Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 30 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Replace for Seiyu awards

The site Seiyū Awards has changed part of the site, and I cant find winners from previous years. I cant read Japanese. Could anybody see it? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That should be here --KrebMarkt 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for New work group and Portal

It is Shōjo manga-related work group and portal. I wish these to be produced. --S2 Lovely Boy (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No to both. I don't see the benefits. Shōjo manga constitutes such a large group of articles that making a task force is pointless—it's not like you're following a different style guideline or something so divergent from other anime and manga that justifies creating a specialized task force to work on them. The portal also isn't appropriate. Portals are supposed to cover very broad topics and the current anime one is more than sufficient. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Usefulness = 0. Sorry to say that but it's realty. Too small scope for that project and not enough man power to run that project as the anime/manga project is already very short handed. --KrebMarkt 09:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The portal I could see as being useful, but it would take a lot of work to get it working right. It might be better to see about adding a shōjo section to the current anime and mange portal and see how it goes for a while. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the point. Our other work groups are already understaffed or inactive. So can you care to explain why you think a Shōjo manga work group is of any benefit? And I don't see any usefulness in dividing or fragmenting P:ANIME, which itself could use more attention. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely useless, which is why is why your attempt to already create it was deleted. We have an anime/manga portal already, which is somewhat neglected, but otherwise more than adequate. A task force would also be pointless, as it is a huge chunk of the articles already under the project's scope. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as absolutely useless, but I do see it as problematic because historically our workgroups tend to dry up quickly because they don't maintain a critical mass of editors to keep it going. I strongly urge those who want to create this to instead form a cabal within this project, to work at emphasizing shoujo (our coverage is, frankly, pretty weak -- just look at how weak our coverage of the history of shoujo is, and of bestselling shoujo mangaka who haven't managed to break out in English), and to work to revive our existing portal. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with the others that this project wouldn't go anywhere due to the topic being too broad. This has been proposed a couple times before, though, so if you're up to searching the archives a bit, I would encourage you to find the previous people who suggested it and collaborate with them privately. We do need better coverage of shojo rather badly. --erachima talk 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mecha project?

Related to this, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia Project Mecha, to clean up the Mecha articles that are scattered around Wikipedia. --WngLdr34 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm slightly torn on this one. On the one hand, organizing cleanup on a specific category of articles is a proper use of wikiprojects, but on the other hand, that's usually just for single series where you can collect editors knowledgeable on the specific topic. Mecha is a huge category, so if it's just a cleanup drive you're after, you're probably better just asking here about the specific articles you want help with. --erachima talk 08:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that there is already a semi-active Gundam work group here, though obviously it doesn't have the scope of your proposed project/workgroup. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I could see a task force attached to this project, and people who are interested in mecha often are familiar with multiple shows featuring mecha. I could see a task force being useful if there were 10 or so people really interested in helping out with it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There are enough people who work on various mecha articles that I'd be down with this. WP:GUNDAM hasn't seen much action lately. Jtrainor (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Picking up mistakes in reliable sources

I think I know the answer for this but I'd like to check

In the Anime Encyclopedia, theres the following sentance: "Originally based on a segment of voice actress Megumi Hayashibara's Boogie Woogie Night radio show". However I can clearly spot that it should be "Tokyo Boogie Night"[1][2]. Presumably correcting this will be changing the text from the source, rendering it unreliable? And pointing out it's a mistake in an article would by OR? I'm working on her article as I come across the sources, so it would be a useable piece of information if only it wasn't so inacurate :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you have to use another reliable source to refute it, as technically we go to verifiability rather than truth (one of those times it can be annoying). If its clear its wrong, you either have to choose not to use it, or, again, find sources to refute. Alas, AE does have a few minor errors like that. Though, question...did you check their listing for Boogie Woogie Night to see if that's their alternate name for Tokyo Boogie Night? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thought as much. I haven't done any other research into the case, I literally posted here just after Reading the section it's in. Hayashibara is only mentioed four or five times and that's the only mentionof her shows. I doubt it's an alternate name, espcially as Tokyo boogie night shares it's name with a song of hers. It won't make or break the article either way, so I'll wait until I find something without a glaring error. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Brave Story

According to peer reviewer, Brave Story should have a page on each of its media (film, novel, games, etc). There's already Brave Story: New Traveller. Should I go ahead and create the separate articles or should I create a List of Brave Story media article?

Also, can {{Infobox animanga}} be collapsed? Extremepro (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that suggestion, and on, neither of those actions should be taken. The reviewer doesn't appear to be familiar with the Anima/manga MoS, or articles in this genre at all. None of the media is significantly different enough to warrant splitting. And no, the infobox can't be collapsed (nor should it). Not that big at all, comparatively, though it does need checking for accuracy. The lead needs rewriting to fix the issues, not article splitting. And no, a media article should NOT be created. Will leave additional comments in the PR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... actually, collapsing the infobox is a pretty interesting idea, especially when you consider just how long it can get in some cases. If it were to be made collapsible, I think section-by-section would be best (though a nightmare to code, since it would require nested tables), and it would require the addition of a hidden cat to articles using the collapsible functionality, to allow tracking. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you just volunteered. When will it be ready? -- Goodraise (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Volunteered? Not for this... it would require discussion first, and we already have one infobox overhaul discussion that's not getting any attention right now. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On Syoboi

Erachima has been kind enough to talk about syoboi's reliability here. Discuss. Makes our sourcing job hell of a lot easier if this is usable. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article at WP:AFC

I submitted an article for Queen Millennia a day or two ago on WP:AFC. The article exists on five other foreign-language Wikipedias and this version was translated from the Croatian Wikipedia as I'm most familiar with the language. The sources admittedly could be improved but at least two editors claim the article doesn't establish notabily. I outlined several points which meet WP:N, specifically one which "features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career", and is verified by a reliable source (ANN). Could someone from the project look the article over or perhaps suggest where English-language sources could be found ? Thanks. 71.184.50.165 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a notable series and I agree with their rejecting it. You are misapplying that criteria, and ANN's encyclopedia is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't exactly been rejected. Its on hold until better sources can be found. As for ANN, one of the editors said it was a reliable source ("3 & 4 are ANN, which is a RS for anime, but it only proves the show exists"). How am I misapplying the notability criteria ? Isn't Leiji Matsumoto is notable writer/director ? Aren't Tôru Furuya, Keiko Han, Ichirô Nagai, Akio Nojima, Kenichi Ogata, Kazuyuki Sogabe and Keiko Toda notable voice actors ? The series went to 41 episodes and was aired in several countries. It includes a manga series, a television movie and a spinoff (Captain Harlock and the Queen of a Thousand Years). I think it safe to say that it was at least moderately successful, if somewhat obscure, and would go so far to say it constitutes a small media franchise. Why do you think this isn't a notable series (apart from the sources) ? 71.184.51.190 (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at the level for notability, nor is notability inherited. The person who said that there was not aware of ANN's encyclopedia not being RS, nor is it a source for notability in any case. There is nothing to verify anything beyond it existed, and the suggested article has issues with copyright violating links and other inappropriate content. If it is part of the Harlock series, it would seem like it should be covered there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised to hear Queen Millenia called unnotable, and obscure as well - maybe you aren't old enough to remember it. Its a significant part of the Harlock franchise, was at least partially broadcast on US TV (in the 1980s, when that sort of thing was very rare indeed), not to mentioned fully translated and broadcast in at least five other languages, was popular enough to warrant a movie (which again was in turn popular enough to warrant translating it into four other languages). I think your article is an excellent start, certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion, but I think it would almost certainly survive an AfD. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suspect I'm older than you. :P And can you actually proof through reliable sources that it was broadcast in the US? Even ANN has not a single mention of an English licensor. Can you prove its popularity? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Giving another opinion. The real issue is the lack of reliable sources for anime release prior to apparition the DVD support & Internet. We are hitting a Thick wall. Even if we say it exists and was broadcasted in the 80s, we need more than just belief in good faith to prove that what we are writing isn't utter craps. That why we need those RS references. Considering the very nature of this article proving that this anime had a National level TV broadcast will solve at the same time the Verifiability & the Notability issue. --KrebMarkt 19:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I noted at least one review in the April 1982 Animage (four pages) for the film. It is likely the TV series was covered at least once (if not more often, given how popular Matsumoto is in Japan). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There's now a second article I've found covering it (the TV series this time) is the March 1981 Animage. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
IF it's enough to prove a National Broadcast then that one would do. --KrebMarkt 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, even though the people over at Articles for creation chose to decline for some reason (even though I provided two reliable sources (the two references above) showing notability), I created the article at Queen Millennia. During creation, I found several other reliable sources for the article, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Cookie +1 for you ;) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Mmm...tasty! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice actors, prose or template

In Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters#Suggestion for Listing Voice Actors there is a discussion about the use of prose or the voiced template for seiyus. The problem is that it was never discussed what do use. So it could be discussed now. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, discussion has also now been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Suggestion/Question for Listing Voice Actors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A question with List of Slam Dunk chapters

While working in List of Slam Dunk chapters, I noted that the series was edited in North America twice. Gutsoon published the first five tankobon from 2002 to 2004, and Viz Media started from number 1 in 2008. Should I add both editions for the English release date. By the way, the article needs the chapters for most volumes (especially those nihongo). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, Are the chapter titles for the volumes Gutsoon published the same? Are the translations of the content different, do they have different page counts? Adding Gutsoon's publication dates would mean adding their "alternative" titles too. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No idea. Someone else added the chapters of the first volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I updated/corrected the chapter titles as they were serialized in Shonen Jump, but I have no idea if the original titles on the list were Gutsoon's or not. As for whether to list both publishers, I'd have to say go ahead - see for example List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi chapters, List of Aria chapters, List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle chapters... ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention List of Fruits Basket chapters and every other series licensed in English by Chuang Yi as well as a North American publisher. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball character list clean up

A discussion has begun on starting a (much needed) clean up of the Dragon Ball character list. The first discussion suggests removing or merging various minor characters. Comments welcome at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Deletion of character sections (Part 1, other characters) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anime and manga fandom

Could someone check whether Anime and manga fandom is Wikipedia:Did you know worthy? I've already made a suggestion here. AngelFire3423 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It meets the 5x expansion criteria but there is an {{Expert-subject}} tag on the page. Extremepro (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well according to the User:Sanatherandom who added the tag, it doesn't really need the tag anymore. See here for the post. AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Magazine subject index formatting change

I've started working on a formatting change which will allow people using the "What links here" link to more easily find the specific magazine issues which have an article about the particular topic they are researching. You can see this in one year of the Animage topical archive so far: 1978. Basically, I split each issue out to its own page and then transcluded those individual issue pages into the year page. This allows people to quickly see that, for instance, Galaxy Express 999 has articles in the September, October, November, and December 1978 issues (see the What links here page for it).

