Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Merging of like fields in tables

The issue of whether merging of like/same fields in tables like a DVD release table (eg. here and here) are misleading to readers or reduces the repetitiveness of the table has started at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Toradora! episodes/archive1. Extremepro (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion needed. I'm trying to be impartial. Extremepro (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Juhachi.Jinnai 02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find it misleading and difficult to read if rows are merged in a table. Furthermore it is unneat and prevents making such tables sortable which is likely of more use as you may then sort by amount of disks, episodes, etc. This also raises the question of where one draws the line. Do you merge rows if two adjacent rows are the same? 3? 4? If the information is of such a repetitive nature, I recommend summatizing it in prose before the table. G.A.Stalk 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

Do all manga cover images, anime DVD covers, etc.. need our project banner on its talk page? Cause the bot User:Comics-awb has been adding the WikiProject Comics project banner to some of the pictures. Extremepro (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While I question the value of placing the project banner on images, the comics' project banner most definitely shouldn't be on images of manga covers, DVD covers, and etc. —Farix (t | c) 11:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If they have a use for banners on file talk pages, then by all means let them place em. I don't see what we could possibly gain from doing the same. Goodraise 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I add our banner to images within our scope. Generally, the Comicsproj banner shouldn't be placed on them for the same reason it doesn't get placed on articles within our scope - it is redundant to our own banner (regardless of whether our banner is actually on the page in question). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't do it and i'm not very motivated to do it in near future. Putting an image is already cumbersome enough when done properly so no need to add one more step in the process. --KrebMarkt 18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Though I will add the banner to images, I will not go out of my way to do so as most images can be found in Category:Anime and manga images. It might be of some use someday when the WP1.0 bot tracks images as well. G.A.Stalk 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I discussed it with the bot owner and he has corrected the 60 or so that were already tagged to use the anime/manga tag and removed any others from the list of those remaining in the bot's list. He was just going through the Comics image cat and the manga cover cat was accidentally filed under that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Twitch Film as reliable source

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Summer Wars#Twitch Film as reliable source. Thank you. Arsonal (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Notable manga titles

Hi there, I just want some opinions on whether the 'Notable manga titles' section should be part of Hakusensha's article (or pretty much any publisher's article). Amaya Sakura (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It isn't sourced, it isn't neutral, and, if it can be sourced from third-party sources, it should be in prose as part of the company's overall history. Most of the other publisher articles have already had such sections removed. Instead, title's they published should be put in Category:Hakusensha or in a subcat like Category:Titles published by Hakusensha or the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
True, so should there be a sub-category for the titles published by Hakusensha (as you've said)? (I'll clear off the section in the article) Amaya Sakura (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, just to keep the volumes separate from the magazines and main cat. See Viz Media manga and Tokyopop titles for examples (we really need to come up with a single standard...) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
So it should be Category:Hakusensha titles? But I don't see any (at least not yet) Japanese publisher having such a category. (If there is, please link me to it -_-;) Amaya Sakura (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One Piece manga list

FLC for One Piece's manga list has a disagreement on whether the end of the second paragraph should note how many volumes Madman has published or and whether adding that info, or the wording as it is now, would violate WP:UNDUE and or could be construed without the info to mean to the average reader that madman would also have the same number of volumes printed.Jinnai 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits in List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters

User:ElfenNyu has been constantly editing List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters changing the name of List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters#Lin Yao's name to "Ling Yao" saying that such name is used in the 2nd anime adaptation. While that it's true, in the English manga and the guidebook from the series his name is Lin Yao. I tried talking with him in his talk page, but he ignores me. He is also doing that in other fullmetal alchemist articles like Edward Elric. Another problem is that he is using scanlation sites to source such changes. This is the second time (or more if I don't remember well) that I bring an issue like so sorry. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Disallow Foreign Sources?

