite, and othertimes it can lead you to better sources. ANNs encyclopedia is a tertiary source like Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...and just like Wikipedia, it is not a reliable source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. I was referring to the concept of tertiary sources as a means to locate other primary and secondary sources; typically tertiary sources aren't cited directly with some exceptions. My point is, that as an alternative to using ANN as a source, one can simply look up their sources (then of course evaluate those sources by the relevant policies). I wasn't arguing that people should be citing Wikipedia and ANN as reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I have several resources for beginning and ending airdates before 2000. Since 2000, it's pretty easy to find references, but older series are harder to find. If you need an airdate, let me know. Keep in mind that I don't always have every airdate, just the beginning and the end. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
One tool to help avoid this problem is using WebCite to archive a page for reference. I started using WebCite in relation to Anime Newtype Channel during the last month for List of Shugo Chara!! Doki— episodes‎. I probably should use it to archive the TV Tokyo webpages giving a complete list of episodes and airdates. One of the advantages of using/archiving Anime Newtype Channel is that I can also cite the episode directors and writers. Of course, this only helps newer series that we can actively archive. Unfortunately, I don't know how to address the lack of archiving on older series. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

InuYasha character list organization

A new discussion has started at Talk:List of InuYasha characters#List Organization suggesting a reorganization of the list into a more out-of-universe format. Views appreciated.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT now an essay

For those who got sick of trying to follow along, like me, WP:FICT has been demoted from a guideline to a proposed guideline to an essay. So when doing any tagging of character articles, etc for notability issues, it will have to be tagged for general WP:N failure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is, what is this going to do with character lists and such? Too bad the guideline fail because one group wanted all articles on fictional elements protected by the guideline and another wanted very few. --Farix (Talk) 14:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Really nothing, I think, since the proposed FICTs of recent have all excluded lists all together. I'd say, on the whole, character lists themselves will be fine, but individual character articles now actually would have less lee-way, I think, since FICT did give a few extra criteria over N. Though the recent happenings at WP:FLC might have more residual effects, though more on chapter lists because of the whole "must have 10 items" or get permission before sending to FLC idea... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
So we need to remove mention of WP:FICT from WP:MOS-AM (and possibly elsewhere) -- it gets cross-referenced once or twice, when discussing character articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep...need to update to point to the general reference (or reword to note that while FICT is an essay, it can be used as a general guide, blah blah). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As a comment, I would not sweet all mentions of FICT from the guidelines here - the advise it gives on the fate of articles at AFD is still true (that is, WP:N doesn't always apply to fiction elements, but to codify that is pretty much impossible). This also leaves lists of characters etc in the same boat - it's well established to be acceptable despite not meeting WP:N. The balance that we have right now between those that want more fiction coverage and those that want less is very touchy but it's there, and until something upsets it, might as well keep the status quo. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(←) Does this mean that the whole argument, RFCs, drafts and redrafts about WP:FICT is now (finaly) over? (I.e. will it stay this way?) G.A.Stalk 16:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Second the doubt. When I peaked in to confirm that it was now an essay, it looked like they were already arguing over that too. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's been removed as an essay and back a proposed guideline. Looks like someone wasn't following the spirit of bold and got tired of arguing so they just made it an essay.じんない 21:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC) is just so insane. Its a wonder the small faction hasn't "won" yet because most people are just so sick of it. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think they want some kind of guideline so they can reduce the amount of WP:BATTLEGROUND instances. I think those who think this will eliminate them are deluding themselve, but I think a guideline could carry weight as a inclusion and deletion guideline, whereas the eassy would likely only carry weight for deletion and that's why it may still be debating.じんない 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs of comics authors

User:MZMcBride ran a database query to find all articles in Category:Living people that aren't redirects and that contain 0 external links and posted results to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biographies_with_0_external_links. I've been through and sorted out any that are in a sub-cat of Category:Comics creators to User:Hiding/ComicsBLP0els. Basically, they need sourcing or otherwise it looks like they will be deleted. Some of the articles are on manga creators, so I thought I'd mention it here too. Hiding T 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Something for our Biograph and Cleanup workgroups to work on. (Poking through, at least one has a footnoted reference, so the query isn't perfect, but most don't even have an external link. The lists of works for many should be easy to source.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be good to peek at this. For the most part, okay stuff, but one proposed change (currently out) would be to require "permission" before submitting any list for FLC that has less than 10 items. Primary place this could affect our realm would be chapter lists, as the usual MO is to break those out if there are more than 6 volumes or so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem for our chapter lists. The ten item rule is generally held for true lists (i.e. tables and nothing else); remember that chapter lists have a lot of stuff (chapter titles, ISBN, release date, plot summary) within the individual items, so it's typically not a problem unless you have a really short chapter list. I would say anything above six or seven volumes would probably be fine with the FLC regulars. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Increasing our FA's

This might not be a good time to bring this up, what with the referencing cleanup going on, but I've been meaning to do this for a while.

I look at a lot of the GA's, and a lot of them look like they should make FA with just a copyedit. I know we have a lack of copyeditors, but if we identified a couple of the most suitable articles we could request a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. In particular, our 3 current FA's are all series articles, a character article or two would be good to see. I believe that if we addressed this as a project, we could increase our number of FA's easier. As we'd be working with high quality articles, we won't need to put in large amounts of time so it's not a huge problem if a few people are busy with other articles or real life. This would also serve to increase peoples experience of working towards FA, by allowing them to see the articles improve through the combined efforts of others (I'm slowly working towards GA, then FA on one article myself).