Eventually, all years will have this. I will also be doing this with the book reference library as well (splitting out each book to its own page). This will be a big project, but I think it will make the reference library much more useful in the end (as well as intuitive). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive work, although surely this is just inviting more requests for references from you (seeing as you own vast quantitys of Japanese language materials, and will now get more detailed requests - I've got a couple lined up for you without this new change....) :) Especially with stuff from the 70s where it's difficult to obtain decent material in english - GE999 being a prime example (amusingly I have it on now, thank you Crunchyroll) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

School Rumble

I could use some help with cleaning up some of the list items to see if they could be integrated into the main article or moved to one of the child articles. Also if someone has sources for what I've cited, feel free to add them while your there. If not I was planning to get to them; I marked them so mostly so I could go back in at a later point in time to edit in the citations more easily.じんない 06:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting a preliminary list for the animanga info box

Template talk:Infobox animanga#Stalled

Please check it out and feel free to add anything missing. At this stage we don't really want stuff taken off. That will come later. Right now we want to make sure nothing is missing, so if you see something missing, feel free to add to it.じんない 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Omamori Himari

Should I split the character section into another page. It a bit too long. Extremepro (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it's long enough to warrant a split, especially when the out-of-universe info is rather space in the article. Plus, a quick look reveals a lot of unnecessary plot summary in the character descriptions, which make them unnecessarily longer, as the character summaries are meant to be about the characters themselves, not detailing everything they did, as that can be reserved for a chapter/episode list, but even then they should be kept to concise summaries. You should probably check out WP:MOS-AM and what it says on characters and other things.-- 01:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Karakuridôji Ultimo and "correcting" English names

Per WP:MOS-AM, WP:NAME, and the general project consensus, articles are named using their official English names, even if we sometimes disagree with them, however there seems to be some disagreement over issues of English titles with incorrect macrons. User:Nihonjoe moved Karakuridôji Ultimo to Karakuridōji Ultimo today, citing WP:MOS-JA as the reason. The article's primary editor, User:Jump Guru, questioned this, as the official English title, per Viz, is Karakuridôji Ultimo. Nihonjoe stated "Just because Viz is retarded and uses an incorrect character doesn't mean we need to" and said to bring it up here, which I'm doing instead after JG asked my view and because I noticed that Fushigi Yūgi is also named and written with the "proper" macron instead of Viz's official spelling. So I guess the question is, which should be used in these cases. The actual, exact, English name, regardless of correctness, or do we "correct" these titles to use the proper macrons. Personally, I feel we should be using the English title, error and all, and I can't see anything in MOS-JA that really supports overriding this. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA is completely clear on the matter: ô -> ō — this is the correct macron format per Hepburn. I wholeheartedly agree with Nihonjoe, as an incorrect character should never be used, period. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, "ô" is called a circumflex, not a macron, and is used in keyboards in which macrons aren't available - its usage has almost faded out with the use of Unicode. See Hepburn romanization#Variations. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"ô" has also been strongly reduced in usage in academia as well, in favor of "ō". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But this is NOT the Japanese title, it is the English one. That is the issue. Putting the correct in the romaji is perfectly fine to me, but we have always used the official English when they have removed the macron/circumflex's so why not keep it just because they used one that is, it seems, "old-fashioned".-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact is, it's a character, not a word in itself. Since WP:MOS-JA already states that macrons must be used, as it's the format used in Hepburn romanization, it's clear that it must be used in all such instances. Circumflexes were merely a way to represent the macrons for fonts or keyboards in which macrons weren't available in the first place. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh, who cares! It is the official English title, period! Even look at the English logo and even look at the several hundred press releases Viz has made using that title! Who cares if Viz is stupid, we all know they are. There is nothing in MOS-JA that supports what you guys are trying to say. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 19:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I've already explained why WP:MOS-JP clearly states that macrons are to be used. Please don't use phrases such as "who cares" while discussing, and act civilly (your comments on Nihonjoe's talk page were extremely rude). ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What's more, I noticed that in your comments on Collectonian's talk page, as mentioned previously, you referred to Nihonjoe, one of the best and foremost editors on Japan topics on Wikipedia (whose work has been praised by Matt Thorn, one of Viz's leading translators and authorities in manga translation and research), with these words: "I can't believe this guy is an admin..." — commenting in such a disparaging and incivil manner is against the very core and basis of Wikipedia, and I am deeply offended by these remarks. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, excuse me? But what does that have do with Wikipedia. Matt has more of a talent of translating than editing. If I met Tite Kubo and I was putting some work onto his page, he would probobly say that I'm a great editor too. This all has nothing to do with Ultimo. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What matters is your lack of respect and civility. Did you even read what Matt wrote? He was thanking Nihonjoe for translating the Minori Kimura article, so I have no idea where your strange analogy stands there. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm so sorry I disrespected the master Nihonjoe. Yes, I read the whole thing. Now back to Ultimo. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if you change your choice of terms from "the god of the sun" to "the master Nihonjoe", you are showing blatant incivility towards other editors. I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Civility, an official Wikipedia policy. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What we have here is conflicting guidelines, and commenters supporting either side don't seem to be acknowledging this -- and that because there's a conflict a decision needs to be made about how to adjust at least one guideline to make the result clear. (Personally, I think JumpGuru has a point: the English edition has, perforce, an English title, which means it can be argued that WP:MOS-JP no longer applies.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to argue in favor of the publisher here: it's pretty safe to assume (though I'd never put it in an article without a reliable source) that Viz knows full well the circumflex as used in Japanese romanization is well on its way out. It's pretty likely that they made a deliberate choice to use a circumflex here instead of a macron, and saying "no, it has to be a macron because MOS-JA says so" is akin to saying word X, which was incorrectly (but officially) romanized Y, must be spelled with the correct romanization Z "just because MOS-JA says so, because it's the correct romanization" (or something). Trying to say it should be "corrected" implies that the publisher made a mistake, and that it's our place to try and correct said mistake - both thoughts are highly fallacious. As Quasi said, the real issue here is that we have conflicting guidelines, and in this case common sense *should* make the correct answer obvious (but, unfortunately, there's no such thing as "common" sense, so...). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You're assuming that the circumflex was intentional, however, in Hepburn romanization (the mostly widely used romanization system, which is used in Viz's releases and is in place in Wikipedia), it is the macron which is the correct format, so yes, WP:MOS-JA has indeed full usability in this instance. The circumflex is only used in cases in which the typeset or keyboard does not support macron usage; it is not meant to be used as a replacement for the macron in Hepburn. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm trying not to assume anything; I'm trying to argue against assumptions (that being said, *some* assumption is nigh unavoidable in this case). As you stated yourself, Viz makes the habit of using Hepburn romanization in their translations, and has for years. Therefore, the fact that they chose to use a decidedly non-Hepburn-standard circumflex instead of a macron for Ultimo's title (and not just some random name or term used in the series), which was released last year (as opposed to 2003 or earlier), should be extremely telling in terms of whether it was intentional or not. You rap on me about making the assumption that the circumflex was intentional; now I'm going to do the same to you for making the assumption that it was not. The fact is, we can't safely assume one way or the other without Viz actually commenting on the issue in a press release or some other WP:RS medium, so the only safe thing to do is to use the title they chose and leave it at that. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that Hepburn romanization says that the Nihon-shiki and Kunrei-shiki romanizations also use circumflexes. Certainly, Viz are fully staffed with graphic designers and typesetters, so that if they wanted to use macrons they could. This strongly suggests they made a conscious decision to use circumflexes. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact is, Viz does use Hepburn to romanize this particular series' title, so therefore, their choice of Hepburn is of prime relevance to this matter. It is important because Hepburn uses and prioritizes macrons — this is fact, by the way, not assumption, whereas the other two alternate romanization systems Nihon-shiki and Kunrei-shiki, none of which are used in Viz's release, use circumflexes instead. Circumflexes are only used in Hepburn instances when the original typeset (or tool used for that typeset) does not support macrons (and yes, there are typesets around that don't support macrons), and therefore, it does not replace its usage while transcribing long vowels in Japanese. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Your own argument is working against you here, Ganryuu. Yes, Viz uses Hepburn romanization - no one is arguing that. It is also well established that it is well within Viz's means to use macrons; they have no restrictions on typesetting as would require the use of circumflexes. Therefore, the fact that the title of this series uses a circumflex cannot simply be ignored; it implies a deliberate, conscious choice. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Backing up slightly, taking a thought experiment. Suppose a century ago a professor of Oriental Studies published a translation of some minor late-Heian monogatori, and in the title uses Japanese words spelled with one of the older versions of Hepburn, or even with a romanization of his own devising (which he argues for in a lengthy and largely ignored appendix). Suppose further this book is being cited as a reference in an article. My understanding is that we'd need to cite that book using the title as he spelled it, without updating it to the modified Hepburn Wikipedia otherwise uses. Correct or no? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both the traditional and revised Hepburn systems utilizes macrons. A completely new system of romanization that one scholar might have devised on his own would be a little far-fetched (^_^), since Hepburn, and macrons, has always been the choice of preference for academic journals and scholars. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Quasi's question was a thought experiment (as he explicitly stated), so weighing it against its real-world probability makes little sense. My question here is, was the book originally published under the romanized title by the good professor? If so, that's definitely the title to cite it under, regardless of what romanization scheme he used to obtain it. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what this would do but the Viz Media's Shonen Jump site doesn't use either. The official site uses the circumflex. So I guess it accomplishes little. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 22:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See, they use it in the official Viz Media logo. Doesn't anyone think that establishes its English title. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha! I forgot to actually look there. Yea, I believe that establishes English title. I'd say go with the circumflex as that's the way it's translated. I don't understand anything about romanization anyway. ;P ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The argument that Viz knows what it's doing, based on past works, is weak. Viz is not a single person. It can have different people working on the different projects, making different mistakes. And Stan Lee apparently did the translation anyway. Also, Wikipedia already has precedent for ignoring "incorrect" names, including trademarked names in all-caps. "VIZ" isn't used in the Viz article, nor is "viz", the format used in its logo.

On the other hand, they're probably going to stick with this, mistake or not, so the official title can be assumed to, now and always, have a circumflex. "Romanization" has nothing to do with "standard English", so the all-caps rule might not apply. And aren't there articles with incorrect romanization? I think someone should find a way to contact Stan Lee's company.

Until then, WP:ENGLISH can be taken to suggest that we use the circumflex and note the romanization in the intro. MOS-JP doesn't directly apply here, since there's no rule about official nonstandard romanizations using symbols other than macrons. --Raijinili (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that may not be true. It does allow for non-standard romanizations such as Devil Hunter Yohko and Tenjho Tenge. This may fall under that, in which case I may have been incorrect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That only bolsters the argument that Viz knew *exactly* what it was doing. If it was just one person, or a small group of people (like a scanslation group), such a mistake would certainly be possible, and have a reasonable chance of making it through to the released version. However, Viz is a corporation, and between the time the first internal memos announcing the series were passed around and the time the chapter was actually published in Shonen Jump, dozens of employees from pretty much every job description Viz employs, at pretty much every step of the corporate ladder, would have seen at the very least the title. If the circumflex was incorrect, someone would have pointed it out, and it probably would have been corrected. However, what we actually see is (if any diacritical mark gets used) the circumflex in all their press releases, in all promotional artwork, and in the series itself. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Forgive the late reply. I gotta lean the other way; my impression working for the manga companies was that this sort of style guide is determined arbitrarily by editors who don't know all that much about Japanese or the romanization thereof. They tend to pick and chose from several sets of romanization techniques, and they probably chose a circumflex over a macron for aesthetic values rather than practical ones. I'd rate preserving such nonsense on the same level as irregular capitalization, and recommend being consistent with the Wikipedia style guide. Doceirias (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More RS questions

  • Rei's home page (http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rei/home.html) - appears to be a self-published personal website
  • Enter the Manga-world (http://www.geocities.com/vigxi/) - ignoring the fact that I can't figure out how to get past that flash animation into the actual site, this one also seems to be a self-published fansite; the fact it's a GeoCities site certainly doesn't help its case

These are both sites formerly used as sources on Ao no Fūin[3], which were removed by Collectonian in the aftermath of a minor tiff regarding the appropriateness of said article as a "see also" link from Fushigi Yūgi. In the course of this discussion, Collectonian looked at Ao no Fuuin and removed these sources (and an ANN encyclopedia source) as failing WP:RS, after which Nihonjoe, who originally added said sources back in 2007, made the comment "Well, seeing as you are a self-proclaimed deletionist, your judgement is suspect since you prefer deleting just about everything. I'll see if I can find some references that meet your insanely high 'standards'." I'm not judging the merits of the discussion or the removal here, I'm just wondering on the sources. Thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Geocities is shutting down, so that can't be used as a link anyways. The other website is self-published and unusable as a reliable source. (Who is "Rei" and what makes him/her an expert on the subject?) As for the dispute, if these are valid "See also" links do to their connection to the same legend, so would Digimon Tamers, YuYu Hakusho, and a few of other anime and manga. Because of that, the works should have a strong connection then just the legend, such as both are variations of the same story or are written by the same author. --Farix (Talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be perfectly acceptable to point to a few other series with a similar theme or a similar source. This allows people to be aware of other adaptations of the story or legend without making any judgements about said adaptations. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that after removing the unreliable sources that the other page might not be able to demonstrate notability doesn't preclude it from inclusion in a see also section. If the article ends up in deletion, then it would be appropriate to remove it. Also I think Nihonjoe's comment about Collectonian being a deletionist is a borderline personal attack; you need to work with other editors, despite their philosophical stance. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about the appropriateness of the see also link, I was asking about the sources. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't just talking to you, but also to Nihonjoe who's message was right above my comment, and Collectonian. I thought that question was pretty well answered by Farix, neither of those are reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and my comment (which, reading it again, does sound rather snippy, which definitely wasn't my intent =P ) was actually also directed at Collectonian and Nihonjoe. In any case, I was trying to say that I was only asking about the sources, and that this isn't really where the see also link should be discussed (not because it's the inappropriate venue, but because there are already two discussions on it). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rei's Home Page is written by Eri Izawa, who has contributed as an anime reviewer to EX, (which is listed on the reliable sources links page) and contributed a chapter on anime to the book Japan Pop!, a scholarly anthology edited by Timothy J. Craig. --Malkinann (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this site reliable?