Considering our heavy use of them, I thought project members might be interested in a proposal at WP:V to disallow all foreign language sources as being unverifiable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument was rescinded due to overwhelming disagreements (as it would affect more than just us, like historical writings).Jinnai 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
True, however a similar vein is also now at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Are English sources required for notability? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't pay too much attention to these unless it appears that consensus may change. Occasionally, there is an editor or two that suggest that sources and notability be limited to English only subject. However, these arguments get shot a quickly as someone points to WP:BIAS. —Farix (t | c) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File versions

Looking for some admin help. There are currently three versions to File:Twin Spica vol 1 manga cover.jpg, and I would like to have the first two deleted as they have been made obsolete by a better quality digital image from the publisher. The first two versions of the file come from different book scans which crop the original image slightly and produce different colors. It seems there is not yet any template that would automate this request. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done G.A.Stalk 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hana-Kimi and drama adaptations titles

Hi, I just wanted to ask whether Hana-Kimi's characters section can go to a new article? Is it List of Hana-Kimi characters? Should the Japanese drama adaptation, Hanazakari no Kimitachi e: Ikemen Paradise or as it is. Another thing is that Hanazakarino Kimitachihe, the Taiwan drama adaptation of the series is supposed to follow the Japanese title or the Chinese title? Amaya Sakura (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the length of the series and size of the character list, a split out to List of Hana-Kimi characters seems appropriate. The drama adaptation should be covered in the main Hana-Kimi article. The Taiwanese drama should use the title it aired under, presumably the Chinese one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I work with WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment. Our policy is a little bit different from this WikiProject since we use the most common English translation of Chinese titles for the article namespace. There are several reasons behind that but I won't go into the details. As you can tell from the Taiwanese Hanazakarino Kimitachihe article, Hua Yang Shao Nian Shao Nü is not used as the article name. Arsonal (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
So will it be the Japanese title for the Taiwanese drama adaptation or the original Chinese title? Should the Japanese drama follow the broadcasted title, Hanazakari no Kimitachi e: Ikemen Paradise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaya Sakura (talkcontribs) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The current article name is correct as it is. The Taiwanese drama is marketed in English with the Japanese name Hanazakarino Kimitachihe. The official website uses this. Arsonal (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

MangaEs reliability

Has the Spanish-language site MangaEs ever been reviewed for reliability? I would like to use the article on the Twin Spica anime that is written by one of its editors. The site is owned by the Asociación Cultural Mangaes, a registered organization based in Barcelona, Spain, that owns a Taxpayer Identification Code. Arsonal (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching around it, I'm inclined to say it does not meet WP:RS. None of the editors are identified by real names, so can't see if any are known reviewers, and I couldn't find any evidence to show they had been quoted by other reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular Pages?

Would it be useful to have an automated list of top viewed pages within the project?[1] Some examples of the resulting pages include Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Popular pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it would give some clues as to which articles might be most beneficial to improve. If an article is being viewed a lot, then it should be one of the best articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Listing of popular pages would be vital should the Collaboration subproject be revived. Extremepro (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I doubt it will. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I also have doubts...the idea always gets lots of enthusiasm for about 2 weeks, but then never goes anywhere :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the list is maintained by a bot, and should anyone be interested in it, it doesn't require any work on the part of anyone here. I don't see why we shouldn't have it created. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant doubts about the collaboration efforts :) I've put in the request for the pages on the bot page. Bets on Bleach and Naruto being in the top 10? :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would bet that Naruto is number one and you would also find Dragon Ball, Death Note and Pokemon top of the list. Also character articles and episode lists related to those series. --Mika1h (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
By popular pages, do you mean the most viewed? Wasn't in December 2008/January 2009 news about the most viewed articles from this project during 2008?Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is most viewed/searched for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If we were to use this as basis for collabortion, i'd want to see further breakdowns than the two examples. FE: number of edits and breaking down views coming from outside links and internal and they break those into averages.Jinnai 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo Magnitude 8,0 needs to be watched a bit.