Thoughts? Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which articles? Many animes (not counting the visual novels, which are quite close) lack the raw information (read: development) necessary for a FA. Additionally, many of the GAs would not pass a GA review today. If you name the articles you're thinking of, I would love to take one or two articles up to FA quality. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I purposely left out specific articles to gain feedback about the idea first, but that was probably silly of me :p If I had to name names at this stage, Full Metal Alchemist, Sasuke Uchiha and Himura Kenshin would be ideal candidates for a closer look. All three are relatively recent, belong to popular works, and most importantly, look fairly complete at first glance. I understand your point about changing standards, but those are 3 safe bets. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel that Strawberry Panic! may be another article which is sufficiently developed to make a decent run at FA, although I gather that FA takes about a month of solid effort these days. Alternately, it may be appropriate to try to improve some of the B-class articles to GA status. --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If the article is already well written, well referenced and well developed, getting it to FA shouldn't take long, providing someone can copy edit it. Most of the work on the examples I gave is done (at face value), going from B to GA could actually take longer then taking a good GA to FA. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's not been my experience. I haven't nommed a GA in a while, but I helped co-nom Romeo and Juliet, and that was just draining. --Malkinann (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we really really need some copy editors. I also would like to see some company articles added to the "lets get some FAs" as well as magazine. I know several series articles I work on "could be" FA with effort, but I tend to be slow doing the effort knowing how many articles I already have waiting for copyediting before they can go for FA or FL. (for example, Wolf's Rain failed GA purely because it needed a copy edit and I just couldn't find someone to do it) :( If we had some copy editors willing to be really work on "our" articles, Vision of Escaflowne and Blood+ both have tons of info on production, reception, etc available that make both viable FA candidates. Just haven't gotten the attention. Also agree on Full Metal Alchemist, and probably Bleach and Naruto probably could be taken there as well, and maybe Cardcaptor Sakura though it needs more work as the Cardcaptors merge hasn't happened yet. All that said, I agree with Malkinann that in general, even with a GA, going to FA will likely take 2-4 weeks of of dedicated effort, depending on what the article was like as a GA.01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is why I think it would be good to narrow down the candidates, pick one or two and then work on those until they are done before looking elsewhere. After picking a candidate, we can run a fine toothcomb over the article to find out what needs doing, and go from there. Essentially the question is what is the easiest to do? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
True...though if we could find 1-2 copy editors willing to give our articles first preference... :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
And then we'd suddenly find there are too many potential articles and we still have a backlog :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, every single one of our character articles is miles away from FA. They need to be reorganized and the reception beefed up. Don't think a copy-edit is enough. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? In that case, we need a example character article even more Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Belldandy is probably the closest, although she isn't really representative, as she has a lot of academic-level scholarship on her that most other characters could only dream about. --Malkinann (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Master Chief (Halo) is a decent example. Hardly any of our character articles are close to it. Granted, I could reorganize Sasuke Uchiha with a fair bit of work, but that's a long-term project for the future. I'd recommend people to focus on series articles at the time, as we have a fairly good model already (Tokyo Mew Mew). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Agreed...thinking off the top of my head, I'd say we'd really have to look at the major historic/iconic figures first, such as Belldandy or Sailor Moon. They will have the most RS coverage, including academic studies.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But what about our main articles, such as Anime and Manga. Shouldn't we put priority into boosting there status given how they are essential topics? --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is about polishing mostly pre-sourced articles to apply for a status change - as I said in the peer review, there needs to be a literature survey done for anime (and probably for manga as well). Because they're broader topics, they will be harder to bring to GA (or FA). Yaoi or Yuri would both probably be easier for GA, as they are fairly well-sourced already. --Malkinann (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
@Farix—yes, they are the most important, but also the most difficult. Anime is miles away from even a GA nomination and Manga has major cleanup issues.
@Malkinann—yes to some extent, but don't think a copy-edit is all that is necessary to run off to FAC. For both of the articles you've put forward, they need a lot of polishing before going to FA. One probably could take some tips from the high quality video game genre articles; see 4X, First-person shooter, and a few others at WP:VG/GA. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on both Yaoi and Yuri on and off for about two years - believe me, I know just a copyedit wouldn't cut it before taking these to FAC. ;-) I'm looking forward to the publication of some new articles in the April edition of Intersections, for example. I'm not sure what lessons I could take from the video game articles - they seem to be about understanding the mechanics of the genres, whereas much of the literature on yaoi is about understanding the mindset of the fan. The point is, because the literature has had a good looking-over for them, they would theoretically have less trouble than the current versions of anime and manga. Also, *points to lonely merge discussion on yaoi*. --Malkinann (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Torikaebaya Monogatari ? I thought that one has enough supply of ammunitions to go far GA at least ?
I'm not uber fan to bring article to FA, the time cost for one article alone is enough to bring a bunch of articles to C or B Class however i will help in the references warfare side if asked --KrebMarkt 06:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to nom Torikaebaya for GA as I don't own the book, but I am aiming for peer review after incorporating the information you so helpfully translated from Kawai. You make a good point about the many vs the few - about 90% of the anime/manga articles are rated as either stub-class or start-class. --Malkinann (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to disagree, but that point is not as good as the hard number suggests. Only half of those 90% have the potential to be raised to c-class. The rest should be merged (some even deleted). However, with AfDing with merge as the desired outcome being considered improper and without a working WP:FICT, getting rid of the second half is a task of limitless proportions. (Ever tried to get a popular but non-notable character merged into a list?) -- Goodraise (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Only half of those 90% have potential to be improved to C-class? I find that difficult to believe. And then, going up a grade is not always the same as having improved the article - for example, articles on one-shots, such as Seduce Me After the Show, seem to have little potential to get even C-class, despite being fairly complete, for what it is - a one-shot, with no adaptations, licensed in English. --Malkinann (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(I just uprated Seduce Me After the Show to c-class.) Well, I don't know what your believes are based on... I've assessed a lot of our articles and what I said above is the impression I got while doing so. The reason why I think so many of them can't reach c-class is not length, it's notability. C-class articles should solidly establish notability. For main articles that's not so hard, but characters, soundtracks, lists of soundtracks, other items, ~1000 Gundam articles, etc. have a much harder time. Back on the issue: If a topic is notable, then the article about it can reach c-class. If an article can't reach c-class, then the article shouldn't exists and improving it is a waste of time. (Or at least that's how it should be...) -- Goodraise (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should Seduce Me After The Show be excluded from B-class on the basis of referencing? That is all the reliable sources that I know to exist on the subject... I believe the 90% of start/stub articles have potential because I think that most of them are articles on works, which inherently have more potential source-ability than those on individual characters or (sadly) the creators themselves! (only half of the creators listed on the Year 24 Group have their own articles, of them they're all stub/start.. some of which are even rated as being low importance...). Even within the stub and start classes, there is a spectrum of quality and potential. An example of a notable article that will likely never get much beyond stub is Class S (genre) - an extinct girl's fiction genre from the early 20th Century. Even though it's notable and historical, there's so much about it that has been lost, or that may only be available in Japanese, that I can't see it expanding much further. --Malkinann (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I need to explain that. Our current banner automatically upassesses articles with a full b-checklist to b-class. However, b1-6 are not the only requirements for b-class. The other requirement (lets call it b0) demands that "[t]he article is [...] without major issues". With larger articles, those are usually dealt with by the time they meet b1-6. So I needed to find something to keep the checklist from being complete. I don't see the the Japanese publisher cited, nor do I see an original date of publication. With such a short article even small issues become big. I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a peer review, but there's lots of smaller issues: The four reviews are turned into four short sentences. Isn't there more to get out of them? The plot summary is distinctly unencyclopedic. I'm also puzzled by the "Original run: 2006 – ongoing". I thought it was a one-shot... And then there's that "orphan"-tag floating over it. It simply isn't a b-class article. Anyways, I think we're going off-topic in a non-productive direction. Lets stop it here. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on your description, it sounds as if the article may fail B2 (obvious omissions) and B4 (reasonably well-written) --Farix (Talk) 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. B1, b2, and b4 are on the border between failing and passing. IMO, the checklist system doesn't work well for articles of that length (a shorter b-class article is hard to imagine). I just picked one criteria to set =n, not because it totally failed the requirements but because the article as a whole isn't b-class. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Where is this "B0" requirement written down? You seem to be quoting something here? Your issues, now that you've explained them, seem more like issues with B2 rather than B1, so I was confused as to why it was B1 marked as being off, as all the sources I know of are being used in the article, and was hoping you knew of some cache of yaoi reviews I hadn't used that would enable me to expand the reception section further - using more than one sentence per review just seems embarrassing to me. I don't know how to get the "-ongoing" thing taken off the article, and an orphaned tag is not an indicator of encyclopedic quality. This illustrates the essential fallacy of assessment - it's far better to go for 'completeness' than it is to go for B-class (which, by the way, is apparently the new FA). It also illustrates that we don't know how to deal with one-shots well. --Malkinann (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I was quoting Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Assessment scale, row: "B {{B-Class}}", column: "Criteria". Well, if you'd rather have the article fail b2 or b4, feel free change it. I just picked one to prevent the banner from uprating to b-class. (If this wasn't such a rare case, we should probably add another parameter to the banner...) As for "the essential fallacy of assessment", I can't follow you there. I don't see where this train of thought is going or where it's coming from. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I got confused because it isn't in WP:BCLASS. The essential fallacy of assessment is that sometimes the assessors don't know the article, or what is reasonable to expect from an article given the subject matter. (eg. Class S only being possible to be a notable stub, as so much has been lost about it) You arbitrarily picked a criterion for the article to fail B-class for the sake of the article not feeling like a B-class article, rather than picking a criterion or criteria that it actually could use some work on. This does not help anyone with an interest in improving the article to improve it - it confused me a lot, as I thought you knew of more reviews out there that could be used. --Malkinann (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what made you think I knew of more reviews. If I thought there was more material out there, I would have set B2=N. B1 is about the referencing of the content that already is in the article. The checklist can't help you if you don't know what b1-6 mean. As for "[t]he essential fallacy of assessment" (now that you explained it), I think you're reading too much into the ratings. They are not a replacement for the peer review processes (PR, GAC, FLC, FAC, etc.). We have 10,000 articles and only a handful of assessors. Assessing an article takes one minute in most cases; three minutes if a b-checklist is created. (If an assessment was requested, I usually take at least five minutes, but of course I can't speak for other assessors.) As you point out, "what is reasonable to expect from an article given the subject matter" is hard to tell if you're not a regular editor of an article, but how is that a problem? If you know better, just go ahead and change it. And as for "notable stubs", that's a contradiction in itself. Either the sources exist and the article can become c-class or they don't exist and the article shouldn't exist either. If it is likely that anyone with access to the sources actually comes by and adds the information is irrelevant. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"suitably referenced to reliable sources" - I took that to mean that there were more references out there - an article that is suitably referenced has a wide variety of appropriate sources. I think I'm beginning to see a "B-class is the new FA" kind of a mindset, which kind of disheartens me. I can't understand why you think stubs can't prove their notability, and why a 'notable stub' is inherently a contradiction. The creators in the Year 24 Group are notable, yet most of their articles are stubs. Then again, Class S is a stub, I can't see it getting much beyond the size/depth it is now, and it has had coverage in multiple sources. --Malkinann (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Who has a "'B-class is the new FA' kind of a mindset"? I certainly don't and the assessment system wasn't designed to be anything like that. You seem to be judging a process that you don't seem to understand for something that it doesn't even attempt to do. - About the "notable stubs", in 99% of the cases, when notability is clearly established, the article will also have reached all the other c-class criteria. Likewise, most articles not establishing notability are stubs. As for Class S, I just looked at it and that is not a stub. (Uprated it to c-class.) -- Goodraise (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Naming names would be counter-productive - it's that I see the same kind of preparation go into a pre-B class checklist that might ordinarily go into a GA, or in former years an FA. When an article fails a criterion, or B-class as being separate from its criteria, I'd like to know why the article fails it - that's all. When someone submits an article for assessment, especially with B or higher, they are saying 'I've done what I can with this article. Is it X-class, and if not, how can I make it X-class?' Stubs only need to assert their subject's notability, they don't need to thoroughly prove it (although it does help to keep it on the 'pedia). Another example of a notable stub is Hi Izuru Tokorono Tenshi, which I created the other day, which is a classic of shonen-ai. It was award-winning, multiple reliable sources were used in the construction of the page, with potential sources identified, and yet it is nowhere near C-class. Another example is Princess Nausicaa - I came across it during the merge discussion of the parent media, realised there was probably enough reception for an article, and created consensus to make the article. It got on DYK. :) Part of the reason why when I create articles I leave them unassessed is so that I know someone else has seen it, and so that I know I won't get a nasty surprise prod or AFD. For Class S, there really should be more than one author listed as contributing to the genre. Yoshiya Nobuko may have been the queen of Class S, but surely there were other authors. --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The quality standards on WP are constantly rising. A GA promoted today may have been a FA a few years back. Editors now find GA increasingly hard to reach, so they aim lower. They, like you, use the assessment department to get feedback. That is alright, nothing wrong with it, but it's not the primary reason for the department to exist. If someone brings an article to "Requests for assessment", they usually put effort into it and want feedback. That's understandable and reasonable. However, the same care given at "Requests for assessment" can't be expected for the ~10,000 other articles in our scope. When I started assessing articles, there were hundreds of completely unassessed articles and G.A.S was abbandoned and alone crawling through thousands of articles needing reassessment at Tag & Assess 2008. - About the stub issue, we're talking past each other here. There are no requirements for stub class. Yes, even a stub should at least hint at what makes the topic notable, but that's not a requirement for stub-class. To paraphrase you: Stubs don't need to thoroughly prove their subject's notability. - They certainly don't. However, it should be possible to do just that. If it isn't, the article shouldn't exist. And if it is possible, then the article can reach c-class. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I should start tinkering with a |comments= parameter for the banner (and maybe some sort of override parameter for when B1-B6 are all technically met, but the assessor still feels that the article isn't quite B-class?). The fact that we don't have such a parameter has bugged me for a while, actually. =P ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

←Let me refocus the discussion. We wish to push for FAs, correct? I like the idea of pushing for important articles like anime, manga, yuri, and yaoi, but this simply does not seem feasible in the near future (it's possible, but would require great deals of work; more than we can offer). I agree with Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) about the character articles; they're not up to par when compared to Video Games character articles. The only real option here is the very few animes that are extremely popular in the U.S. Sourcing will be far easier (Japanese sources are notoriously hard to find as you all know) if the series is popular in the U.S. Full Metal Alchemist, Bleach (manga), Naruto, all seem viable options. Death Note looks pretty comprehensive right now, as does .hack//Sign, but the rest of the GAs don't even seem like GAs to me (see Suzuka (manga) with no Development section, Hibiki's Magic with the same issue).