I have found website Allcinema which contains a lot about TV series, DVDs, seiyu, etc. Is it reliable?Tintor2 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Going by the bad translator results, it seems like it is primarily a user edited site, so I'm inclined to say know. Any Japanese readers able to confirm this? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have always found it to be accurate. It's certainly not comprehensive, but given the dearth of sites like it, I consider it reliable for the information it has. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? So I guess this could help with the ANN encylopedia clean up of refs.Tintor2 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, WP:RS requires slightly more of a site for it to be considered reliable than just being accurate. Every nobody can host a website that contains only accurate information. That alone doesn't make such a site reliable. - Before the next subtile wave of hostility strikes me, I'm not saying the page isn't reliable, just that at FLC/FAC I wouldn't be satisfied with an assurance like "I have always found it to be accurate." -- Goodraise (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility

Going by machine translation, this site seems to be a personal site. However, given its coverage of vampire-themed manga and anime is extensive (possibly comprehensive?), if it is reliable it'd be a useful niche resource. Can someone check it out? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fillers

Ok, we have a discussion on the List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes because of the Filler labeling, i label the episodes and then they eras my labels, i was told that in this portal decided to forvide the filler labels, and i don't agree with that, what do i have to do, where do i have to write my point of view regarding this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlingmaximilian (talkcontribs) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Four editors have now told you to stop this, and have repeatedly told you that you were acting against established consensus. Marking episodes as filler is against Wikipedia guidelines (explained to you) and against established consensus for what an episode list should contain (also explained to you). It is WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, and unsourced. For the curious, discussion already on-going at Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes#"Filler" episodes, and editor has been reported for violating 3RR (up to 5 reverts at the moment).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's only clutter on an episode list and completely unnecessary. I would strongly avoid the use of of the term "filler" because, technically, there is no such thing as "filler" in a television series. Simply storylines that are drawn from the original source material and storylines that are original to the anime series. The lead of the list should already explain that the series was adapted from some other source material, so noting changes, additions, and cuts should be expected. If this information needs to be included, it's better off in the lead. But the episodes themselves should not be labeled. --Farix (Talk) 01:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
One other thing, if condenses does change and "filler" episodes are noted, it should never be in the episode number. This causes an inconsistency with how anchor links behave within the article. For example linking to #ep100 instead of #ep100 (FILLER) or some variation thereof. --Farix (Talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If you say that is unnecesary to label the filler episodes obviosly you don't understand about the anime fandom, most of the people want to see the manga adapted to the anime. Most of the people doesn't want to see this original anime episodes, so if we label the we are adding significant content to the article, maybe filler is not the term, but i think we must add some sort of label like "original anime episode", please understand that this is valuavle information and it must be added, i repeat, is not necesary to call this episodes like "fillers"--Starlingmaximilian (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia wasn't created specifically for the anime fandom. We have to take those not part of anime fandom who might be reading the article into account. Although I understand the practicalities of such information, I don't believe it is necessary information for an encyclopedia. If one want to know what is canon within the source material and what is not, they should compare it to the corresponding chapters lists. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Wrong, again. All of us here are anime fans, thanks, but we also realize this is an encyclopedia and that, as editors, our personal view points on "filler" episodes does not override Wikipedia guidelines and policies. And claiming "most people don't want to see" fillers is just plain BS and your personal point of view. I can just as easily say many fans enjoy the episodes because quite a few fans like the anime to be different from the source manga. All of the episodes are, technically, original. They are not just anime frames of the manga, but each and every episodes adds something and changes something. Episodes that are not based on a source manga chapter does not need to be "labeled" nor is it adding significant nor valuable content to the article to do so. It does nothing but add an extremely inappropriate negative personal opinion where it is neither warranted or desired. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(ECX2)Anime fandom has nothing to do with the article or wikipedia. It's for factual information that can be verified through reliable third party sources, "filler" labelling is not something that fits that. Please stop assuming that the article exists for the benefits of fans who agree with you. We are not here to help people decide what they do and do not see, and there is no reason we should - that is an issue for fansites or forums, we are neither. It is NOT valuable information for the article, no matter how much you insist it is. Changing the term does not affect the issue. It is a list of episodes, not a comparison between anime and manga. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there is nothing bad on labeling the filler episodes with a "original anime plot", because thats what it is, an episode that doesn't take its plot content from the source. what's wrong on doing so? it is very helpfull information. many times (or always) on the filler episodes from any anime the personalities of the characters changes, the power levels decrease or increase without aparent reason. For example, when we see a manga based anime episode from the X anime we see the main character spliting a rock,after that when we see a filler episode of the same anime we see the main character breaking his hand on the rock! or we can see him spliting 5 rocks, we can always see this kind of inconcistency on the filler episodes and thats why it should be labeled.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see how the anime deviating from the source material is useful to note on an article dealing with only the anime. It's like me writing a plot summary for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie) while noting where it deviated from the book. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 03:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking plot section, not differences from the book section. That's something completely different altogether. Just clearing that up. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I fully understand anime fandom. However, You must also understand that Wikipedia is not a fansite and it doesn't cater to the specific interests of a small group of readers. We honestly don't know who is going to be reading the article. Not all anime fans will care about which episodes are based on the original source material and which do not. And finally, you don't speak for all fans either. You don't even speak for a portion of them. You can only speak for yourself. So contently using "fans want to know this" is a fallacious argument at its core. Also by your own admittance, the term "filler" is a derogatory term, one that should be avoid per WP:NPOV --Farix (Talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not all the fans want to know about the filler episodes but i don't see any harm on labeling, a lot of people will find those labels very helpfull, and the ones who don't care if the episode is from the manga or an original anime episode will not see any harm on knowing so, we can help a lot of people labeling the anime only episodes with a term that achieves concensus (because filler is not going to do it) besides i can't see why is this against wikipedia policies if we pick a proper term to call the filler episodes.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You really can't say "a lot of people" unless you survey everyone who has and everyone who will read the article on the topic. Let's assume we agree to allow it (doesn't mean we do). You need to reference every instance to add Filler (or whatever term we "agree" to use). What are you going to reference it with? ~Itzjustdrama ? C 03:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Look you just have to google it and you will see on every anime forum people complaining about the fillers (from any anime) i think you know that is important for a lot of people yourself and i must say that your argument of the "survey" was of "bad faith" i'm looking for concensus and i'm talking with good faith and trying to improve wikipedia, you saying that i have to "survey everyone who has and everyone who will read the article on the topic" is a bad argument and i think you know it, lets find a proper term instead of filler and lets label the chapters, if we do so we are giving important information to the readers, non harmfull infromation for thos who don't care about fillers and we are not going agains the wikipedia policies. Please understand that we are denying important information for a lot of wikipedia readers.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what is happening on forums, that has no impact on wikipedia. Additionally, Those forum users do NOT speak for everybody, and they certainly don't speak for wikipedia. This debate is getting silly now, your arguement revolves around what fans want, and wikipedia is not a fan site. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry if my comment came across as bad faith. I was just pointing out a hole in your argument: that a "lot of people" will find the labels helpful. I didn't actually mean you have to go survey them. My argument was "Ref it". I still believe it goes against policy. We cannot do such a thing unless we have a reliable source. A forum is not a reliable source. Until it has a source, it is OR. We are not denying them information. The purpose of the article is to summarize the episodes of the Naruto Shippuden. Not compare to Naruto (Part II). ~Itzjustdrama ? C 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I request all further comments be made to Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes#"Filler" episodes? I'm tired of the page hopping. 04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

is not about what fans want, is about what wikipedia readers want, and they want information, they look about anime fillers, we have the information and you don't want to give it to them. an information that will not harm anyone, that does not goes against wikipedia policies if we find a proper term, so why don't to put it? even if just a 1% of the readers find that information usefull, is not that a reason to put this information? it has to be usefull for the half of them? the whole? a quarter? because most of the articles i read on wikipedia i just red one half or less, because i'm not looking for the whole i'm just looking for a fraction of information from that article, many people may be doing so with the episode list wanting to know wich episodes are anime only and i repear, labeling this chapters is usefull for some people and the people who doesn't care will not see any harm on it.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Filler is not really that informational. You'd have a better chance pushing anime episodes articles to have manga chapters. DragonZero (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about finding a proper term! This is about the information being an OR violation. I don't particularly care what you call it. Even if you decide to add which episode corresponds with what chapter, that doesn't change the fact it is unreferenced and original research! ~Itzjustdrama ? C 04:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if we put a label on the episodes saying "non manga episode" and the one who put this label watched the anime and read the manga is wrong? are you saying that we cannot put any information unless someone else from other media does it first? are you saying that if the oxford encyclopedia does it we can JUST THEN do it?Starlingmaximilian (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
They're not wrong. It's just OR. Because if you source it with (for argument's sake) "Read the manga and then watched the anime", that's synthesis of information. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Good lord, people have such huge arguments over these minutiae. Short answer is no. It can be noted that certain episodes are not a direct adaptation of the manga, but the specific term "filler" is not correct. See the introduction for List of Bleach episodes (season 4). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
How do you expect to do an article without citing the very source? is not wrong to source it with "NARUTO MANGA" and "NARUTO ANIME", how do you think the guy who wrote the article about hamlet did it? don't you think he didn't used HAMLET?!?!?! and if the oxford encyclopedia comes with an article about fillers on naruto (hahahaha) how do you think they are going to doit? watching the anime and reading the manga!!!! i'm gonna say once and again that the term filler doesn't has to be used.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
...wow, you're pretty aggressive over a fairly small issue. Saying something happened in the manga can be cited to the manga itself. Saying something happened in the anime can be cited to the anime itself. Saying that something in one medium is different from the other is original research, which is explicitly not allowed by Wikipedia policy. As I've already said, it can be noted that certain episodes are not direct adaptations of the manga, but the specific term "filler" falls foul of our policy on original research. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll state again, the issue here is not what term to use. The Oxford dictionary does not have an OR policy and can synthesize information all it likes. We don't allow it because it might cause WP:NPOV issues (correct me if I'm wrong there). Comparing the anime and manga series is synthesizing, putting together, the information there. I'm not saying the adaptations are not RS. Just go with what Sephiroth BCR suggested. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not original research because i'm not synthetising, i'm not "advancing a position" i'm saying that some parts of A doesn't belong to M, how can that be an OR? keep in mind that synth is when you came with a conclusion "advance a position" i'm not doing so.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, yes it is synthesis. You need to combine information from more than one reference to source the claim. If you remove one reference, you cannot support the claim. From my interpretation, that is synthesis 05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, you're advancing a position. That "some parts of A don't belong to M" is an argument. It's not fact. There's really no way around this. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, i'm just using A to edit M, thats not synthesis. What is wrong is to make a new article based on two diferent articles. and i would like someone else to bring light over this synthesis matter because i think you are missunderstanding it. but even if it means what you say i'm not doing it.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are using A and B to edit M. Without A, B alone cannot support what was adding to M. Without B, A alone cannot support what was added to M. Because you need both A and B, I believe it is synthesis. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 05:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Anime News Network's encyclopedia RS? It notes which eps are "filler": [4] --Mika1h (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it's user edited. DragonZero (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not Synthesis, I'm using source material to edit article B, besides the rule of synthesis talks about using two sourced articles to make a new article, in this case i'm using two sources that doesn't need to be referenced because it is the very source material! i think you don't understand the synthesis rule. Starlingmaximilian (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is original research, synthesis or neither is irrelevent. It simply doesn't belong in an article covering the episodes of the anime series. At most, it may be note in the lead, per Sephiroth's example above, if it is to be noted at all. It doesn't look like anyone is agreeing with your viewpoint about lables, so it is best to stop beating this horse. --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Backing up slightly to address a slightly wider issue, given that information about how, for ex, the producers of an anime went about adapting a source work such as, say, a manga is considered encyclopedia information by common consent and guideline, an argument can be made that noting the source of a given anime episode -- that is, which chapter(s). A pretty good argument, and one I'd support. The problem is, as noted above, is that Wikipedia require a reliable source to make the comparison between anime and manga for us -- for if you read WP:OR carefully, you'll see that making a comparison is what's known by the technical term "original research". (Even with a source, though, calling episodes original to the adapted for "filler" would be Right Out, on neutral POV grounds if nothing else.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be cynical, we all know wich episodes are fillers and wich episodes are not, we don't need a reference for that, is not any kind of head editor on wikipedia who can arbitrate on this subject? cause i feel i'm talking wich some kind of computer that doesn't understand wich is not on it's script. For now i'll be glad if someone can add on the begining of the article wich episodes or archs are "fillers". Do you at least agree on that?Starlingmaximilian (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course we need a reference, you are claiming something. The reason you are getting the same answers is because everyone agrees. You don't seem to understand the differences between wikipedia and a fan page. I understand that you see this as beneficial, but you seem to be in the minority. As for arbitration, Sephiroth BCR, who has already replied, is a admin, and frankly an expert on lists. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to belittle Sephiroth's expertise, but an admin is not what Starlingmaximilian is looking for. What he is looking for is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Really, he isn't even looking for that. He seems to basically be looking for someone to say that despite a pretty overwhelming and (as far as I can tell) unanimous consensus, that he should still get his way, which isn't going to happen. There isn't a dispute, he just doesn't want to accept consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no "head editor" over Wikipedia. Administrator privileges is limited to cleanup and dealing with behavior issues. However, Administrators don't use their tools to arbitrate article content or else their privileges may be revoked. How an article or list is put together is based on a consensus of editors using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which themselves are developed from consensus. So far, the consensus has disagreed with you about stating which episodes are "fillers". --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok,if we can solve this by ourselves theres no need on a dispute resolution process, but if we can't i will look for that.