The article Tokyo Magnitude 8.0 article is pretty messed up. Because of its nature of having a Plot twist, there are some elements that that can pretty much mess up the story for the ones who haven't seen it. While observing WP:SPOIL on this article, an editor named User:DBailey635 keeps on acting like the king of an article and puts one character's apparent death everywhere on the page, not to mention that the episode synopses from episode 8 onwards are not fully summarized. Please do action on this. Thanks Akira T. 15:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So...from what I'm seeing, you are deliberately removing valid content because it is a spoiler, directly going against WP:SPOILER? I don't see him putting it "everywhere" but properly putting it in the episode summaries and in the character section (which is also fully appropriate). If the ep summaries are too detailed, they should be trimmed, not just removed to avoid spoiling. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Repeat after me. There is no such thing as plot spoilers. There is no such thing as plot spoilers. There is no such thing as plot spoilers. But what is a plot spoiler anyways? And how does one objectively identify a plot spoiler through reliable sources? And when can you tell that a plot spoiler is no longer a spoiler? (Vader is Luke's father. Snape kills Dumbledore.) —Farix (t | c) 22:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well a spoiler is just anything about the item than well, that it exists. [2]Jinnai 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Which just confirms my statement that there are no such things as spoilers. ;) —Farix (t | c) 01:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

EL problem on Minami-ke

A few months ago, the editor Sxerks attempted to add in an open Wikia wiki link into the EL section of Minami-ke. Dinoguy1000 and I attempted to remove the link, in accordance with WP:ELNO point 12: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. The wiki in question fails both these criteria, and the user Sxerks has returned to what seems to be little more than trying to advertise his wiki, if the wiki's history is any indication. I have also attempted to bring up these points on the talk page, but the user thinks that it would be easier just to dismiss the points of WP:ELNO by stating the criteria are "irrelevant" and shouldn't be applied.-- 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Left a note there and a warning, as it appears this is not the only article he has continually tried to add a wikia link to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Tracklist}}

While adding Romaji to Music of Cutie Honey I came to realise that {{tracklist}} never envisaged very long track titles (see the article for my reasoning). Would it make sense to create a multiline alternative to {{tracklist}} in the same way {{Japanese episode list}} was created as an alternative to {{Episode list}}? If so, can one of the template gurus please have a look at it? G.A.Stalk 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's just long titles, could we conciveably just add a filed like long[xxx]=yes to expand certain columns (title, composition, lyrics, written, custom), essentially everyone but time. Default would be no to keep it narrow.Jinnai 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not think the problem is so much column width as opposed to multiple lines being required. Compare:
No.TitleLength
1."Hijiri (Sentô) Chapel Gakuen: Hijiri Naru Kane no Oto / Gakuen Seikatsu / Honey Dassô ~Hisutora no Theme~ / Dasshutsu Seikô" (聖(セント)チャペル学園:聖なる鐘の音/学園生活/ハニー脱走~ヒストラーのテーマ~/脱出成功 Hijiri (Sentō) Chaperu Gakuen : Hijiri Naru Kane no Oto / Gakuen Seikatsu / Hanī Dassō ~ Hisutora no Teema ~/ Dasshutsu Seikō)4:33
with the proposed rendering of (pardon the Romaji in the English titles below):
# Title Length
1. "Hijiri (Sentô) Chapel Gakuen: Hijiri Naru Kane no Oto / Gakuen Seikatsu / Honey Dassô ~Hisutora no Theme~ / Dasshutsu Seikô"
"Hijiri (Sentō) Chaperu Gakuen : Hijiri Naru Kane no Oto / Gakuen Seikatsu / Hanī Dassō ~ Hisutora no Teema ~/ Dasshutsu Seikō"
(聖(セント)チャペル学園:聖なる鐘の音/学園生活/ハニー脱走~ヒストラーのテーマ~/脱出成功)
4:33
It would also help if the line break before the Kanji is optional, for shorter titles. G.A.Stalk 04:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an example of why it would be nice to optionally extend the column length.

All tracks are written by Under17.