My second issue would be with how this should be organized. It seems that most FAs are the product of a push of a few people, between one and threeish. I haven't seen a huge collab (as in a whole WikiProject), though I'm not against such an idea. Maybe it'd be best if we grouped up and then worked on articles independently, potentially bringing it back together for peer reviews or the like? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bleach (C-class) and Naruto (b) need more work. I think those are future articles to work on, whereas FMA is already GA. The problem with FMA is that the new series debut's on Saturday, which may create issues due to a influx of edits and possibly new editors. However I am just this minute watching the last volume of the series (late I know), so I can involve myself in that article more without worrying about potential spoilers. I think a small group of people working on specific articles may be a good idea, especially where we already have people who can be considered "experts" who can check that things are clear and accurate. Perhaps we could start a "taskforce" for such projects to keep discussion focused and centralised? (Similar to the good topic workshop)Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Development sections can either be really easy, or really difficult, depending on how open the creator is and other issues. Didn't there used to be a collaboration of the month project for the anime/manga project a while ago? Getting a culture of peer review back would be great. :) --Malkinann (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly FA material, but as Malkinann pointed out above, "we don't know how to deal with one-shots well." I think it would be great if we could improve such an article on a clearly notable topic, but with limited subject matter, to... well... as far as possible. Malkinann named Seduce Me After the Show as an example above. Pushing that article to GA would, IMO, help the project more than yet another series FA. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Another one-shot worthy of attention, although it was adapted into a film and so is a bit more typical of the series articles, is Town of Evening Calm. Great story, lots of critique, but needs help on reading the Japanese and adding production information on the film. --Malkinann (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Malkinann, I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Collaboration of the Week project that's been inactive since 2006 or so. A discussion on whether it should be revived would be nice, I think. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)

This article was just moved to Haruhi Suzumiya (anime), seemingly on the basis of one person's request and one person agreeing. There was no real discussion and I see no notice here in the project. I believe this should get much further input at Talk:Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)#Requested move -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also brought up the question of why this article is even separate from the "franchise" article and the use of diambigs rather than just having one article called The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Move has been reversed. As for the franchise vs anime split, a similar thing needs to be done with Evangelion (Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga), Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise. seriously, these should all come under one article). This is a personal issue I have with workgroups, while It would be unfair to say they don't know what they are doing, I've seen the "founder" of one work group show complete lack of understanding of simple tags like references. Certainly the Eva task force seems to be mostly a collection of fans, and not a collection of knowledgeable wikipedians who are fans. I think it's worth bringing both groups into discussion about how to handle splits in their articles, as well as ways to improve their articles in general. We have plenty of good examples that should be brought to their attention Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Alas, I tend to agree with the problem with many of our taskforces/workgroups that are series oriented. Would also agree, a lot of the Evangelion stuff needs merging as well. For now, started a discussion to merge Haruhi (see below). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed Sephiroth BCR is a member of the Haruhi group (the only notable editor involved in various project work that I spotted), I wonder what his thoughts are Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually Juhachi is in there too. :) For the most part, though, it is a very dead task force, with little significant activity since early 2008 beyond people signing up or making minor tweaks; Sephiroth hasn't edited there since 07, so guessing he forgot he's in it LOL. There has no talk page discussion since October. I'd be inclined to wonder if it should be axed at this point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did spot Juhachi, but I don't see them around here much (but then, iirc they have a japanese sig, so that may explain it). I think examining all the work groups may be a good idea. Even if they are active, some of them seem to be doing their own thing rather then simply specialising like I'm led to believe is the idea. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've had all of WP:ANIME's task forces on my watchlist for some time now, and the only ones that are even semi-active are Biography task force, Cleanup task force, Conventions work group, Gundam work group, and Topic workshop (and, for the most part, even these are almost inactive). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of the series-related groups are disoriented and disheartened by the comings and goings of WP:FICT and merge discussions. I am also disappointed by the characterisation of some editors as being "notable" and some as being not - I seem to recall reading somewhere that newbies who are fans of the subject actually write most of Wikipedia, and more experienced editors move from content provision to cleanup tasks or internal processes such as DYK, FAC and peer review. --Malkinann (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems most of the series groups died before those really started, but also were created before they were really "enforced". I'd seriously disagree with the idea that "newbies who are fans" write most of Wikipedia...would definitely want a RS on that :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Specific task force people may also have drifted into other areas on WP, when they found that they had written to the limits of their knowledge/interest on the subject. Took me a little time to find the source, despite it being linked on WP:BITE: here. --Malkinann (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That was from 3 years ago :P I'd suspect it has changed now. As the guidelines and policies are more enforced, experienced editors and experts are likely more inclined to edit as it is less likely to be destroyed by "fans" who just want plots. (personal theory and total OR). I've noticed task forces in most projects tend to start strong and die within like a year...makes me wonder if they really are useful? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
What reasons do you have for suspecting the dynamics have changed? The problem of retaining subject-matter experts, who are often mainly interested in correcting facts and providing references can be less inclined to become wiki-policy-literate than heavy users of Wiki (like you or me). This kind of person can be turned off by Wiki because of the myriad of policies and guidelines (which in practice, are enforced about as strongly as policies). I can think of User:Awadewit as being an exception to this 'rule'. (the 'rule' coming from WP:Expert retention.) I've read nearly all of the sources listed in the reference section of yaoi, I think I know a bit about it by now. But I would not class myself as an expert on the subject, merely a fan who realises that for something to stick on Wiki, it needs references. The other thing with the editors that the article describes is that once they've got the article 'right' by their standards, they generally don't contribute any more to it - so if someone does 'destroy' the article, it is often cleaned up by other wiki users, heavy users or admins. I don't agree with your definition of destroy, by the way - sometimes, it's true information that is merely added without a cite. Whether it's 'worth' having a task force because they "die off" strikes me as a particularly pessimistic point of view - the question is, does having the task force in the first place improve the articles? I think it does, so they are useful, QED, lol. XD --Malkinann (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Prposed Haruhi merges

I have proposed that Haruhi Suzumiya (franchise) and Haruhi Suzumiya (light novels) be merged to Talk:The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime). Please check out the discussion at Talk:The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)#Merges of splits and offer your input. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful academic paper

I found this paper while searching for information on an article I'm creating. While it won't be useful for my article, it may be useful to others. It's titled “Kawaii” ― The Keyword of Japanese Girls’ Culture―, by Satoko Kan, Associate Professor, Ochanomizu University. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool - I found that one too and put it in the Year 24 Group. :) Didn't think to mention it here. --Malkinann (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Might be useful on the Cuteness in Japanese culture article, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Animated Classics of Japanese Literature

This TV series is unusual in that it doesn't have a story going through the entire series. It's more of an anthology TV series. If anyone has further information on this series, please feel free to chip in on the article. Also, please see the talk page there as I have a question for anyone who may be able to help. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