Then my solution would be that on the beginig of the article "naruto shippuden episode list" a brief comment on wich episodes or archs are "original anime plot" i can do it myself but maybe someone else wants to do it, i would like someone else to do it. I think sephirot agreed on this and thefarix as well. The only thing remaining to do is pick a better term instead of "filler", maybe we can say these chapters has "original anime plot".Starlingmaximilian (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of why we need a reference for adaptation source. Suppose there's an anime episode that takes part of one chapter from the manga, plus an incident from another chapter but with a different character, and created new material (about half the episode) that ties the two parts together. (This is not pulled out of my hat, but a real example.) Ask three different viewers, and you'll get three different opinions as to whether it's an original episode, counts as adapted from one chapter, or is largely adapted from two chapters. This is because you have to interpret the relationship between two (or in this case, three) different things. Any time there's an interpretation, rather than summarizing a straightforward statement, Wikipedia requires citing it to a reliable source in order to mitigate the bias of the editor writing it up. This is the fundamental argument issue here (IMNSHO). Sources are needed for adaptation details. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
i beleave thats the case of the guren arch, right? because in the middle of some filler chapters they show for example sasuke killing 100 guys (please correct me if i'm wrong cause i'm not sure) but at least we must state that the character guren is "non manga based". Besides i think is better talking about archs, we can say the guren arch is a filler, and that way doesn't matter if this arch begins or ends on the middle of an episode. Also note that we can say that sora's arch is full anime plot with any trouble.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't agree that it needs to be included. I just pointed out where it should go if it was included. I'm still not convinced that it is relevant and doesn't cross the lines with regards to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV — since the purpose of including the information is to hint that fans "shouldn't watch" these episodes. --Farix (Talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok guy it is futile talking with you, i'm gonna make a dispute resolution request.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This issue is really quite simple, and I don't see why there should be so much trouble over it: almost no one beyond hardcore fans are going to care if a given episode is filler or not. Ask half the people who watched anime casually on Cartoon Network; how many of them have the slightest clue that those series were adapted from a manga series (or, indeed, what "anime" and "manga" even are)? Wikipedia does not exist for hardcore fans, it exists for the casual reader. If you're looking for information on what episodes in your favorite series are filler (so you can skip them or what-have-you), do a Google search - there will be plenty of fansites you can find in five seconds that will unmistakeably label what episodes are, in their opinion, filler. We don't even have to hit the original research argument here; the simple fact is that even for people looking specifically for information on anime/manga or individual series, very few are going to know about/care about/be looking for what episodes are filler and what aren't. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
True, the one thing we can guarantee that readers are looking for when they read a list of episodes is episode summaries. But even there, we have restrictions on the amount of detail that we can go into. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
And those hardcore fans will know if it is filler or not. Anyway, you can say an episode or arc is filler if you get a reliable secondary source stating that it is filler.じんない 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Starling:

"is not about what fans want, is about what wikipedia readers want, and they want information"
First, it's not about what Wikipedia readers want. The three core policies are Neutrality, No Original Research, and Verifiability. Articles are supposed to satisfy all three. Wikipedia wants to be a respectable encyclopedia, with information that people can trust, even if it means leaving things out.
But even if it was about what Wikipedia readers want, look at this talk page. You are looking at Wikipedia readers. You are looking at anime fans. And they are making it clear that the majority of them do not want this here.
People who complain about it on forums go to those forums to complain about it. Complaints are more often heard than praises, because hate is a better motivator than admiration. Here, however, you are getting a response to your complaint, and the people here were not drawn to Wikipedia because of Naruto manga. --Raijinili (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS vs. Chapter<-Episode labels

I know this conversation was started up there. I'm restarting it.

There are some interesting arguments for the chapter/episode relationships not violating WP:Reliable Sources.

  • Anime-only characters are already labeled, and without a reliable source. Plot summaries, also, can be considered synthesis by making what should be objective conclusions about the plot of the work.
  • The need for reliable sources, while ideally strict, increases as the information's disputability increases. Are there Naruto episodes for which the source chapter(s) is(/are) disputable? I'm not talking about merging or splitting of chapters. Given two people who know the anime and the manga well, are there episodes for which they would argue about the labeling?

I'm only thinking about the need for reliable sources. There are still concerns about neutrality and original research. If you're just against putting in the information for other reasons than RS, please don't derail this thread. You still have the section up there, and of course you have the right to make another section. --Raijinili (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never thought about the anime-only character stuff. I've only really paid attention to "his/her role has been significantly reduced/increased in the anime adaption" after I'm through talking about the manga role. But I guess that's the same thing. I guess you can somehow imply that they are an anime only character (i.e. "He is the main antagonist of the anime adaptation.") Well, my argument against chapter/episode relationships is it doesn't really belong in an episode list anyway. And can you explain the second sentence of point one again. Strangly, I'm haivng a hard time understanding it. Might be past my bedtime. ;P ~Itzjustdrama ? C 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that if people can't show that chapter labels are at least a little controversial (in the sense that people disagree about the correct label) then they can't show a strong need for direct sources. --Raijinili (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Documenting this

So before this issue comes up again -- and let's face it, it will -- we should probably add something to WP:MOS-AM, to point to in further iterations. It sounds like adding to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Media something like:

Details of adaptations (such as which manga chapters an anime episode adapts, or that an episode is original to the anime) should never be included without a reliable source stating that this is so. Note that a statement from the creator or adapter counts as reliable for this purpose.

would capture the consensus of the discussion. Yay or nay? (I left out the "filler" terminology as being, well, filler of a different sort, but maybe that can be added as well: "Do not use the term "filler" for an original episode.") —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be in the MOS, I removed similar information from the Gin Tama list twice before the issue was raised at the shippuden list(at considerable effort the first time, second time was a revert). I think it needs to be made clear that such discussion should go in the lead, and not the list itself (which was part of the original issue), as well as requiring a RS and not using the term filler. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the lead only? Um, doesn't that contradict WP:LEAD? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
List of Bleach episodes (season 9) would be an example of a featured list that does just that. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay -- when talking about the entire subject of the article, sure. My wording above was more addressing individual episodes. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I had a 3-meter pole, I'd poke this. Sadly, I do not and will have to make do with this 10-foot one. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Detective Conan reliable source

I have reviewed this site and everything that I've checked has been accurate. The site is extremely extensive, giving release information for episodes, music, manga, and so on. Everything I've been able to check against Animage and other reliable sources has always been correct. While the site is a fan site, so are some other sites considered reliable sources (such as Nausicaa.net and Hitoshi Doi's site). I think we should add this one to our list of reliable sources as I have never found such an extensive resource for Detective Conan information. It's like Nausicaa.net, but for Conan instead. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that the main site is a database of mystery and detective fiction information. The Conan section is only part of the site. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Do they have anything about Agatha Christie's Great Detectives Poirot and Marple? That article could use a dose of reference lovin'. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A whole section. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. I'll add that as an external link, at least. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I support the source to be added to reliable sources. DragonZero (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you should mention nausicaa.net, it's primarily a wiki now *insert angry smiley*. Might be worth reevaluating it's reliability (last I checked it wasn't listed a as a reliable resource anyway Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is editorial control, it it may be becoming a closed wiki soon (meaning people have to be approved to have access to change things). The "old site" is till there, too. Nausicaa.net has been cited in both Japanese and English magazine articles, books, and such. Dr. Susan Napier used Nausicaa.net (and the associated Miyazaki Mailing List) to conduct research for her some of her books. It's widely considered a reliable source for information regarding Miyazaki, Studio Ghibli, and related topics. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I have no problem with the "old site", but the main page now being a wiki raised a flag. Either way, I don't think its in the resource section at the moment. Dandy Sephy (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be, as the information in the wiki is just being ported from the old site. It was changed to a wiki so people working on the site would be able to more easily maintain it. (speaking as knowing several of the people who maintain it) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So is there any opposition to adding both of these as reliable sources? If not, I'll add them on Monday or so (unless someone else does first). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections, so I've added both (note that I added Nausicaa.net as a conditional source since the wiki currently allows anyone to edit; feel free to change its entry now or later). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Japanese-exclusive merchandise data

An editor recently came by on the Macross II article and deleted the merchandise sub-section on the series' 1/100 Valkyrie model and the arcade game, saying that it would be better off being posted only on the JA page. His rationale for it is 'These were never released in English-speaking countries.' If that seems to be the case, better wipe out everything Macross from here because of the BigWest/Harmony Gold release controversy issue. Taking them out of here and only putting them on JA is just like letting the casual EN wikipedia visitor know that such items never existed. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove them based on that sort of content bias, if anything I'd say there isn't enough information about them at all - certainly not enough to argue it's unnecessary information. If there were huge chunks of random facts and trivia about them a cut down would be understood, but they are only mentioned in passing, so I'm not seeing their "logic". I've stuck the page on my watchlist, it could do with some WP:MOS-AM love anyway. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying fast, because while I could do WP in the office, the IT guys block anything that has anime or manga on the title...even this wikiproject. I just didn't want to edit war with the guy.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've left a message on their talk page that should hopefully explain things. I've also rearranged the article a bit to follow MOS-AM some more, and have ditched the cast list in favor of a link to ANN's Encyclopedia entry, which has the cast there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Removing the merchandising section from the article because there has been no merchandising in the Anglosphere is itself a form of bias. It also leaves the article incomplete. Its the same reason why our reception sections shouldn't focus on just English review, ratings, and sales. --Farix (Talk) 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the others. That removal is a blatant example of systematic bias, and a particularly odd one. So what if it wasn't released "in English", it is a JAPANESE series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor is arguing on the article talk that leaving the information in fails WP:NPOV, although his arguement seems to be the opposite of what the policy is for.... (it can't be undue weight as it's barely mentioned). However the article looks much better now, so the attention was of some benefit. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So we bring back deleted data on the said merchandise? --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it already had been. Yes, the info should be restored. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm on it. thanks for the help. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga#Proposed deletions

Not a lot of use has been made of that section recently. I just added a proposed deletion, if anyone would like to take a look. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's had a fair amount of use lately, it's just in a quiet spell for a change and the "old" ones have been archived . Like the AFD's Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Great, glad to hear it, I downgrade a lot of speedy deletions to prods and post a notice on the relevant deletion sort page. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Yep, as Dandy notes, it does get used quite a bit, when there are PRODs to not. Just not many at the moment, probably in part due to having a few people running around deprodding everything and forcing it to AfD. But definitely add away, they are noted. :D-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. One more thing ... when I downgrade from speedy to prod and give notice on the relevant page(s) for deletion sorting, if you find out a valid reason to speedy that I didn't mention on the talk page of the article, feel free to make the call and delete it if you're an admin (since someone already tagged it) or feel free to re-tag it for speedy if you're not an admin. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, there's something else. I made a small change to the section heading of WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga#Proposed deletions and added some text, but I really don't care what the format is, I'm only trying to standardize it because there will probably be a bot soon that helps with automatic notification, and it may help if the bot sees the same thing in each section. I borrowed the language and format from other WP:DS pages. Feel free to revert. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've undone that. There is a standard format already in use that should be retained. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Was in a hurry earlier so gave a short answer. For the longer answer, there is not likely to be a bot doing the archive. There is a bot that archives deletion notices and we looked at having it do that one, but to do it, all of the old archives would have to be updated to match the bot's archiving format, which would be difficult to do (if I remember correctly). However, the deletion page itself is in the format that the bot would prefer, and pretty much all deletion pages use those particular templates for listing prods, cfds, etc as they are consistent. Hope that helps explain better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I also don't think the introduction is beneficial as it is basically WP:CREEP. But {{prodded}} should always be used when listing prods. It makes archiving them much easier. And any likely bot will use the template as well. But it is a really bad idea to go around and make major changes to how prods are listed on deletion sorting pages without any discussion. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about making a bot request to archive our delsort page, but haven't done anything about it yet. I kinda agree with Farix's point about the lead, though (which may surprise some of you, since I'm the one who wrote much of that creep... =) ). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion so far has been at WT:CSD#Triage and WT:PROD#Deletion sorting. I have no preference, I just want to be able to tell the bot-writer (maybe User:ThaddeusB) what kind of target he's aiming the bot at. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is no discussion of your changes to how prods are listed at either link other then your initial posts. --Farix (Talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What discussion there has been, has been at those two pages and here. Asking people if they have a problem counts as discussion, even if no one raises an objection. But I just got new info: we don't necessarily need a new bot because Article Alerts handles prods; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Article alerts. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing Animax dates