Popotan Maxi Single
No.TitleLyricsMusicArrangementLength
1."Magical Mii's Pong" (みぃタンの魔法でポン!! Miitan no mahō de pon!! [image song by Mii])Haruko MomoiKoike MasayaKoike Masaya3:13
As it stands right now the maximum width is forced within certain confines.
Right now, I shudder at the throught of doing School Rumble's song list.Jinnai 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That as well. I think there is a clear case to create {{Japanese track list}} with |EnglishTitle=, |RTitle=, |RomajiTitle= and |KanjiTitle= as with {{Japanese episode list}}, as well as the option to overwrite column widths. Maybe we should move/continue this discussion on Template talk:Japanese track list? It would be best if we first identify all of the shortcomings, as well as features to borrow from other templates before actual template coding. G.A.Stalk 07:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I would support its creation. I would really like the template to have customizable sizes for the columns. AngelFire3423 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone pinged our parent project for input as well? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That romaji ought to be looked at. Any opposition in changing ^ to macrons? If not I'll go through and do it later today or tomorrow. Akata (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
By all means:) And would you mind my asking you in future? G.A.Stalk 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It look like either you have forgotten about record players or never learned about them. If there is more than one song on a track is would be useful to be able to note each song separately as title1a, note1a, writer1a, lyrics1a, music1a, extra1a, length1a followed by b, c, and d as needed. -- allennames 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)UTC)
It may well be easier to allow renumbering/overwriting the # field and/or apply seperate formatting if needed. G.A.Stalk 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A bit unlikely to need it. From my digging into Oricon database, i got data back to the end of 80's (1987 for Dragon Ball soundtracks). Asserting the existence of an older anime soundtracks will be tricky at best and proving who made the lyrics, composition & arrangement one notch harder. --KrebMarkt 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Although it is required on Music of Cutie Honey#New Super Android Cutey Honey: Music Collection Vol. 1, if for no other reason, to show song names on different rows instead of separating them with slashes. G.A.Stalk 07:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

While that would be nice, Looking at it, I don't think we need RTitle. These are soundtrack lists, not episode lists, in most cases and thus there will only ever be 1 Japanese title.Jinnai 03:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since RTitle is not formatted, it may also be used where you need to insert sources next to the title and/or it might be an easy way to list different songs on different lines without the use of additional parameters (This will only work with really short titles where the English/Kanji/Romaji will fit on one row in the same cell). G.A.Stalk 09:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the creation of this template. I think it would be very useful. As for finding older soundtracks, Oricon is not the only source for information like that. Many soundtracks are reviewed in magazines (such as Animage (back to 1978) and Newtype back to 1983 or so)). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any update on this? I believe I may have a similar issue with a page I am (very slowly) putting together. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to my to-do list, but have not yet started development on this. I will try to start shortly. G.A.Stalk 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, no rush. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have came upon this deletion discussion, and it seems that this template did in fact exist previously. However, it seems like the previous template was inferior to what we have in mind currently... Comment please? G.A.Stalk 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really have anything to do with the old template (I merely commented in the TFD), so I couldn't offer any relevant comments on it, sorry. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some preliminary results:

[Example removed due to template being updated -- G.A.Stalk 05:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

The column widths are not, as of yet, optional, but will be added later. As discussed above, the template provides for manual wikicoding if needed (i.e. title2). Linebreaks between the English title (Rtitle to be more specific) and Kanji may be inserted by setting |all_linebreak=yes. All other parameters currently agree to those per {{tracklist}}. Comments will be appreciated. G.A.Stalk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Side comment: I'm watching this discussion with interest because I'm part of WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment, and I think the development of a similar template would be useful for our project as well. Is there any possibility of cross-compatibility? Arsonal (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What parameters would be required to this effect? If they are very similar I can just as well develop a single template instead. G.A.Stalk 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite similar to what would display on a Japanese tracklist: an English translation of the song title, the song title in Chinese characters, and a romanization scheme. We usually rely on {{Zh}}, but I'm wondering if we can find a cleaner way to display it in a tracklist. Here is an example of a Chinese-language album article. Arsonal (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Right offhand, the spacing for the English and romaji needs to be increased. The double double quotation marks "...""..." make it hard to read. Not sure we should be parenthesis for Kanji as they will also be used for notes like (off vocal), (image song), etc. We are already having problems with doubling of quotation marks. You also have problems when like at least one, where the Japanese uses parethesis.Jinnai 22:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have an alternative in mind, but it might take a short while. Will let you know. G.A.Stalk 05:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, how is it now (With and without optional line break)? G.A.Stalk 05:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
{{User:G.A.S/Sandbox2
| collapsed = no
| headline = ''Cutey Honey: TV Original B.G.M. Collection''
| total_length = 
| all_writing = 
| lyrics_credits  = 
| music_credits   = 
| all_linebreak = 