One-shots MOS question

How does the WP:MOS-AM apply to one-shots? I mean, aside from the immediate problem of one-shots is that it's usually harder to find enough reception to prove their notability... How should, for example, the plot and character sections be arranged - especially in anthologies? In Town of Evening Calm, it's relatively simple because the three parts are all connected into one story, but how should something like Alone in My King's Harem or Four Shoujo Stories be handled? --Malkinann (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, they should follow the MoS the same as any other series. For anthologies, the plot can be subsectioned with something like
If needed. Would also say they don't usually need a character section, just incorporate it into the plot. And, of course, if there are no adaptations, then the media section can just be a single section without a subheader. If there isn't enough info to prove notability, however, they should be taken to AfD for deletion, and alas most one-shots fall under that category. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Would the media section become 'medium'? XD --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Or "Releases", or "Publication" (as in Four Shojo Stories). :/ --Malkinann (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I usually still just call it media, though I'd imagine Publication history would also work, modeling on the normal book article format. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) The MOS currently doesn't properly address one-shots. This goes hand in hand with my suggestion above. The best way to write and expand an MOS is to look at quality articles and codify what they are doing. I'd say forget about the MOS for the moment, push a single one-shot article as high up on the assessment scale (this includes GA and FA) as possible. Then, come back and create a WP:MOS-AM#Layout for a one-shot article. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have the book itself on-hand before trying an assessment scale push. Usually, the one shots I own are not notable, and the ones I add reception to I don't own - I am trying to counter systemic bias. --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I own Four Shōjo Stories, and I scanned the cover for the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(ECx2)In an anthology, you can dispense with a character section and simply give a short plot summary for each part. But also remember that it is very rare for a one-shot to become notable, especially if it is not included in a tankōbon. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I included Alone in My King's Harem precisely because I'm not sure if it is notable - hopefully some further coverage can be located. --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Category:Manga anthologies meant to apply to volumes which are made up of one-shots? --Malkinann (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it states at the top of the category. Garo doesn't belong in that cat, and I've removed it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Though I guess they don't necessarily have to be made up of one-shots. They just need to be an anthology in book form. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
So, would it be suggested to break up the plot into different sections? With Glass Wings I used three paragraphs, but would it bet better to separate them indo subsections? This article actually has a chance of becoming a GA; I still may have some more production notes to add, and it has a nice reception section for a one-shot. With a little lede and media expansion, and cleanup overall, it wouldn't look too bad. My biggest issue is just getting pictures, as I stay clear of uploading them to avoid entirely messing upxD Oh, and should I change media to medium? I'm not sure if it matters much, but...WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Subsections are optional, I think. I think Glass Wings looks fine as is. Subsections have been done before, but so has prose. In the end, I think probably leave it up to the editor until we get something more definitive from a peer review, GAN, or FAC. :) While Media is plural, I think it does still work fine for the section name, since there are multiple chapters. (talk about wikilawyering LOL). I would say, though, that a volume list is totally unnecessary on a one-shot, just summarize it in prose. Beyond that, the plot section does not need referencing, so all that should be removed. Will see if I can add an image for you. Somewhat off topic, but when doing cite web, work should only be used for newspaper/magazine type sites, otherwise use publisher. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how relevant it may be for any given case, but Karakuridôji Ultimo is, for all intents and purposes, a one-shot, and is currently at B-class. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • late reply* Thanks for adding the picture! I will definately go through an fix those problems. The article is more of a side-project, and to tell you the truth it wasn't that good. But it actually had some production and I owned it, so I figured that I might as well attempt to help the article. As for referencing the plot, I'm aware that it's not needed, and usually a common practice with character lists and video game articles. With Glass Wings, I decided to do it because it was a one-shot and that made referencing easy. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Anecdote - Merging individual character articles

I thought this was interesting. So usually when I propose mass-merging a series of non-notable character articles to a character list, someone always opposes the merge because "the list would be too large". So I was looking through the [history] on List of GetBackers characters, one of my current projects, and thought it was interesting to note that the page started at 55k when the merge was proposed, and now after about 12 character merges and some editing its only grown to 57k. So I'm now 100% convinced that this argument could only valid if the merges are not done selectively and not followed up with good editing afterward; so this is just an assumption that the merge will be done poorly. Just thought I'd share that. :D --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly it's due to the series as well. The list was not quite so shrunk with List of One Piece characters that the merges only added a couple kilobytes.じんない 01:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
True, though being fair, when all the sources are added, it will probably jump to 80-90kb, depending on how much plot is also culled down. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds to me like Kraftlos is volunteering to do all our character merges :P I can think of three series that I started merging months ago but haven't finished... Although that may be because I put most of my wiki-energy into a couple of pages from the same franchise :D (and I'm still recovering from the ensuing wikibonk, especially as one can't be submitted to GAN due to the ANN issue *tears out hair* ) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
*sympathy hug* I so hear you on the ANN issue. :( And hey...if that's the case, there is a nice list of incompleted merges over at the clean up task force. Tee hee...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) I just laugh at the bloody timing of the whole thing. If it was 10 days later we could have had an extra GA :( (I'm pretty sure the only thing that needs doing is a source for the serialisation dates, I have them from a fansite dammit!). As for pointing me to the merge list, no thanks, one of the series I need to finish needs another 10 merges... Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer *blinks* no thanks! But I'll do whatever I can. Currently working with that list, Elfen Lied, and watching One Piece. I did a good number of merges on Sgt. Frog, but I doubt that will ever be in good shape. That's about all I can handle without being Wikibonked. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shugo Chara!

Would someone like to take a second look at Shugo Chara!‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Lately, an IP editor from Thailand keeps adding a table for the OP/ED even though these are already mentioned in the prose. Do we actually prefer tables over prose? I've removed the table twice and attempted to contact the editor, but there has been no response other then reinserting the table. --Farix (Talk) 11:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be prose where ever possible, especially as it's B Class and can't be promoted to GA unless the table is removed (at least, that's what the criteria seems to be) Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Second Dandy, OP/ED should always be prose unless there are so many (really long series or lots of changes) that makes prose impractical. Shugu Chara certainly doesn't have that issue. (random side note, why are the insert songs included? :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't I who added them in there. --Farix (Talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

possible DYK?

Could someone else have a look at The Moon and the Sandals and see if there's anything there they find WP:DYK-worthy? It's the right size and age, you see. I'm going away soon so I won't be able to take care of any nom. --Malkinann (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did some clean ups. A citation is needed for the magazine it ran in, however. Can check my volumes at home to see if it was noted there. Plot needs a little work, I think...need to compare to the volumes but it seems a bit off to me.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Help with the plot would be appreciated. "Web Hanaoto" seems to be the publisher. --Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
ja:花音 seems to be the magazine. I'm not sure this really needs citing. Magazine name, start-, and end-date of serialization are practically all you need to verify it. A {{cite journal}} for the first and last issue would almost be overkill. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in Fumi Yoshinaga it states she made her debut with the work in 1994... --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the actual dates of serialization for this are completely unknown, it does need something (and yes, some are wanting a cite journal or the like to confirm someone actually checked the magazine and didn't just except ANN's entries). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I mistook the "March 1996 – February 2000" in the infobox to be the relevant issues of that magazine. Anyways, I wasn't complaining about over-referencing, merely stating that giving magazine name and dates is the only thing required for plain verifiability. On a side note: There are those who do not find an article the least bit more credible just because everything is cited. (At least I don't.) -- Goodraise (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I do, at least more so than a non-sourced one. But yeah, that was the volume releases rather than the serialization. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
She doesn't show up on google books as being in Masanao Amano and Julius Wiedemann's Manga Design... Is this a fansite? --Malkinann (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be done for the article to be nominated for GA-class? Extremepro (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See reply to same question on its talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Did we work out if anything in the article was DYK-worthy? Is it still in that five-day window? --Malkinann (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Extremepro apparently already nominated it without saying anything. I added two alts for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. :) Just didn't want it missing out on being nommed. --Malkinann (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was I meant to say that I nommed it? Extremepro (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Would have been good, just so folks knew it was done :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Shura no Toki - Age of Chaos with Shura no Mon?

Because Shura no Mon has won Kodansha Manga Award. Extremepro (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes. They should...though more because its the same media than just the award winning. Doing now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Cesario

Not sure this is the best place to mention this, but it isn't even listed as an anime-related Afd. The article is clearly in need of help, but this VA has had multiple notable roles. Edward321 (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

For the Itachi Uchiha article, I used this source to add reception. Is it reliable? The author of the review is Jason Van Horn who also did a review of a Naruto episode[2]. He also seems related to Gamezone according to this. I wanted to confirm it since it seems there are many anime/manga reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. It appears to be a self-published blog. The link to Gamezone is tenuous, at best. Jason Van Horn is basically a fan who does reviews on his blog, and appears to cross post some on his to other user editable sites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for sources

I need some help with replacing ANN sources on Love Hina before I send it to WP:GAN. Does anyone have reliable sources for the airdates of the Xmas special, spring special and the Japanese release dates for love Hina Again? I can only find the first disc of Again on ANN's news, and I'm starting to get annoyed with the recent sourcing issues as it's taken me weeks to find a replacement for one of the previous ANN Encyclopedia refs. I could probably use amazon japan for Again seeing as it's an OVA, but I'm stuck on the other two, and the official pages are either outdated, or reduced to placeholders (gee, thanks StarChild....) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential source for discussion

IIRC, I've seen this used on several quality articles. Appears to me to be a RS. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto here...I think I even used it myself. I believe it was vested in some FA/FL discussions of fair recent history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks - I'll add it to the online sources page once this discussion's archived. --Malkinann (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Garrity's article doesn't mention that she's a sometimes editor for Viz -- IIRC she's currently staff on Kinnikuman. I've been avoiding using her reviews (despite being staff for MtCG) because her status as an industry expert has not been clear. (The Overlooked Manga Festival is, however, an excellent way to meet interesting manga you may not have heard of.) —Quasirandom (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
She may be worth taking to WP:RS/N in that case. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any further citable information about her links with Viz? --Malkinann (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Aside from her talking about it in her LiveJournal, no. (IIRC, there was post a few months back about meeting with some people with the Japanese publisher of the Kinnikuman.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn, Catch 22 or what? XD --Malkinann (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While we are here, Lupin Encyclopedia is currently used on a GA and a FA, both of which would probably fail if we had to remove the site from references (I've just replaced ANN enclyopedia refs witht he site, half the refs were already using it). While not on the same status as Rumic World, it's comprehensive in its coverage. However, I haven't found anything "backing up" its credentials yet. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comics212 - Christopher Butcher's site, a bigwig in the Canadian comics scene. He sometimes reviews manga, and has written for Xtra!. --Malkinann (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Brave Story: New Traveler into Brave Story ?