Does anyone know a way to reliably cite Animax's initial broadcast dates since their site doesn't seem to keep any past records. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If the dates are listed as plan HTML, then you can use WebCite to archive the page. This is what I do for Anime Newtype Online, which also updates every 4 to 5 weeks. --Farix (Talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The are also sites out there that can make self-archives. I believe one is listed on our resource page.じんない 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but I want to find an archive of an Animax site that was created in 2006 and with WebCite you have to actually do the archiving yourself I believe, which I can't do anymore now that's its 2009. AngelFire3423 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you checked Archive.org? If it isn't there, then probably have to see if its any magazines or check some of the alternate resources noted on the resource page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I've checked archive.org and looked at every site I can find, including the resource page, but the only places that seem on the internet that have the information are forums and blogs. I guess I'll have to find someone who has magazines. AngelFire3423 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Lolicon image issues (again)

Hy71194 (talk · contribs) has been moving the image File:Lolicon Sample.png out of the lead of Lolicon claiming that the image is not safe for work and offensive.[5][6] Of course the claim is a load of bull, but it could use more eyes on it at the moment. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not offensive. Besides, if the person found it offensive, what was the person doing searching for it anyways.DragonZero (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
An easy case of WP:CENSOR.-- 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as call it censorship, but it does rank up there with the claim that the image is illegal kiddy porn, not because of the image itself, but because of the context of the article. -_-; --Farix (Talk) 02:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content..-- 02:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can blogs be used as references?

I'm working on mangaka Hiro Fujiwara's page. I was wondering if her blog is suitable to be a reference. In general, are official blogs are suitable to be references? Amaya Sakura (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Her official blog can be used as a reference in a limited sense, but it should not be the only reference (and it can only really be used on her own article, or to source her views/production info on her work). See WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY for more info on appropriate use of a self-published primary source like a personal blog. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Another question here, can I have her self-portrait (her own drawing of herself) placed on her article? Is it considered as an image of a living person? Amaya Sakura (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, as only free images may be used on the bio of a living person. The only exception to that rule is in the case of people where their appearance at a particular time in their career is shown to be extremely important to the article in some way (perhaps they were only active for a few years and it's now 30 years later, or they are most well known for their appearance in a certain work).
One example of this exception being used in in the case of Agnes Lum, a model from Hawaii who was very popular in Japan in the 1980s, but who hasn't really done much since then. As she was most well known for her appearance as a bikini model, the fair use image used in the article is allowed as it shows her during that period. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

French ACBD and yearly report

The ACDB is an association made of experts in the Comics/BD/Manga.

It releases every year a report on the state of the French Comics/BD/Manga.

Report 2008, see p22 for the most printed manga released in France for 2008 (Not be confused with sells numbers).

Comments:

  • 1288 Japanese Manga published in France for 2008. p5
  • Nine licenses represented more than 50% of all sold manga for 2008. (p4 bottom)
  • For each release of Naruto in France it publisher printed no less than 220 000 copies and there were six volumes of Naruto released in 2008 in France. p22

--KrebMarkt 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fan service vs. Fanservice

There is an ongoing discussion about whether the article Fan service should be renamed to Fanservice at Talk:Fan service#Move?. --Farix (Talk) 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Should the article List of Case Closed episodes (season 6) be moved to List of Detective Conan episodes (season 6). Since there is no English adaption of it planned, I figured it should be moved to Detective Conan until an announcement of the sixth season is made. Also, should the article's character name be in English or Japanese? DragonZero (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, in a case like this it should remain consistent with the rest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't know, the whole episode list has been changed to the Japanese season, so the season 1 of Detective Conan isn't really season 1 of Case closed. So far, I just covered it up by adding notes onto the page. List of Case Closed episodes (season 1). DragonZero (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

Anyone want to help me clear out the Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime_and_Manga#Biography_Requests? ANN links and RS reviews of the person would help heaps. Extremepro (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a good article to use as a template for mangaka articles? Osamu Tezuka? Extremepro (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Gravett

Can Paul Gravett's website and his Manga - Sixty Years of Japanese Comics be used as RS sources in Yoshiharu Tsuge? Extremepro (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes :p see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References#Reliable_online_column_archives --KrebMarkt 06:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm using Osamu Tezuka as a template for the article. Is there a GA/FA mangaka article? Extremepro (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
None unless i mistaken :( --KrebMarkt 07:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Check out the article on Katsura Hoshino, it's fairly good. Using Tezuka's article as a basis may be like comparing The Tale of Genji and Torikaebaya. --Malkinann (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Template supporting disambiguation

Is there a version of Template:Anime voices which supports disambiguated titles? The documentation for that template says it allows piped links, but that doesn't seem to work. Thanks, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Anime voices|[[Laura Bailey (actress)|Laura Bailey]]}} gives Voiced by: Laura Bailey --Farix (Talk) 01:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahh. Thanks! I've never seen a template do that before. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories in redirects

I've been wondering about this for a long while now, and have mainly assumed it to be some convention which was implemented, but in a rather lackluster or otherwise lazy fashion letting it propagate through the articles whenever someone chose to do it. My question is, what is the project's (and indeed Wikipedia's policy) on relocating categories in articles to be in more specifically named redirects. I've come across this happening on only two pages I regularly work on to my knowledge: Air (visual novel) and Spice and Wolf. Specifically, much of the categories pertaining to the anime TV series of Air are in Air (TV series) (which is strange in itself since if anything they should be in Air (anime)), and much of the categories pertaining to the Spice and Wolf video games are in Spice and Wolf: Holo's and My One Year (which is again strange since this title is not an official English translation). In any case, I can see the rationale to doing this, but I never really saw an active effort to push for this convention, so I've never done it before.-- 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The practice is documented at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. In short: Don't do it unless the reasons to do it are strong. Goodraise 04:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
So then the examples I posted would be examples of "Subtopic categorization"? And if that's true, does that mean the reasons for doing it in these cases were "strong"? What constitutes strong or not; the rationale is rather vague.-- 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if I boiled it down too much, you'll have to read the guideline yourself. But don't expect too much precision, guidelines are always a bit vague. Goodraise 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I only do it in instances where such categorization would be useful, such as with an anime movie title being redirected to the main manga article for that title--putting the category on the film title redirect is more useful, especially for date-based categorization. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Matt Thorn considered accademic quality source?

Recently edits in the list added Matt Thorn's website as an academic quality source, along with Paul Gravett. While there was discussion on the latter and the study of his book could qualify him as academic, I don't see any indication from discussion about Matt Thorn being considered an academic source.じんない 04:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt Thorn is a professor at a university in Japan, and is considered the source for academic discussion of anything related to shōjo manga. He's published papers on the topic, professionally translated a whole pile of it into English, and has been interviewed and discussed in articles about shōjo manga. This has been discussed before, but it's been a few months. If he doesn't fit the bill for an academic quality source, then I don't know who would. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see a link to the discussion nor any info on him that I could find on the quick google check, which is why I asked.じんない 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think that a discussion was needed - he's an academic, who has published at that level about manga, so I moved him out of the general section, where he is lumped in with all the reviewers, to the academics section. --Malkinann (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Others RS discussion Take 2

Continuing the discussion started Here

Copy-pasted from the archive, for the discussion-unfinished ones:

French
Mata web, consortium of Mane[7], Anime Days[8], Review Channel[9] & Hobby News[10]
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 [11] a bit over the top in their presentation IMO.
Planete BD Comics (Broad meaning of the term again) related, its pedigree [12]. Get enough credibility to host contest sponsored by publishers [13]
Avoir Alire Not useful as they dropped Comics/manga reviews Archive. They have a partner website focused on comics Bedeo which has every marker of RS website however Bedeo doesn't make staff review :( --KrebMarkt 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Manga Gate I can't prove that it is a RS :( But at least the Interview part of this website can be used. I will try again to find evidence --KrebMarkt 18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Canal BD Website counter part of a real paper publication diffused by indepedent Comics/Manga bookstores. It has short reviews of Manga[14]. --KrebMarkt 09:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
German
I'm pondering for Splashcomics [15] [16] [17] Can you give a look Quasirandom ? Translation tools say that they have paid reviewers even if it's not much. Thanks
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).
Japanese
  • On the member's page, most of the editors have been awarded the Arion Award for music. Yaguti Akihiro has a Ph.D in Classical Music. This website would be good for reviews on music pieces. Extremepro (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree on that one too. They have expertise on the field covered by their website. --KrebMarkt 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New site to ponder:

Anime² Japanese Anime focused website. Can anyone give it a try?
  • It uses references from major anime companies like Bandai. If it is not user-edited, then it is as reliable as ANN's news section. Extremepro (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's the other way around. Wikipedia "uses references from major anime companies like Bandai" as well, that doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. On the other hand, if Bandai were to reference Anime², that would make Anime² more reliable. Same goes for "user-edited". If a page is user-edited, that reduces its reliability, but not being user-edited doesn't add reliability. If that were the case, half of the internet were reliable. Goodraise 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Manga News.net If the French version is RS is the English version RS as well? Extremepro (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a RS as it focuses on scanlations somewhat like Mangaupdates :( --KrebMarkt 05:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Kodansha Manga Award for 2002 onwards
That an award so that could be used as an evidence of notability but i don't know its weight. --KrebMarkt 18:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Seiun Award archive from 1970

Feel free to give your input so we can nail down those ones. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotes on chapter titles

On Rin-Ne, Juhachi has been putting quotes on the English chapter titles. I thought it was rather odd when we don't do that even on featured chapter lists, so I removed them. Juhachi later restored them with the edit summary "It's the same reason quotes are automatically placed in titles on episode lists; the fact that people are lazy doesn't mean its right or good convention". I personally have no opinion on this (though I certainly understand his reasoning), I'm just curious what other's thoughts are, and if perhaps an addition to WP:MOS-AM might be warranted. Anyone? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. If there is no disagreement, then why start a discussion? What's the point? Goodraise 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be my fault for not clarifying. =) I'm wondering if adding quotes to chapter titles is something we'd like to do across the board. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I'm guessing because this has not been done on the bulk of our chapter lists, including FL level ones. From my memory, book chapter titles are not quoted in references either, where episode titles are. Is there anything in the MoS on quotes that speaks to this? I think its important that we be consistent one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The cite book template automatically add " " for the cited chapter used as reference --KrebMarkt 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
MOS:TITLE#Quotation marks explicitly demands double quotation marks for chapter titles. Happy cleaning-up. Goodraise 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Going further: Should also the volumes title be in italic ? --KrebMarkt 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say so, yes. Goodraise 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Now I have to ask why this doesn't seem to have come up in any FLC discussions... --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly because the chapters are always presented in a format that already clearly identifies them as chapter titles, so there is no need to add quotation marks to distinguish them from surrounding text. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Truth is, FLC isn't perfect. While the prose of lists that make it through is quite good, MoS compliance is not so rigorously enforced, simply because the MoS is so large and the FLC reviewers are few in numbers. When I look at lists only promoted at the beginning of this year, I commonly find MoS violations. This is only the latest example. - I'll also have to admit my own fault here. I knew the MoS demanded the quotation marks, but I never said anything at the chapter FLCs I commented on, because it's easier to follow in line with the mistakes of previous FLs than challenging them. Gotta give credit to Juhachi for insisting on this. Goodraise 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So, no one would object if I started adding quotes to chapter titles as part of my usual chapter list edits? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 03:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Krebmarket already did so with the FLs and I did with the chapter lists I watched after I noticed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I noticed after asking. =) At some point, I'll work through the pages on my watchlist and then Category:Lists of manga chapters. We're also gonna have to hunt down the chapter lists that have not been split from the parent articles (be they series pages or media lists). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i started the party without telling you ;) There is no hurry to make all chapters lists up to the MOS:TITLE. So i try to do one or two lists per day. There are some serious lists clean-up occurring along the way as some list are meeuuuhhhh so will lead to improve th chapters lists overall quality. --KrebMarkt 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll help with the list clean-ups. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should point out that "Not Only the Translations" (何でも, "But Also Their Romanizations") need to be placed in doublequotes. Goodraise 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I wondered about that. Not the Japanese name? ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I second that question --KrebMarkt 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the Japanese kanji title doesn't need to be placed in quotes of any kind, Japanese (「」) or English (""). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I'll get right to it then. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

<Outdent>Can anyone update the WP:MOS-ANIME with the result of this discussion. I don't know in which section to put that stuff :( --KrebMarkt 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion had a result? I don't even understand why this discussion was started in the first place... Goodraise 13:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it had a result...now more people know that chapter lists should be in quotes where most did not know this before. And now folks will go correct featured lists and the like where this was overlooked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated Template:Graphic novel list's docs to note this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another source apart from Amazon.com

In List of Slam Dunk chapters, I am having problems to source the Gutsoon volumes. Amazon.com only has vols. 3 and 5, while the archive website from Gutsoon does not have the volumes section archived. I searched through ANN and Mania, but ANN only has the Viz volumes and I only the volume 5 from Gutsoon in Mania. Is there another source that could be used? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that will help [18][19] That from Barnes & Noble. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but those are the volumes that are already sourced.Tintor2 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry i misread your post :(
vol 1 vol 2 they don't have vol 4. --KrebMarkt 07:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively: Vol 1 Vol 2 Vol 4 --KrebMarkt 08:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you trying to source about them? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gutsoon volumes from Slam Dunk.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what you are trying to source, but what about them are you trying to source? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussing remodeling the animanga infobox phase 2

Please head to Template talk:Infobox animanga#Stalled and comment on any of the sections listed or in general. The more feedback we get, the better. Thanks.じんない 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we need to completely redo the whole thing? The infoboxes work perfectly well (with the occasional minor tweak). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Many have the same feilds, are redundant mostly and take up huge spaces on articles, increasingly a huge amount of area. A lot of this could be condensed down into fewer, better looking and less cumbersome boxes. The boxes also are still missing some things people never thought about or weren't as pevelant when the infoboxes were rolled out and we are discussing those now.じんない 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much what Jinnai said, except this update wouldn't necessarily decrease the length of the full infobox on articles, and I'm not even thinking of touching style issues. We currently have a dozen components (counting headers and footer) for the infobox; if I didn't want to wait for discussion, I could immediately and very easily reduce this to nine. Allowing a discussion, however, could see the components cut down to only seven or eight. And actually, I will probably merge Header2 into Header in a minute, it would be as simple as adding a mini parameter that would hide most of the content. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a redesign, but a consolidation of some of the templates. You can see some of the work I've done already in one of my sandbox were I combined 6 templates into two, one for video media and the other for print media. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes much more sense. It's not going to reduce the amount of space used in articles, though, as each item will still require separate entries. Still, all it will do is make them use one template multiple times instead of multiple templates one or more times. Also, are we going to have a bot go through and replace all the usages of the various templates being replaced? There must be over 10,000 articles using the templates. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We could also add an optional collapse field to all of them, default off, leaving it up to each page to decide if it should be collapsed.じんない 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Koji Aihara AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koji Aihara WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You are looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Slam Dunk (manga) episode list

I was planning to make a episode list for Slam Dunk, but the problem is that I cant find sources for the episodes and date. The Amazon DVDs have the titles from the episodes but not the dates. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and go with ANN until someone or you find the reliable airdate source.DragonZero (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: I finally created List of Slam Dunk episodes (the first time doing an episode list and it was tiring, he he). Well, I found the original airdate in the English amazon in which the episodes can be watched online, so I added the sites to references. I know almost nothing about the Japanese language, so I think it would necessary to check some of the romanji used in the list. Another question is what image should be used in the lead, there are English and Japanese DVD, while the latter are two different collections (first in DVDs of 4 episodes more or less, and then in DVD boxes). The last question is that the list should be divided by the 5 seasons that amazon mentions? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to use a real world date format instead of ISO format in both the table and references. That means the dates should be either Month DD, YYYY or DD Month YYYY. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Create Screw Style?

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga‎ says to put Screw Style info on the author, Yoshiharu Tsuge's article. Should I do that or created Screw Style? Extremepro (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not notable by itself and the Yoshiharu Tsuge's article already cover it. Maybe a reference to the comics journal issue where that story was published would good [20]. I will add it. --KrebMarkt 10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

List of manga magazines

I made the list of Japanese magazines sortable. That was a lot of work. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that type of sorted list helpfull at all. The magazine list was sorted into male oriented and female oriented manga magazine so someone can easily find shounen manga magazines (for example), but having that type of sort just makes it hard to do that, I and others will have to look all over the page for shounen magazines. --ChuChu (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Use the sorts...that isn't a good reason to revert it. The list is now better organized and in a cleaner format. My only notes would be that I don't think the links to the Official sites are needed here (notable ones should have their own articles with those links), and maybe just have name in the usual nihongo format (or remove the sort from the Japanese column since not sure how useful that is :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There's not any way to remove sorting from part of the table, and the Japanese is there to allow searching by both if someone isn't sure (you can also use the browser search feature as well). The links to the sites are just there for convenience more than anything. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a way to make specific columns unsortable. Goodraise 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool, I wasn't aware of that. However, in this table, I don't see a valid reason for making any of the columns unsortable. Since anyone can sort it however they wish, It seems kind of pointless to have a column which is unsortable in a sortable table. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) And on the other hand, sorting by genre finds it hard to find specific titles if you don't know the genre. Your case is based on your personal prefernce, but a sortable table lets everyone use the page in the same way. The table benefits every possible preference, your case only allows one preference. I struggle to see how having a sortable table is worse then a static list. One click - "genre" sort. One click - alphabetical sort. One click - date sort. One click, publisher sort. How is this worse then a list based on your preference? The table is for everyone, the alternative is not. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I liked the article how it was, just like its counterpart Japanese article... Though this works for me too :) --ChuChu (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

External link issue

I need advice for Aria (Manga) external link part as user:Piano non troppo trimmed it stating WP:SPAM. I would have backed down as those external links are already present as references inside the article but he removed the external link to the author official website [21]. My question is should a manga article have an external link to the mangaka official website ? Thanks --KrebMarkt 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it to a section on the site about the manga, or just a link to the author's site? If the latter, then that should probably go in the author's article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Case 2 as it doesn't host a section per manga. Thanks for the advice. I prefer to defer to the judgment of others project members as i tend to over react. I will put it back as a specific reference inside development section of the article. What i find weird is to have those external links removed as spam while references links to those same websites used for WP:V were left untouched. One more reason to stuff the turckey article with more in-line references & citations. --KrebMarkt 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In the EL section? No, it shouldn't. It should just be on the author's site, unless its a page on their site about the manga itself. The comparison link I'll agree with, and Tokyopop just because they don't have official pages anymore. The rest were inappropriate and I've reverted them. Removing the official site just because its not in English is BS, as is removing the its official English anime site. ANN is, of course, a standard link and there is no valid reason to remove it. He seems to have some unclear understanding of the EL guidelines, and is basically running around moving almost every EL from a ton of articles, not always appropriately.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you :) --KrebMarkt 06:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Nabari no Ou chapters FLC

I have List of Nabari no Ou chapters at FLC (the lists entry). Goodraise and NoctureNoir have provided a lot of comments, the FLC has been restarted once because there hasn't been a support or oppose vote. I'd like to request that a few more reviewers take a look at it. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mangaka: Banri Hidaka

Hi, I just want to know the content of the article mentioned before it was deleted. I wanted to view its history but it's not there. Any help?

Thanks, Amaya Sakura (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

...that's what deleted means. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It was speedy deleted [22]. That a bit late but i think that you may ask an admin to userfy the content of that deleted article. --KrebMarkt 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's been userfied at User:Amaya Sakura/Banri Hidaka. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you ;) --KrebMarkt 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Really appreciate the help. By the way, can the userfied page be deleted later? Amaya Sakura (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You can either blank it or drop a line to an admin to delete it for you but you can't delete it by yourself. That page is part of your user space so you have as much time as you want to improve it enough to not have it deleted again. --KrebMarkt 13:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you get it to where it would work in the mainspace, we can just move it there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging of characters list from Slam Dunk

See this for the discussion of merging. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Preview of Journal in External Links

Should I put Google Book preview of Mechademia on Mechademia? Extremepro (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to - after all, volume 2 and 3 are available there too, and it seems a bit... linkspammy? But then, that could also be an argument against adding the publisher's website entry (2, 3)... but it has a table of contents! :( --Malkinann (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Google Book links are generally note added to an article except in cases where its being used as a source and the link is added as a convenience link. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Half chapters

Any suggestion about how to deal with List of Dragon Half chapters. It hurts my eyes. --KrebMarkt 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Use Template:Graphic novel list and summarise the volume as a whole instead of individual chapters. Consistency is the key IMHO. The use of different templates and colours are killing my eyes ><" Extremepro (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll add it to my to-do list, but someone else can take it before I get to it, if they want. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I will userfy the content then restart from scratch :( Sourcing the volumes is painful. --KrebMarkt 18:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. But bear in mind that the summaries have to be done again and that the list is back to the minimum. The old version was userfied HERE. --KrebMarkt 18:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is the color scheme still hideous? Doceirias (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to commit seppuku because i have bad color taste :( --KrebMarkt 19:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean, aren't the color schemes on these lists standardized somewhere? They usually wind up a neutral light blue. Doceirias (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the forced line color to make the default be used. It looks much better now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kanzenban chapters

Should the exclusive kanzenban chapters be given a section in List of Shaman King chapters? It is supposed it finishes the story, but I havent read them all. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. Some chapters were added in between, some were moved up a number. DragonZero (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Should the section be similar to the common "Chapters not yet in tankobon format"?Tintor2 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Licensor field in infobox

Someone has been running around to a whole bunch of anime articles and adding Japanese companies to the Licensor field. I understood this field to be for English language companies (that's what the documentation at {{Infobox animanga/Anime}} says anyway). Should we be adding anything other than English company names there, and if so, do we want to split it up like the network field? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be good to modify the text of the infobox to make it clearer that its for English licensors. Do any Japanese companies license for English release? I think some people have claimed that it had in some articles where I saw that being done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Kadokawa have a US operation [23] with licenses. Full Metal Panic: The Second Raid is licensed by Kadokawa USA, but released by Funimation (either via sublicense or in a production, promotion and distribution role) Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of flagicons

Flagicons were removed from the infobox of V.B. Rose because a user thought that it was obvious that the companies in the |publisher= and |en_publisher= fields are from their respective countries, citing Template:Infobox_animanga/Manga. They also said that the flagicon in the |other_publisher= field is redundant because it is sourced in the article. Seeing as FA-class Tokyo Mew Mew and GA-class Fullmetal Alchemist have flagicons, why shouldn't this? Extremepro (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already discussed somewhere else (can't remember where thought). I'm moderately for keeping the flags. A reader should be able the know with a single glance if it's licensed in his/her country/area without digging the article. Bearing in mind that average article reader don't know by heart the country/area covered by each publisher. JPop => Italy, Calsen Comics => Germany, Delcourt => France and Panini Comics => Can be from Italy, France, Germany, Spain to Brazil. Leaving just non-English publishers name without flags is like giving a non-usable information for the non-initiated. --KrebMarkt 10:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The flagicons should remain. There is no valid reason to remove them, and they should remain consistent through all anime and manga articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Restored. Extremepro (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed and consensus was that they should be used. While, in general, I agree publisher is pretty obvious, English publisher is not always so. There are multiple countries a manga may be published in English. Nor, unfortunately, is it always sourced in the article who did what. One case where it can be really confusing is Tokyopop, which has licensed series in the UK, but not US before :P Since this is the standing consensus, though, perhaps the infobox docs should not that, as it currently does not.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I assumed their Uk licenses were just general english language licenses. But then, I remember when Tokyopop had no UK operations and any of their books were imported by Diamond for comic stores/Amazon! Viz could learn a thing or two. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tears of a Lamb