I'm not sure if the articles should be merged because Brave Story: New Traveler is fairly long and seems to be notable by itself. However, Brave Story: My Dreams and Wishes was redirected into Brave Story. So Brave Story: New Traveler be merged into Brave Story? Extremepro (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Brave Story: My Dreams and Wishes is a redirect, but one that wasn't previously an article. In general, if a spinout is seperately notable, merging or not is an editorial decision. In case of video games, it makes seldom sense to merge them. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

X (manga) GAR

X (manga) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. The review period ends April 12th. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

{{accessyear}} templates

Is it just me or is there accessyear templates at the end of every ref on Brave Story. If so, how do I remove them? Extremepro (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got me beaten this time. The link in the topic is red and the references in the article are mostly equipped with access dates. If you want them gone, just remove the "accessdate=DATE" parameter from the relevant citation template. Though, I don't understand why you would want that... -- Goodraise (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
DON'T REMOVE THEM! Webpages are frequently unstable and the |accessdate= gives an indication of when the page was last referenced. If information on the page changes, or more typically the webpage is deleted, and no longer supports the statement being referenced, we can use the accessdate to determine how far back in an archiving service to go, such as the Wayback Machine. --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The accessyear templates don't appear on the page anymore. Just curious, when was this |accessdate= put into place? Extremepro (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Over three years ago.[3] -- Goodraise (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
They were playing with the cite web template overnight, so probably just a temp glitch from the edits being done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


I have noticed on several articles where a show is licensed by Geneon or Sentai and it lists Funimation or ADV as the licensor when in fact they are the distributor. I have gone through several articles where Geneon retains the license but Funimation is only the distributor and corrected the template. There are still several Sentai Filmwork's titles that list ADV as the licensor when ADV is the distributor (see Princess Resurrection).

Should only the actual license holder be listed as "licensor" or should the company actually releasing the DVDs be listed or both? Personally for these shows there should be a separate field to list the distributor. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In the infobox, only the actual licensor should be listed. In the prose, note the distribution is handled by X (and for Y when sourcably known). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of File:Lolicon Sample.png

An editor has brought up a concern that this image is illegal and should be deleted. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple ISBNS's

Bit of a weird one this. A few days ago I got two books from Amazon UK - the revised Anime encyclopedia and Manga: The Complete Guide. Both of them have stickers over the barcode area on the back with new ISBN's on them. Both isbn's start with the same 1-84576. Both books are by different publishers, so I'm wondering if this is an Amazon Uk thing or not. Both stickers are a similar style, but with different fonts and a slightly different size. Any insight? Presumably I should note the actual ISBN's so I use a more common number in my refs, and not this seemingly random difference. Both books were printed in the USA , so I don't know if they were simply given new ISBN's for the UK market or something else.

Use the actual ISBNs on the book itself (either on the back or on the inside title). I'm guessing its a UK thing to save the cost of actually reprinting it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If the UK edition is being printed by a different publisher (as seems the case for Manga: The Complete Guide), that publisher's ISBN takes precedence when referring to that specific edition. Therefore, when referring to Del Rey's US version, use 978-0-345-48590-8; when referring to Titan Books' UK version, use 978-1-84576-753-2. —tan³ tx 21:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If there is no difference in content being cited though shouldn't the original be used?じんない 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it should be whatever copy of the book the person's got in their hands, as that assumes that the US and UK editions are in fact identical - for example, there may be differences in pagination between the editions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned, they are both printed in the US, and presumably as Collectonian says it's to save money on a local printing on a niche product. The sticker with a differing ISBN is the only difference, and I've had books (especially manga, and especially Viz who do no local printings or at least not at the time) that are US editions and not have new ISBN's slapped on them. This isn't problem, I have the original ISBN's available, I just thought it was curious and needed mentioning. It wasn't till I saw Tangents post that i even knew there was a Uk edition of Manga: The complete Guide. Now I look again, the sticker has Titan as the publisher, but the ISBN is slightly different (1-84576-753-2). Ditto Anime Encyclopedia (1-84576-500-1), although I don't know if there is a UK edition or not. Is there some "default numbering" I'm missing here? Turns out I was missing something, the different between 10 and 13 digit ISBN's Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In your case, I would still use Titan Books' information instead of the US publishers' when making references. Yes, they might be the exact same book, down to the cover, but it's best to not take the chance that they aren't. To answer an earlier comment, the stickers aren't just a UK thing; my copy of Seven Seas' The Last Uniform volume 1 has a sticker on it—underneath, I can make out the originally-printed ISBN, which was actually used for He is My Master volume 1. —tan³ tx 04:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yea, stick with your version of the book as unless you have both edition you can't know if there is any difference at all. Most English published book have one publisher for US/CA, one for UK and one for Australia. --KrebMarkt 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Which would be the US editions, as oppossed to Tangent's suggestion. The cover and "opening credits" are all US, the only UK thing on each book is the UK ISBN sticker. If I used the UK ISBN as they suggested I might get the problem you mentionDandy Sephy (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have the stickers with UK ISBNs, you have the UK editions. There's no room for interpretation on that. —tan³ tx 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course there is, the physical book is the US edition. Slapping a UK isbn sticker on a US book does not suddenly make it a uk edition. If it was a UK edition, it will state printed in uk/europe and have the details, and name/logos of the Uk publisher. What I have is a imported book with a sticker on it. If I went into a shop here and bought a copy with the Uk isbn and publisher details printed on the cover and there were no stickers in sight, I'd have bought Uk edition. Instead, I have a Stone Press, and a Del Ray printing and not two Titan Books printings. If I use UK ISBN's for these clearly US editions, I would be knowingly using potentially incorrect references. I certainly shouldn't enter Uk publisher and ISBN numbers for a clearly US edition. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Slapping a sticker on does make it a different edition. That's what you're supposed to do if you can't make a reprint in time. Yes, even if it's printed in the US. You bought it from a UK distributor and it has the UK information on it. That's all that's required. (See The ISBN Users' Manual, International Edition, section 5.3.) —tan³ tx 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If the inside front page is the US edition information, and not the UK, it is a US book and that is the information that should be used as it is the most legitimate information about that book, not some sticker stuck on it later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The actual content of the book, including title pages and the like, is irrelevant. What matters is what's on the cover—the sticker—and how it's sold. It's not sold as an American import, it's sold as a domestic product. For all intents and purposes this is a UK product, with a UK publisher, with their own ISBN. The sticker is the final word; see ISBN-13 For Dummies, page 13. —tan³ tx 23:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Except the pagination is different (592 vs 558). if I use the uk isbn, the references will be incorrect. This is the issue Malkinaan mentioned several days ago. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(←unindent) Not exactly 558. —tan³ tx 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not right. The book is the decide of what edition it is, not some random sticker shoved on it just because. It doesn't matter how Titan is selling it, what matters is WHAT book is in his hands. The book itself is what determines its ISBN, not a sticker. The book itself has its publication info, not the sticker. Stores often pop stickers on the backs of books, including ones with different ISBNs, but that does NOT change the actual book itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Books do not determine ISBNs. Publishers do. It does not matter what is inside the book. Titan is publishing it; it gets a number from Titan. This is how the system works. You don't get to decide it's actually something published in the UK by Del Rey just because Titan couldn't/didn't make new covers or title pages. Hell, it doesn't matter if all they're doing is importing Del Rey's books and distributing them under their own name, Titan is still the publisher in the UK market. These aren't some random irrelevant stickers, these are publisher-issued errata. I am tired of this argument; this will be the last thing I say, unless you can come up with an actual source that says different. —tan³ tx 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ANN as a source?

Are there any alternatives to using ANN as a source for episode listings? Many dates of older animes cannot be found anywhere else. - plau (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No central source has been found, really. Mainly have to search on a case by case basis, as seen from the clean ups going on above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes for ongoing anime series

I'm not finding this anyplace obvious, and I don't recall a conversation about it, so -- question. For an anime series currently being broadcast, for the Infobox number of episodes field, do we put:

  • Number of episodes broadcast so far?
  • Number of announced episodes?
  • Nothing till it's complete and we know the total for certain?

I've been assuming the first, based on standard practice for manga volumes. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first, number of episodes actually broadcast. Second plays into the crystally range too much, while third (besides being impossible to keep blank) would leave out important information, particularly on long series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel that unless we're talking about a Naruto here, the episodes should not be listed as "broadcast so far", as that changes too rapidly, as opposed to manga volumes which change slowly. For 99% of anime series, then, it should be left blank until a total number is known. It's the same argument of why we don't put how many manga chapters there are currently in a manga series in the infobox, even in long-running series like One Piece or the like.-- 23:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Leaving it blank is not useful to readers, and it goes against what other similar media forms do. And true, we don't put chapters, but we do put current volumes, even for on-going series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Face it, counting volumes is not the same as counting episodes. If you want to count episodes, then count manga chapters too; if not one then not the other; you're creating a double standard, and it will only serve to confuse people. Further, it's misleading to the readers who want to know how many episodes an anime series has in total. I had this happen time and time again on Soul Eater. Even though it was known from the beginning that there was going to be 51 episodes, the infobox would be continuously changed to reflect the current number instead of the total number. In short, I see it as little more than update-spam which can quickly become out of date if not continuously updated.-- 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see why the number of volumes isn't a relevant parallel to number of episodes. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The basic unit of a serialized manga is the chapter; the basic unit of a televised anime is the episode. Volumes are more akin to DVDs, collecting a certain number of basic units in one set. —tan³ tx 01:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
But not all manga is serialized, while every last television episode will have an episode. Every manga will have at least one volume. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Not all manga are serialized, and not all anime are serialized. This doesn't change the basic unit of those that are. Non-serialized works can get released in a single volume, serialized works can get released in a single volume, and serialized works can be spread out over multiple volumes. Volumes are a level above chapters and episodes. —tan³ tx 03:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In order:

  1. Number of announced episode. If a series has been announced for 12 to 52 episodes, then that is the number we use in the infobox.
  2. Number of episode titles announced so far. Use this when no total number of episodes have been announced. Generally, most series releases 4 to 5 episode titles every month.
  3. Number of episodes broadcast so far. Only as a last resort when the first two are unavailable.

--Farix (Talk) 00:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, aside from the Naruto/Bleach/Gin Tama/One Piece's of this world, most*insert fact tag* shows will know how many they are running for in advance. Often this is publicised in some form. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think, for ongoing series, it's very likely someone will be updating it as they are broadcast. I think the number of episodes in the infobox should be the number broadcast to date. It's really not all that hard to keep up with; I'm taking care of one series (Cross Game) right now, for example. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Organizing the Reception section

Next style question of the day: should Reception sections be strictly chronological? This is easier to talk about with a theoretical (but reasonable) example. Suppose manga Z! starts serialization in 2003. In 2005, it's adapted as an anime series, then in 2006 a live-action movie that debuts at Cannes and gets international attention, maybe even an award (at Toronto, say, or a nod for best picture from the Japan Film Critics Ass'n). In 2007, the manga is finally licensed overseas and gets lots of mixed reviews. In 2008, the manga gets the Kodansha Manga Award as story wraps up. The question being, what's the best way to organize this?

For a single format, recognitions should clearly be listed chronologically -- I believe this is even stated in some MOS. Going by that, the movie's Toronto award would come before the manga's award. Personally, I extrapolate from WP:MOS-AM's guideline for Media and would organize by format first, sorted chronologically -- so start with everything to do with the manga, then whatever anime reception can be scraped up (pity no one licensed it), then all the film accolades.

How would other people handle it? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think the reception section should be organized by medium first (primary, then adaptations with those done chronologically), and then each of those also formatted chronologically. This seems fairly logical, to me, though, and not something I would think would need spelling out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Separate by medium chronologically and then separate thematically (characters, graphics, drawing, etc.). If the mediums are generally the same storyline, then you can discuss the reception for the plot/characters more generally. As for the awards, in video game reception sections, I typically write a first paragraph that gives general observations about the game followed by any and all awards it received. Same thing can be followed here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 13:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Book covers in infoboxes

I'm working on cleaning up a few articles that had been left unmaintained for awhile now and I'm curious to know which is often more suitable to use as the lead image in an infobox: the first volume of the original Japanese edition, or an English edition? Dragon Ball and Bleach does the former, while Naruto does the latter. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's up to personal preference. I've seen both used without problems. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We've debated this in the past and could get no consensus, so it's editorial preference for a given article (coupled with what's easier to find). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
As noted before, both have been used and consensus was basically: personal preference of the editor who first adds the cover. The main caveat is that one shouldn't just change one from Japanese to English (or visa versa) to match one's own preferences without discussion and consensus. So basically, if someone wanted to change DB to the English covers, a discussion should be started to reach consensus, rather than just changing. The discussions are in the MoS archive, but basically both sites made excellent arguments, IMHO, for their views. Short summary of points (someone correct me if my memory is off):
  • Japanese covers are the original, first edition covers and what is called for in all other novel/book type articles, and films uses the theatrical poster over the DVD where available.
  • English cover is "most known" to English reading audiences and matches the edict of "use English" for the article and character names.
  • Whichever one is used, one should generally use the first volume cover
Often times, the covers are not significantly different, so it basically comes down to preference of language. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don't always favor the first book or DVD cover. But I look for the cover that best represents the series and/or its main characters (with emphases on the characters). Sometimes, that may be a later cover or a publicity image.
As for between Japanese and English covers, that depends on which one I can get a good quality image of, from which I can also source exactly where the image came from. --Farix (Talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What about a series that has a constantly changing cast which differs between story arcs? Most manga series don't have the same characters when they get from one arc to another. Dragon Ball and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure are examples of this. The idea of using the "ideal" cover can be subjective in that case. Jonny2x4 (talk)
For something like JoJo and DB, you'll usually have reliable sources that talk about how the cast changes and the art style evolves, in which case you'll want to illustrate this with additional pictures (possibly associated with the Development or Media section) though be careful not to go OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!, er overboard with the fair-use. At which point, you can lead off with a first volume cover as a starting point. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Character names at Shugo Chara!

Lately, there has been a rash of IP editors who keeps changing the name of one particular character from the official translations used by Del Rey Manga of "Diamond" to the fan translation of "Dia" or "Diaya". I had already placed notes on this at Shugo Chara! and List of Shugo Chara! characters, but the notes are being ignored now. Other names are also similarly affected. --Farix (Talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ASCII vs. fullwidth characters?

Is there any relevant policy or guideline on whether we should use fullwidth Latin characters among kanji (e.g. in chapter titles), or their ASCII equivalents? In the past, I've switched the former out for the latter, but recently, another well-established editor has been going the opposite way. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Even on the JA Wiki, they tend to use ASCII instead of fullwidth characters for non-Japanese characters such as numbers, letters, and punctuation. I tend to favor the ASCII characters. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I also usually change them to the ASCII; looks nicer, to me, and avoids the letters taking up excess space. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd use fullwidth only if it's part of a title that appears to have Japanese and Latin characters in the name.じんない 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you're talking about, please? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess you're referring to me. I've been replacing instances of halfwidth characters with their fullwidth counterparts on a by-case basis. (Examples: "Versus!! バギー海賊団" but "まっすぐ!!!" and "9番目の正義" but "海賊 VS CP9") I'm the kind of editor who's always disappointed if he finds something isn't precisely regulated by some obscure MoS. So, I'd appreciate it if we could decide on something and codify it. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're the editor I was referring to. I didn't name you specifically because I figured it would look too much like pointing fingers. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I always convert to ASCII. I see no reason to use "fullwidth" characters. --Farix (Talk)
Of course there is no reason to use fullwidth characters, just as there is no reason to use ASCII characters. As far as I can tell, it's purely a matter of taste, not reason. (Though it may be influenced by how the text is rendered on one's computer.) -- Goodraise (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is, actually, a very good reason to prefer ASCII: plenty of computers do not support fullwidth characters (usually because fonts for them haven't been installed), but if you can show me a modern desktop or laptop computer that doesn't provide support for ASCII, I'll eat my hat. *will probably regret this statement* ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that "plenty of computers[, supporting Hiragana, Katakana, and Kanji characters,] do not support fullwidth characters"? Where is the gain in changing a few characters to ASCII when the rest of the title remains unreadable to the reader with these kind of problems? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why use "fullwidth" characters when standard characters will do? I honestly don't see any benefit of using "fullwidth" characters and generally find them harder to read. As Dinoguy1000 pointed out, standard characters have the benefit of being seen even if the computer doesn't fully support the east Asian font set. There is no need to create extra barriers with character sets. Remember that the rest of the article will be using the standard character set. So this should be maintained for consistency, unless there is a very good reason to switch to a non-standard character set. --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to make this clear, if ASCII (they are not "standard" as far as the MoS is concerned) characters are supposed to be used because the majority simply likes them better, then that's fine with me, but I dispute that there is a reason to use them. The Asian font set support argument is flawed because we're talking about fullwidth characters within titles consisting mostly of characters from that very font set. Likewise, the consistency argument can be used equally in favor of fullwidth characters. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I would use the ASCII characters instead of the more specific-use fullwidth forms, in keeping with WP:MOS#Punctuation's recommendations for apostrophes and ellipses. —tan³ tx 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've gone ahead and created a fullwidth replacement script at User:Dinoguy1000/scripts/fullwidth2ascii.js, and successfully used it on several articles[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. My only major concerns with it are that currently, it replaces three interpuncts (・・・ or ···) with an ellipsis character (…), even though some other cleanup scripts recommend replacing that with three full stops (...); and that it replaces / with a backslash (/), even though the former *seems* to be used as a Japanese quote sometimes. Any thoughts? And any recommended additions or removals? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My only thought is that I have not seen any changes to the MoS. I'll follow the MoS, whatever it may say, but not some thread that will soon vanish into the depth of our archives. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want a change to the MOS, ask at the MOS. I will note that this is the same mindset that gave us the should-be-redundant WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media, just because some people didn't get the hint. We should use what's easier to type generally, even if we're already in an IME that can produce fullwidth characters. —tan³ tx 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is different. The case you name is a redundancy within the MoS. What we get here is just another addition to the abundancy of uncodified project consensus. (I have spent way too much time trying to find some decision in the archives of this page and that of WT:MOS-AM, only to find that the decision I've been searching for either doesn't exist or is about something completely different.) This is a non-obvious choice of style that the editors here want to affect articles on the scale of the MoS. It is not me who wants this change, so why should I be the one to ask for it? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the same thing. We use "..." and not … U+2026 because it is easier to type. We use straight apostrophes and quote marks instead of "curly"/"smart" variants because they are easier to type. Why would we suddenly use characters that require a map or an IME to use unless our MOS (as in the case of dashes) specifically says to? We already have a precedent; exceptions need to be proposed. The only reason I can think of for using fullwidth characters is as a search aid, but even then a MediaWiki search of the Japanese Wikipedia favors ASCII, and Google is smart enough to use the two interchangably. (Also, the Latin plural of consensus is consensus – it's fourth declension.)tan³ tx 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm way past the why and whether. Fact is, stupid me didn't get. And where there is one who doesn't get it, there are others. Another simple fact is, that I always have and always will follow the MoS to the best of my knowledge. Right now, it allows me to place fullwidht characters wherever I please. (Thanks for the hint. It appears my Latin is getting rusty. Perhaps it always was.) -- Goodraise (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised at your tone here, Goodraise. I'd've never expected character replacement to be your trigger. =D To be serious, though, I started this whole discussion precisely because I wasn't aware of the MOS saying anything on the topic, and the general gist of the replies was to go ahead and replace characters, which is why I wrote the script. Personally, I really don't feel like spending the energy attempting to get an addition made to the MOS (if I'm going to be doing technical stuff, there's a zillion templates out there waiting to be cleaned up). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I lost my temper again. My apologies to anyone offended. *Takes a few steps back.* It really isn't the characters, but several factors that collided here, which all come down to frustration with talk pages. For one, I'm still frustrated from my short and (needless to say) unproductive involvement in WT:Notability (fiction). There, they want a guideline—or at least that's what they say—they just can't agree on what to write into it. Here, people agree—they just don't want to write it down. As far as I'm concerned, sections such as WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media are not redundant, but rather ten times too short. Following guidelines is my bliss. If I can follow a manual, rather than to think myself, I'm a happy editor—who can stick to main space. But no, the manuals are kept short, because everything is said some place else and about something else. Apparently, the MoS is to be interpreted and everyone is supposed to come to the same conclusions. So, here I come, searching the MoS pages for my answer. It isn't given, so I'll have to go where? Yes, the talk page. And what do I do there? Yes, search the archives! But not only the archives of the relevant MoS, but also the archives of all related MoSes and Wikiprojects. (Do you see where my frustration comes from?) This would all be no problem, if things were simply codified after being decided. I don't understand the sentiment that wants to keep the MoS short. That we are having this discussion, in my eyes, proves that the MoS needs clarification. If we don't clarify it, we're dooming this issue to come up again, someday. – I could have simply let this character issue go, but as I said, the characters aren't the issue. I want to improve articles, not search archives or debate how to interpret the holy scrolls. – And that's exactly what I'll do from now on. I'll ignore everything (including this thread) except what is said in the MoSes themselves, hopefully making this my last rant on the subject. *Returns to improving articles...* -- Goodraise (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say not to replace ~ with ~, as the ASCII tilde is generally a poor imitation of that part of Japanese typograhy, and some fonts treat it as other diacritics and place it accordingly; if it needs to be replaced, use 〜 U+301C, as that's part of the "CJK Symbols and Punctuation" block. I would also replace the ellipsis with three full stops, per WP:MOS#Punctuation. —tan³ tx 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TangentCube. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've adjusted the replacements per your recommendations. Any other comments? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
*bump* Any more thoughts? Note that you can see all character replacements in the script (for instance, txt.value = txt.value.replace(/0/g, '0'); replaces all instances of "0" with "0"). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge help