3 questions:

  1. Anyone interested in looking at this article that I just downgraded from speedy deletion to proposed deletion?
  2. I looked for notability criteria on your wikiproject page and didn't see anything, but you have a link to the proposal called WP:Notability (fiction); do you guys prefer those guidelines?
  3. You don't have an Article alerts page yet. Does anyone mind if I add {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription|display=none}} to your project page? This won't add anything to your project page, it will just result in the creation of the page WP:WikiProject Anime and manga/Article alerts, which will automatically tell you when your articles enter and leave deletion and review processes. You don't have to look, of course, but adding your project's tag to talk pages is easier for me than having to post here every time I downgrade a speedy deletion, so I hope some of you will watchlist the page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Manga is covered under the WP:Books notability guideline. (Anime under the fairly non-existent TV guidelines, Films under films, etc etc). We do have an article alerts page already, thanks. Seems unnotable to me, but tagging until others can look. Since you removed the speedy, the creator removed the prod as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, rough morning. Okay, now I see it, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/News. Could we make it a little easier to find, by including a link somewhere on your wikiproject page containing the word "alert"? Category:ArticleAlertbot subscriptions is huge, and your entry is alphabetized under "B" (most of the entries are in places I'm not expecting to find them, actually). I'll go look for more sources for Tears of a Lamb. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Vol 1Vol 3 Pop Culture Shock. No ANN nor Mania review. I will continue looking. What wrote the IP was BS. --KrebMarkt 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Personally, I'd rather not, but will leave it to others to weigh in on that. We don't use it directly, really, but for project members to update the news list. I don't think the link is what's making it go under B, though...if anything, I could see it if it were under N? I don't see anything on the alerts page itself that puts it in a category. Where is that coming from? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they're using some wierd sorting schema for maintenance purposes. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a redirect from the default title, WP:WikiProject Anime and manga/Article alerts, to your page, WP:WikiProject Anime and manga/News/Article alerts. That will make it easier to find. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2ch as source

I'm of the opinion that 2ch is not a reliable source (in this case, for episode lists). Another editor on List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes agrees, however new episode details are being readded based on 2ch as a source. The list currently uses syoboi as a general reference, and I am under the impression it's a fairly reliable source as it's used on Bleach (manga) featured episode lists. Syoboi does not list the newly added episodes at all, and with 2ch's debatable reliability, I'm of the opinion we should stick to syoboi. There has been no formal talk page discussion yet and I want to clarify 2ch's status before proceeding. The episodes have now been commented out, but it seems silly to leave the text there based on 2ch saying so (I have no idea if 2ch gives a source). I've seen the wrong titles used when there is a reliable source, nevermind without one. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2ch is not reliable as all contributions are anonymous and there is no editorial oversight at all. It would be like using IRC as a source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
AGF Rollbacked with explanation and link to this page. Thats two for me, so I'm done there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
@Dandy Sephy
Cough cough... :( During a previous FL review, cal.syoboi.jp was discarded as a RS. Later i explicitly wrote a line or two here to ask people the replace cal.syoboi.jp refs by others refs. There are around 8 anime episodes FL using cal.syoboi.jp for references --KrebMarkt 18:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Link? It was discussed on sephiroth BCR's page IIRC, and he mentioned it here. Thats where I got my "assumption" from. I believe the view was that they check submitted information before publishing (unlike ANN Ency). It certainly seems more reliable then 2ch. on the other hand, it can't be Bleach as that uses tv tokyo, for some reason the Naruto page there is rubbish even though the same studio makes both.... Anyway, I'm tired :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There was an archived discussion [24]. If cal.syoboi.jp could be an unquestionable RS then all the anime broadcasted since 2005-2006 won't have any trouble to verify the episodes airing dates. Very unfortunately this is not the case :( cal.syoboi.jp alone isn't be enough. Take some rest because that head burning issue. --KrebMarkt 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sephiroth BCR tried reviving the discussion a few weeks ago [25]. The explanation seems reasonable enough. You're right though, 2 hours sleep in 24 hours isn't good for remembering things from week ago :p I'm not even tired now, stupid body! Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about the Bleach article, but for the Naruto article the syoboi listing in the references section is kind of left over from earlier on. Syoboi hasn't been used as an actual source for maybe a year and a half. Most titles have come from either sources posted on 2ch or Newtype. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All I know is I've been watching 2ch for over a year now (for multiple series) and not once have fake titles ever been posted. It's a very trustworthy source if you actually know what to look for. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Being trustworthy, however, does not make it WP:RS by Wikipedia standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of the Budokai series

I have proposed a merge of the Dragon Ball Z Budokai articles here. Please participate in the discussion so that consensus on whether or not the merge should go through can be reached. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Encarta being discontinued

For any articles which use Encarta, you should be aware of this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have access to a Guinness book 2006 or newer?

At School Runble season 1's Japanese article, it claims the subtitle is the longest subtitle for an animated production in the world. As it is 187 characters, it's a credible claim, but I can't find their source.じんない 04:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I was wondering if Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny should be merged into Mobile Suit Gundam SEED.DragonZero (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a direct sequel to me, so I'm inclined to say yes, with some clean up on both ends. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is: i'm unconvinced. Merging could create a new insight by putting the Gundam SEED and its sequel into comparison which would a good thing. Unfortunately it would require real expertise in the field (You have at least watched both series) and a good knack at copy-editing. There is no room for screw-up :(
In the same vein we could also try to suggest the merger of Mobile Suit Gundam, Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam & Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ using the sequel argument. --KrebMarkt 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I watched them both, but my copy editing has some grammar problems as I've been told. If there are no objections about the merge, I'll paste this into the discussion of the merge, and then start editing in June. DragonZero (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Courageous, you are ;) Ok let this hanging in the merge discussion for a while then use it to placate those who complain about the lack of debate. Meanwhile as Collectonian wrote you could do some copy-editing so a merge would be easier. --KrebMarkt 07:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone who commented on the article talk page objected to the idea of a merge. [26] Using the sequel argument, we should also merge all Star Wars movies into one article and all the Star Trek TV sereis into on article. Edward321 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Films use different guidelines (and for minor films, their sequels are often covered in the same article). Per WP:MOS-AM, they are the same story, same characters, just a continuation. There does not appear to be any significant differences, so I see no reason for them to have multiple articles. No different really than the situation with Naruto and Naruto: Shippuden, which are covered in a single article, and the three named Dragon Ball series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Guess I'll continue with the merge in June. DragonZero (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a bad idea, as they are entirely different shows-- which are almost never merged. If they were two seasons of the -same- show, it might not be a bad idea, but if it's two different shows, no. By that logic we should merge all the UC series into the same article. Jtrainor (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please continue the chat at Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. Also, the sequel to Gundam SEED destiny is Gundam SEED the film. Gundam SEED Destiny could be seen as a second season of looked from that point of view.DragonZero (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although Destiny is a continuation, it's by all rights its own story with a different lead character, different antagonists, etc. It continues some elements of SEED, but not enough really to merge the two into a single entry. It's a seperate production that was commissioned after the success of Gundam SEED. That fact is rather key, given that Destiny was plagued by noted production upsets that did effect SEED. Why? Because they were two seperate productions and thus both deserve an individual article. Though knowing Wikipedia, this will probably just come down to who screams the loudest...--HellCat86 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I gave up on the move. If someone wants to merge it, they'd have to do it themselves. DragonZero (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of To Love-Ru chapters

Right now List of To Love-Ru chapters is using a custom wikitable and i'm pondering whatever it's worth to reformat it using the Template:Graphic novel list. I'm hesitant on the matter. --KrebMarkt 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice but, given the current table isn't actively ugly, not essential. I'd say go for it if you have nothing better to do, but there's other cleanup tasks that are higher priority. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing a update-run of the chapters list since the double quotes " " issue discussion. At least 50% of 133 chapters/media lists are now up to date double quotes " " wise. I already (re)did three of them so one more isn't a problem --KrebMarkt 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I can reformat it sometime this evening when I'm back on my home computer. I can do it fairly quickly with Dreamweaver :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you Dreamweaver fairy ;) --KrebMarkt 20:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
And done :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nico-Nico RS review

Is Niko Niko RS? A link to a review on it was added to ...Seishunchuu! in response to the AfD with the edit summary "looking over that site, it seems well done, with thousands of reviews for manga". Thoughts? ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say "not by a long shot." It is the personal website of someone seriously unnotable person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be a self-published website and should be treated as such. It doesn't appear to pass WP:SPS as a reliable source. (Who is Emily, what makes her a recognized expert on shojo manga, and has she been previously been published by a reliable third-party publication?) --Farix (Talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I figured as much; just wanted to have a project discussion to point back to since it was our good friend *cough* Dream Focus that added the link in the first place. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge for Krillin

I have proposed that Krillin be merged with List of Dragon Ball characters here. Please discuss so that consensus on whether or not the merge should go through or not can be reached. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I cant see why krillian would be notabole enough himself not even froma fans propects he wasnt a main character after freeza saga, i probally say merge :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess I'm here to ask...

...for some well-needed copyedits to a couple of articles I have been wanting to get up to FA and FL respectively for a while, but due to community lack-of-interest in copyediting, both have been unable to attain these ranks. Namely, the Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl article, and its corresponding chapter list. I have seen other chapter lists get promoted, but the two times I have tried to nominate the Kashimashi chapter list for FLC, it failed due to a lack of external copyedit. Since the last time I tried, last December, a single chapter list has been promoted, as well as a slew of episode lists, and of course List of Nabari no Ou chapters is at FLC right now too for the second time in a month. Need I remind the project the last time we had an FA promotion was with Tokyo Mew Mew way back on October 16, 2008. So I would be much obliged if I could get some help with these two articles.-- 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not peer review ? --KrebMarkt 06:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good question! The main article had a peer review last December, and not much came out of it except for some easy fixes, and an obvious need for a copyedit. The chapter list has been through the FLC process twice already, and seeing as the last time was only 5 months ago, the fact that the only thing keeping it from being an FL is a copyedit is still as evident as it was back then as it is today. In short, a peer review of either article is not going to really tell me anything other than they need a copyedit, and anything else is superficial in comparison which could easily be fixed during the copyedit, or while they are at FAC/FLC.-- 07:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is a "community lack-of-interest in copyediting" but the plain and unfortunate truth of a lack of community skill in copyediting. It can't be done by just anyway and actually be useful. I have "interest" just not the ability. I can look at an article, speak to MoS issues, referencing issues, etc and have a general sense the writing is off, but I do not have the skill to fix it. Sadly copyeditors remain in short supply all over Wikipedia. All I can suggest is try seeing who copyedited the most recent FLs in our area and contacting each personally to see those folks would be willing to go over these. Also hit the list of people who indicate they are willing to copyedit in the PR volunteer list.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think sometimes just looking quickly over something can be a massive help. I have wondered before if we could benefit from a list of volunteers for initial feedback on copyediting requirements, especially when someone isn't overly familiar with something - those are the best people to read it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to copyedit these -- I'm familiar with the series and interested in it, and am a copyeditor IRL. It may take me a couple days to get through them, given deadlines in that aforementioned RL. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be a big help if whenever possible.-- 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll start poking at them (I hope) tonight. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Another article/list in need of copyediting is List of Shugo Chara! episodes, the only reason it failed its FL nomination was do to copyediting issues. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Naruto Shippuden episodes

Hello,

There is currently a ip user muckign about with the tables jmoving stuff form season 5 ot 4 seaosn 6 to 5 5 to 6 etc, i have restore the page the way ithink it meant to be but i cant be sure if someone can double check it appericate it, there also messing with the indvidual seaosn pages to--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have these all on my watchlist as i created the subpages, I'm about to roll back to the "last known good". I keep a close eye on changes to make sure the lists match the japanese dvds (which is what the were split to in the lack of other sources, I had to move a few originally), so theres no need to worry in future. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for Shaman King Kanzenban chapters

In List of Shaman King chapters#Chapters collected exclusively in kanzenban format, I was about to give a short summary about in which volumes were the kanzenban chapters were published. I though of creating a notes section, but they are sixteen chapters for only 3 notes. Should the explanation be given in a the notes section with the isbn of the kanzenban or a above the the below the title of the kanzenban section? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What was 265. "Silva Style 2" in the kanzenban version? Is it now 266 since a new chapter was added in? When the two chapters were added by the author, did it change which chapters were in which volumes in anyway. These are just for my curiosity, for your problem, I'd have no clue.DragonZero (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to the of two new chapters showing the fight between Marco and Luchist, 265. "Silva Style" was changed to 267. Apparently the chapter 285. "After the Dream" was not published in the kanzenban series, leaving "Good Morning Mu Continent" as 287.Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kotaro Inugami

Would like some input here. Farix bold merge/redirected this article (that was for a long time completely unreferenced and offering no notability) to List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi characters after someone had prodded it. A completed prod would have removed all trace of the page, redirect fixed the issue and linked to a relevant article. Dream Focus objected and reverted the change. I reverted back to the redirect and replied on the talk page. Another user agreed with the redirect, however Dream Focus has since reverted the article back to it's previous status, been reverted by collectonian and reverted the page back again.