I made Hi Izuru Tokorono Tenshi a little while ago, and Hi Izuru Tokoro no Tenshi was made shortly afterwards. While the former should be merged into the latter as the latter is the more correct title, I am confused about the magazine serialisation. Schodt clearly says it was serialised in Lala - LaLa, whereas the Hi Izuru Tokoro no Tenshi article says it was serialised in Hana to Yume, and it appears to be referenced to a Japanese website. What should be done? --Malkinann (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hana to Yume Comics is the imprint under which the series was released in tankōbon, not the magazine Hana to Yume. Change to LaLa. —tan³ tx 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, while you're editing, WebCat tells me that it was originally eleven volumes, not four. —tan³ tx 07:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
My fault entirely, sorry. I confused the Hana to Yume magazine with the LaLa imprint when I was making the Kodansha Manga Award pages. Extremepro (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Girl Friend (manga) French reviews

Girl Friend (manga) has several French reviews which are listed on its talk page. Nocturnenoir and I decided to dismiss all but one of the reviews because the reviewers themselves didn't use their real name. Unsure of whether or not the websites are peer-reviewed, I decided to not use the reviews. With KrebMarkt's "French RS website discussion", I would like other editors determine whether the reviews here meet WP:RS - Extremepro (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Case Closed episodes Season Division

Hello, for the article List of Case Closed episodes, an IP address, I think, has changed the seasons to the English dub but it is full of speculation and original research as Funimation has not even thought of dubbing past season 5 yet. I would change it back, to Japanese season divisions, but I'm not certain how it works. From this site, and this second site, that there are 17 seasons in total.

Sorry if I'm confusing, but I'm just asking whether those two sites above are good enough to follow through to reset the article's season division to the Japanese version. DragonZero (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Relible sources for the episodes per DVD can be found at
If they made their changes based speculation and original research, you can safely revert them. As for those pages, Amazon can sometimes be used, but should be avoided if possible. The second source seems utterly unreliable. In general, try not to make edits based on presumptions. - Was that the kind of answer you were seeking? -- Goodraise (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well after resting, what I mean was, I can't restore it back to their Japanese season division, because I don't know what the Japanese season division is. Also the second link was just research so I could confirm there were 28 episodes in a season and even if it's unreliable, 4 episode per part and 28 episodes per season sounds right. If there's no objection, I may split the DragonZero (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Checking the site again, even if it's considered unreliable, it's the only site that tells the episodes on the detective Conan DVD's. I would consider the DVD's to be the main source so it would be reliable, but since it's coming from an unreliable source, it can't be reliable. Also, if there are no objections, I'll change the article season division to match the Detective Conan DVDs DragonZero (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't you just revert their changes? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well alot of edits were done since someone changed it. I also feel that the old season division could be wrong since looking at the DVDs of Detective Conan. I'm pretty sure there is 17 seasons with about 28 episodes per season. DragonZero (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, how long ago did this happen, then? Can you provide specific diffs? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, see those numbers beside "First Season" It use to be episode 1-25, the Japanese numbers, now it's 1-26, the English numbers. It's also changed for all the seasons. The thing is, Funimation has not confirmed production past season five, so I feel the season numbers are incorrect, and should be changed back to the Japanese numbers, ex "First season 1-25". DragonZero (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well anyways, I plan on changing it back to the Japanese numbering, and then re-splitting the episode into 17 sections according to the Japanese DVD's tommorrow or the day after that. DragonZero (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Final Check

After changing the season division, I'm here to do a final check before splitting the seasons into their own articles, seeing ow the page is about 240 kb or so. I plan on splitting seasons 6-16, as I don't know where season 17 ends. DragonZero (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Slice of life storySlice of life

Please come and participate in this discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had one of my articles' genres change from "slice of life" to "slice of life story" here. Slice of life story fundementally fits under the slice of life genre. The "story" bit of the genre is redundant IMHO. Also the contents of both pages are very similar. Extremepro (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation assisstance needed at List of Shugo Chara!! Doki— episodes

I've attempted to translate the names of the directors and writers from episode 74 onward, but there were a couple I couldn't crack. I would also like someone to double check to make sure I got the names correct.

根元 歳三 is Nemoto Toshizō, though 水内 世理 looks to be Mizuuchi (not Mizūchi) Seri, but I'm probably wrong on the given name.-- 23:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Kanji to Romji translator is giving 水内世理 as MIZUUCHI Yori. I'm also assuming that these names are in SN-GN order. --Farix (Talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like it to me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also agree with the Yori reading of 世理; and yes, I wrote them in SN-GN.-- 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't read Japanese, but from what I'm using, 水内 can be Mizunai, Midzuuchi, Minai, or Minauchi. Romaji translators gave me Mizunai and Mizuuchi. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP editor removing sourced criticism from Shotacon (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps removing a sentence about criticism of shotacon from the lead of the article. I've reverted the removal twice, but the editor keeps removing the statement saying it is not part of the definition. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP is definitely wrong, since articles aren't supposed to be definitions (that's what Wiktionary is for), they're supposed to be encyclopedic articles; and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name

Because of a new spat of edit warring over the third Bleach film, known to fans as Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name, but unlicensed so no official name, the article has been taken to AfD. It was merged by consensus months ago, but an editor will not allow this consensus to stand anymore. So additional views to determine if it is now notable enough to have a standalone article are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Shugo Chara! episodes FL prep

Finally finished with the episode summaries at List of Shugo Chara! episodes. I still like someone to review and give it one last copyedit before nominating it for Featured List. Woohoo, my first FL candidate. --Farix (Talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-English RS review sites?