In summary, Dream Focus objects to the lack of discussion, and then has ignored the actual reply to the discussion he tried starting. Given the history between Dream Focus, myself, Farix and Collectonian, I believe the issue would benefit from third party input. The AGF crux of the matter is thus: was the redirect the appropriate action, and was the decision to WP:BOLD handle it appropriate? Only one user has objected to the redirect itself, 3 have supported the original action (1 of whom is "neutral"). I still believe that the page involved is not a inherently controversial redirect. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I see that DF is once again up to his bad faith accusations and disruption campaign. --Farix (Talk) 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Alas, it is DF up to his usual blocking all merges. He is also undoing the redirecting of Nagatachō Strawberry to Mayu Sakai, despite the discussions two months ago showing that no sources could be found to establish notability and (I think) clearly showing it should be redirected. The AfD closed as keep, but only had two comments, one of which was himself, and the other based on a non-existent guideline. If someone else wants to look at that previous discussion at Talk:Mayu Sakai#Nagatachō Strawberry merge and see if you reach a different conclusion, please do so. Guess the only other option is to take it back to AfD since its pretty clear DF will always say there is "no consensus" for anything if he (and he alone) objected to it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Might wanna check your edit to the page Collectonian, I think you might have hit the wrong version judging by the edit summary? Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Doh, yeah, I did, but its been fixed. *sigh* Sending ~Nagatachō Strawberry back to AfD after DF hit the third revert on redirecting it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)
He owes me +10 mins of my life expectancy for near-nothing :( --KrebMarkt 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agreed with the redirect of Kotaro Inugami (but not the similar redirect of Negi Springfield, at least without merging some content). I also want to mention that when User:G.A.S assessed the Kotaro Inugami article for this Wikiproject, he suggested it should be merged (just in the assessment box on the talk page). I don't think there is any problem with redirecting a page that doesn't indicate the topic's notability and has already been suggested for a merge. My only complaint was that I thought User:TheFarix should have left a comment on a talk page saying why he didn't merge any of the content, but just redirected the page. While all the content of the page was in-universe and I agree with not merging it, I think a lot of users wouldn't understand that, and an explanation should be given in such a situation (I'm not talking about Dream Focus, who I'm sure is aware of the various content guidelines but just disagrees with them). Calathan (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting of Dragon Ball

As we all know Dragon Ball Z and GT are among the most influential animes of all time. Roughly a year ago these articles were merged. I am against the merge it has been over a year and consensus. Please help input in this discussion as I feel this could be a milestone in determining what anime should be merged. The discussion can be found here.Valoem talk 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough already. --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody should split these back because they really weren't the same. This is like merging two Zelda games one article. I'll see if this can be fixed. Unfortunately, I'm not great at this kind of stuff. NessLord64 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)NessLord64

What, like The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Video games are not the as anime/manga series. It doesn't need "fixing", it was properly merged, per consensus. A consensus that has been upheld every last time one of these discussions comes up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another School Rumble question...this time with naming order

Del Ray has posted the names in their original order, sirname then personal name. The English DVD release give the personal name first and then the sirname. Furthermore, other independent RS mix them up, sometimes using personal name and then sirname, sometimes sirname then personal and sometimes just the sirname (except for Yakumo and Tenma who have the same last names). NOTE: The manga is the original source here.じんない 04:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Names still applies, so it should always be noted in the article in Western order. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That only applies to living people. It could be argued that School Rumble takes place after Meiji era, but as it already has fantastical elements to it, that can also be argued against since it could take place in an alternative earth timeline. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Characters states that the names used in the official English release take precidence (but not really which here takes precedence, the manga or the anime), though by default the manga wins as the primary. Only the tersiary point that character names be given in western order is listed. Either our naming conventions need to be updated or clarrified then if that's not the case.じんない 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
1) If it applies to real people, it applies to fictional people unless specifically stated. "But it's not explicitly in the MOS" is a crap argument. 2) "Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series" refers to spelling/romanization, not order, which "Character names should be given in western order" (explicitly) covers. "Third point" != "tertiary point". 67.175.50.253 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
When the issue of the Kenshin names came up, that was the guideline that was pointed to as being applicable and to be followed regarding the names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, our guidelines should be clarified to state that word order is always personal and then sirname for modern and sirname then personal for historic anime. Those in doubt when the era was such as Mushi-shi should probably go with whatever the official English publisher uses or modern. Bottom line: we should clarrify this in our MoS.じんない 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It was also the same Case for Naruto --76.66.187.197 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphing in summaries

Has anyone figured why the Summary= field in {{Graphic novel list}} and ShortSummary= in {{Japanese episode list}} sometimes honor paragraph breaks? I've seen (and can provide current examples of) chapter/episodes lists where some entries with blank lines paragraph and others don't. (If I can find it and it still has the problem, I once came across a Summary/ShortSummary with two blank lines, one of which was honored and the other wasn't.) As buggy code goes, it's minor, but I find it rather frustrating sometimes, as I never know whether, when I write a summary, I can count on paragraphs to help organize it or make it flow together as one coherent blob. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My advice, avoid paragraphs in wiki-tables whenever possible. Seems that Wikipedia's behavior is never consistent. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd echo Farix, but if for whatever reason you think you absolutely must have a line break in a summary, the best thing would be to force the line break using <br />. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Urk. <br />s make me twitch as bad as GOTO statements. But, if it's a general wikitable issue, not just the templates, then there probably isn't anything to do about it.... —Quasirandom (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Input on Nagatachō Strawberry source

Apoc2400 (talk · contribs) has found an intriguing source relating to Nagatachō Strawberry. More comments are needed at the AfD about whether this, coupled with the existing German review, is enough to pass WP:BK and WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This Afd is complicated to handle we really need fresh view. Even if you don't make a position any inputs are welcome. --KrebMarkt 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this page survive a deletion?

I'm currently trying to create a page for Defense Devil and this is what it looks like so far. User:DragonZero/Defense Devil. I noticed another user created the page before me but had it deleted so I'm wondering if this will survive a deletion. I know it lacks references so, any help appreciated. DragonZero (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, highly unlikely. No sources and no notability shown. Being as new as it is, I wouldn't even try it right now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would say that it should be fine. I don't see why a current comic by a notable writer and notable artist serialized in a notable magazine should be shot down. Important detail: the Japanese Wikipedia has an article on it (which helps establish that the Japanese find it notable enough).--Remurmur (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
What is on the JA wiki is irrelevant, and none of those criteria are guidelines for keeping the series. It fails WP:BK, which is what is is used for manga. Who wrote it and who illustrated it is pretty much irrelevant of the series itself has no actual coverage and can't even be sourced beyond "hey, it exists." As has been shown by other similar articles, it would NOT survive AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because you think it "has no coverage" does not mean there is no coverage—since when have you trawled through the plentiful amount of Japanese magazines and published resources for manga and anime? As far as I know, you have no knowledge of Japanese, so you have no access whatsoever to any Japanese sources, which is what this topic is about. American and English resources (many of which are extremely niche and non-mainstream) have no relevance whatsoever to a Japan-based topic, so I find your claims rather dubious. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's been running for a couple of weeks, even in japan it won't have much coverage beyond "it exists". Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It comfortably fits all notability criteria. I would suggest adding further references, which are aplenty, from the several published Japanese magazines and resources that cover manga. This is a Japan topic, so of course we would have to look for Japanese sources, wherein this series is covered extremely comfortable indeed. Anime and manga aren't American or English based, so basing notability on those factors is extremely foolish and belies total common sense. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty recent making it difficult to cite. Finding Japanese sources for this article is pretty difficult.DragonZero (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not seeing this "comfortably" meeting the criteria, notability isn't inherited, which seems to be all this would have had going for it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The notability is currently dubious: yes, notable creators, but not so overwhelmingly notable that they meet that clause of WP:BK. That there's a ja.wiki article is suggestive, but again not a strong demonstration. A series that has just started is generally going to have difficulty finding any notice beyond mentions that this new thing has started, which in AFD discussions has usually not been enough -- and they have a point, in that the coverage is about the event of the start rather than on the work-in-itself. Unless you do find substantive coverage in Japanese, I'd hold off moving it to mainspace for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep it in user space and build the article as the series progresses. By the time the article is more developed, there should be enough notable sources. If it only started last month, even japanese sources will have little discussion of it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The original article was speedied for having no substantial content; it was just a really short plot summary. Your version is already far superior to the deleted one, so I wouldn't worry about it getting deleted in that context. However, I would have to echo the above suggestions of continuing to work on it in your userspace. (and a bit off-topic... how many manga series have been written/illustrated by Koreans? This is only the second or third one I've seen...) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
All the ones I've seen were done either by these guys or the ones behind Black God. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I would appreciate some help with the copyediting. There's like, 5 sentences that could be fixed I think. DragonZero (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, what kind of fact am I waiting for before moving it to the mainstream article? DragonZero (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Manga Life RS?

Is Manga Life a reliable source? Its an offshoot of Silver Bullet Comics, and from the About Us page, the contributers all appear to be comics/manga industry folks. I know its been quoted by Publishers Weekly and some others. Thoughts? It is currently being challenged as an the GA review on Free Collars Kingdom. As it does have quite a few manga reviews, it would be good to nail this down.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's reliable, given the origin and staffing. I've not used it often, but sometimes. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
+1 RS for what i know. Not an uber impressive website but for matter the reviews it is reliable. If no one object i will add that website in the project Online sources page. --KrebMarkt 05:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say it's reliable for reviews. I'll leave the rest in the air. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comics Worth Reading and Pop Shock Culture RS?

I know they are on the online reliable sources page but Goodraise (talk · contribs) is questioning the reliability of the reviews from Comics Worth Reading and Pop Shock Culture at Wikipedia:Peer review/Togari (manga)/archive1. He said "If a source is reliable depends on whether it meets WP:RS, not on whether some wikiproject placed it on some page (meaning the online reliable sources page)". Extremepro (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was told by someone in this project (Collectonian?) that Comics Worth Reading passed at WP:RS/N, because the author is a comic book industry professional and a long-time comics reviewer for Publishers Weekly, and so while self-published it counts as WP:RS for comics and manga reviews per the expert-in-field clause. I don't know whether Pop Culture Shock has specifically been tested by WP:RS/N, but it has every hallmarks of being as reliable as, say, Mania.com. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
PCS hasn't been taken to RS/N, I don't think, but has been tested in GAs and I believe TMM's FA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of RS. Anyone remember when & why THEM Anime got the RS stamp. I ask just to anticipate future request for pedigree. (Full sarcastic mode on) --KrebMarkt 21:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sooo glad that I'm not the one who brought that up. :) - IIRC, I found two threads in the archives of WT:ANIME when I searched some time ago. None of them helpful. I suppose the site just slipped through an FAC without anyone asking. Goodraise 00:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
THEM Anime, similar to AnimeOnDVD/Mania.com, has been around a long time, at least ten years. Its reviews have been quoted by other reliable sources and it has some industry backing. They also do meet the requirements of having specific guidelines for accepting submissions with editorial oversight. It also does have published credentials/info on its writers and staff. The, now former, editor and chief Carlos Ross was featured on G4's Attack of the Show, including discussing several of his reviews.[27] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, actually, the Togari review is by the wrong author - the Togari review is by a guest author, who doesn't have the same credentials as Carlson. --Malkinann (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise got serious when i suggested that we should have ready to use detailed explanations (copy-paste style) to justify why XYZ website is RS. I am willing handle the French RS websites. Anyone willing to join in ? --KrebMarkt 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, for those that don't have RN discussions, it would be good to fill in the details on the resources page. I've started doing them for these first few that have been questioned, and will add in THEM's as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Most stuff should be able to be handled with standard cute/paste response, especially if its a retailer or publisher of the source material (manga, anime, etc).Jinnai 00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)