Given that there is a push towards examining RS reviews in languages that aren't English as being part of proving notability, it seems to me there is a shortage of LOTE review sites in the Online RS Reference Library???? --Malkinann (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because no one has found any that we know of. If you know of some Japanese ones, by all means please post them :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

French RS website discussion

The answer is more there are non-English, non-Japanese, RS Third party coverage websites but people usually don't give a damn to them save during an Afd discussion where they are used instead of insults to point out how much English-centric some editors are. Joke aside, i will list some RS French websites as France is the 3rd market for anime & manga in the world just behind Japan and the US. --KrebMarkt 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Manga News, its pedigree [12][13]
Manga Sanctuary, its pedigree [14][15]
Those two are the most predominant websites and are often used by French anime/manga publishers for advertisement campaign. Those two websites are reliable enough French publishers to host official sample chapters [16] [17]. Manga News was Virgin Megastore partner for some manga/anime related commercial event [18].
Animeland, web counter part of a real paper publication [19]
Obvious RS by its very nature but not much informative as you don't often find full review but just rating for manga & anime.
Mata web, consortium of Mane[20], Anime Days[21], Review Channel[22] & Hobby News[23]
RS enough to have publisher participating their forum topics like here a Kaze's representative answering why they aren't licensing season 1 & 2 of Aria. That site is one of the most thoughtful in business related news & information. They also host some official sample chapters [24] a bit over the top in their presentation IMO.
BD Gest' Comics (Broad meaning of the term) related, its pedigree [25]
They have a staff of reviewers who mostly do franco-belgian and american comics reviews but also some manga reviews
Planete BD Comics (Broad meaning of the term again) related, its pedigree [26]. Get enough credibility to host contest sponsored by publishers [27]
That one has the closest thing to an English-style review for comics & manga.
There are some others websites but i'm listing the most useful ones. --KrebMarkt 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Response from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)
Alright, I finally got a chance to return to this. Per a discussion on my talkpage, I predetermined that these sources were of questionable reliability because the reviewers didn't use their names. I felt that this meant that these sites could be just run by fans, who post reviews of their favorite mangas. In the example of Girl Friend, the single review with a name attached to it had a noticeably lower score, something I thought to be indicative of a reliable review. However, if Manga News and Manga Sanctuary are often referenced by French anime/manga publishers, they are certainly reliable per the criteria ("The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution.") While "Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles," in WP:ANIME, where RS are few and far between, I feel that these sources should be allowed to be used.
If Animeland has a real paper publication, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a reliable source. The magazine seems legit though, so this one is a definite RS.
BD Gest' has actual reviewers' names. I trust them more than I would others, possibly faultily, but someone else can prove me wrong.
I realize I haven't looked at Planete BD or Mata web yet, but I will when I get a chance. Thanks for listening. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments :)
I think the use of pseudonym is concentrated in the Anime/Manga only websites. The comics generalist website official reviewers don't use pseudonym. Generational/Cultural issue maybe --KrebMarkt 04:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to check the following criterion:
  • Real reviews not copy-paste of the publisher blurbs
  • Real distinction between staff/redaction reviews and others users reviews
  • Evidences of acknowledgment from the publishers. That range from ads, contest prize support, officially interacting in forums discussion and any other form of partnerships with those websites.
I would not use the pseudonym of the reviewer but instead the website name when mentioning those reviews.
N.B. : Off-topic information. The next French Japan Expo will have the four members of Clamp as guests. I will try to nudge someone from the French anime/manga project to take pictures of them for Wikimedia. --KrebMarkt 06:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

German RS website discussion

Some German sites that are as best I can determine reliable include:
There's another couple sites I'll come back with in a bit, along with fuller arguments for reliability. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm pondering for Splashcomics [28] [29] [30] Can you give a look Quasirandom ? Translation tools say that they have paid reviewers even if it's not much. Thanks --KrebMarkt 18:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the ones on my list of sites to look at. As far as I can tell, it shows every external marker of being a reliable comics news-and-reviews site that vets its news and uses only staff-written reviews (or rather, clearly marks the user-written reviews as something separate). —Quasirandom (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese RS website discussion

I've listed this on WP:RSN but noone has replied yet so I'm transcribing it here. Extremepro (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok for the second one, perhaps an awards sub-section would help in our online resource page.
The first one is limit and should be replaced/doubled-up with the original Japanese ref.
You can add link to the list of award, , The Japan Media Art Festival.
--KrebMarkt 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Should I wait for the discussion at WP:RSN to end before adding Shogakukan and the JMAF websites onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources? Extremepro (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We have all the time and more opinion the better even if WP:RSN will probably advice you to ask the WP:JAPAN for answer. WP:RSN has a shortage of qualified assessors for non-English sources :( --KrebMarkt 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yen Plus

Does anyone have a copy of Yen Press' magazine Yen Plus? It published a few Square Enix manga in English. I'm interested in the English titles for Nabari no Ou for the chapter list. It probably published eight to nine of the chapters. BTW, I'm planning to get it to FLC after the DYK business, so a copy edit would be nice too. :) ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aki Toyosaki

It seems this article was copied wholly from the equivalent ANN entry, but I'm really not sure what to do with it... Blank it? AFD it? Thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite it? Then AfD it Toyosaki isn't notable? I'll go take a look and see what I can do. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Depends. I assume ANN's license is not GFDL compatible? If not, try CSD:G12. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
CSD for copyvio. ANN specifically notes all content is copyrighted. While lists are generally not "copyrighted", structure, sentences, etc are.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I originally looked at CSDing it, but didn't see the criterion for copyvios (am I going blind?). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Placed hangon on the page. I think I can save it. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
CSD #G12, but the tag has already been removed because the article was edited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

It's times like these I wish we had a Seiyuu MOS.... Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Aga, reliable source?

Is this considered a reliable source? The site is dedicated to media with a detective theme and is not publicly edited like Anime News Network encyclopedia. Currently it's used to source List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) at its Detective Conan episode section. DragonZero (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Gin Tama query

Is anyone reading the Viz edition of the manga? Is Otsu written as Otsu or Otsuu? I've reverted "Otsuu" a couple of times based on the actual characters (おつ), after looking just now I know some scanlations use Otsuu, but I don't have access to the Viz edition to see what the official spelling is. For what its worth, the character list used Otsu, just not the mention of her in the main article (under Shinpachi's text). Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The pop idol? She's mentioned in passing in volume five as Tsu Terakado, so I guess it's "Otsu" ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Volume 3, chapter 19 of the scanlations has shinpachi listening to her cd and she's referred to as Otsuu-chan. But the above and knowing her name nickname is a pun is good enough for me. No idea where the extra U actually came from. Not even the anime fansubs use it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Have we got any Seiyuu articles that are properly developed and not basically a big list? I'm trying to clean one up, but it's proving difficult without some sort of comparison. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be that different from an article on say an actor. Should have "Early life", "Voice acting career" (with subdivisions for particularly notable works, separating different types of works, or different time periods in her career), "Personal life", and "Roles" or something similar to that (similar to how actors have filmographies at the bottom of their page). If particularly large, the "roles" section could possibly be split into a separate list. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CCSF News a reliable source?

Is CCSF News ( a reliable source? It was recently found and added as a source for the original Japanese episode titles and airdates for Hell Girl. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I was told it was more like a forum where anyone can post the information.じんない 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm owner of CCSF News. This is just a personal page, not official, so it has many wrong informations. (moreover, it has some of programs (e.g. Hell Girl 2nd/3rd seasons) which I have not watched yet...) -- (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Viz manga referencing trick

BTW, if anyone needs to reference an upcoming Viz manga release for a forthcoming volume they haven't listed on their website yet, try searching the Simon & Schuster site. They distribute Viz's titles, and list forthcoming Viz titles up six months out. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Katsura Hoshino

This article has come a very long way since I started work on it and it is one of the two B-class biographies we have. I'd like to get it to GA, but as I have written the article myself,a I don't know all of it's shortcomings. I've gotten a peer review (which was closed during my untimely wikibreak), so I've gotten an idea of where to work on it. But I'd like someone to help me with it. I'm wary about adding it to the Biography work group's to do list as Hoshino isn't an important person. Anyway, if you feel like helping it needs help with choppy prose and published (non manga) sources for the biography and styles sections. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess! chapters

A few people here have a general idea of just how much work I've put into this list, but I'm basically up against a wall now. I've summarized the ridiculously complicated English release history in its lead as best I could, and worked for some time on a table layout for the first 20 volumes, but now I want project input. Does anyone else see any improvements/additions that should be made (beyond needing volume summaries, kanji/romaji chapter titles, cover characters, and mention of the series' serialization in DH's Super Manga Blast! anthology)? Am I gonna have to ditch the hacked-together table in favor of only listing one English release if I hope to take the list to FL (I sure hope not, given how much time and thought I put into it)? Please, tear the list apart and give me your worst. =) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that page before and quickly went to the next, but now that you ask for input... Well, the table is certainly wide. (I have to go to 70% zoom for the ISBNs not to wrap.) But what worries me most is... If I were to write a summary for a volume, where would I put it? -- Goodraise (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of the width problem (the ISBNs wrap on a 1024x768 monitor, even with the window maximized), but don't know of any way to fix it, other than reducing the fontsize or the width of the chapter column (which would lead to more chapter wrapping, and thus a longer table). The summaries I've also thought about, and the best place for them is in the left column, though I still haven't worked out the exact details of how they would work. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

*bump* Any other comments/thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think while we figure out a way to work summaries into to the messed first table, you start working on the ones from 21 on. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 01:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The new look is prettier, and I know you put a lot of work into it, but I need to ask whether or not the current table is easier to read that the older format? The current version doesn't seem to contain much more information, other than cover character, which I'm not sure is really needed. Having the chapter titles on the left seems to improve readability to me, but others may well have a different experience. - Bilby (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find it slightly difficult to figure out which chapters belong in which release on the current table. However, the older table makes that harder. The older one does release some strain on my eyes though. (I think it's useful to note here I have a 1280 by 800 resolution. Not a common one.) ~Itzjustdrama ? C 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The colored lines are meant to make it obvious, similar to how they serve as physical delimiters between volumes in {{Graphic novel list}}. I briefly considered extending the lines through the chapter column (and, infact, tested how it looks at one point without saving), but it really just made the table more confusing. As for writing summaries for vol. 21 and on, there's two problems with that: I don't like am no good at writing plot summaries, and I don't have access to volume 2 (and I refuse to read past what's available to me on principle). Cover characters are a standard addition to chapter lists, and the standard rationale for their inclusion has to do with serving as a replacement for cover scans of every volume (or something like that). And IMHO (creator's bias! creator's bias!) the newer table actually looks much better, and I use a 1440x900 resolution (most of the time). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. (Unrelated) How big is your screen? (Take that as rhetorical question). ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(literal answer to your rhetorical question) In inches? Not sure... it's a library computer, so I don't have the specs. Looks to be ~20 inches, though. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)