| title1  = Cutey Honey
| rtitle1   = 
| romajititle1=Kyūtī Hanī (Maekawa Yōko)
| kanjititle1=キューティーハニー(前川陽子)
| note1 = This is note 1
| music1  = 
| lyrics1 = 
| length1 = 1:34
}}
{{User:G.A.S/Sandbox2
| collapsed = no
| headline = ''Cutey Honey: TV Original B.G.M. Collection''
| total_length = 
| all_writing = 
| lyrics_credits  = 
| music_credits   = 
| all_linebreak = yes

| title1  = Cutey Honey
| rtitle1   = 
| romajititle1=Kyūtī Hanī (Maekawa Yōko)
| kanjititle1=キューティーハニー(前川陽子)
| note1 = This is note 1
| music1  = 
| lyrics1 = 
| length1 = 1:34
}}
Anybody? G.A.Stalk 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be better to add a line break before the note also? Arsonal (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
How about now? G.A.Stalk 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Do we need that trailing comma in the second line? Arsonal (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really. I will fix that once I am designing the final template; as the draft uses {{Nihongo Core}}, I do not really have a choice^_^. G.A.Stalk 06:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good other than the comma. However, what about the size of the collums and overall width of the template itself?Jinnai 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I will make the column widths adjustable. As for the table width—is there any reason not to default to 100% width? Though that may very well be adjustable as well. G.A.Stalk 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have said before, elsewhere, that 100% table width can cause problems on some older browsers (particularly older versions of Internet Explorer). The usual issue is the table extending past the right edge of the content area. The problem is the same with 99% width; 98% doesn't have the same issue. However, Common.css sets 100% width for some stuff (navboxes and mboxes, I think), so maybe the problem is actually in relation to certain padding/spacing configurations? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Might ask as the template's talk page if anyone knows why they didn't. They might have had a reason which may/may not be applicable given our unique circumstances.Jinnai 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It might have something to do with interference with infoboxes. In 1280 screen resolution, infoboxes would fit into the white space next to the tracklist. Arsonal (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Went ahead and asked just to confirm and that seems like it's the case. Don't know how serious of a problem this is with any decent quality article.Jinnai 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Romanisation of Animation Directors and Screenwriters

Anyone in the project who is fluent in Japanese, please check the romanisation of Animation Directors and Screenwriters for List of Toradora! episodes for it's FLC from the episode listing. Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anime News Network article

There is an IP editor complaining about an apparent hoax entry in ANN's encyclopedia. Since it wasn't related to improving the ANN article, I removed it and directed the IP to take the matter up with ANN's staff. However, this editor keeps restoring the complaint about ANN. —Farix (t | c) 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and left another warning. English doesn't appear to be his first language, so can't figure out quite what he is trying to complain about, but it isn't related to the article so agree it doesn't belong here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, the same editor under a different IP attempted to yank ANN's links off of some articles. But these edits were reverted. ANN was alerted to the hoax entry, and they deleted it and banned the account which added the information. But keep an eye out as I think the IP editor is going to continue pushing this non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 12:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can Encyclopedia of Anime News Network be prohibited?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&lr=&inlang=ja&oe=Shift_JIS&q=+site:www.animenewsnetwork.com+%22rafael+jolo+g+soriano%22

It is a source that everyone can edit, and it is too uncertain as the source. I was surprised to actually discover "Raphael and jolo G Soriano" not to work. Anime Staff of the imitation will appear as long as everyone can edit it though ANN deleted the animator of the imitation.

False information is infected with http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3616416/ http://theanimelounge.com/f7/11787/

Can the rule that prohibits Encyclopedia of Anime News Network be made? 211.129.139.216 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"rafael jolo G SORIANO" is correct. I made a mistake in the name. 211.129.139.216 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't use the Encyclopedia, except for news articles. The remaining FA lists that haven't been cleaned up still might list them, though. The rule is still rather recent, so articles (especially those under B-class) might still have the references. The proper way to go about it is re-reference the information with a legitimate source.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Do read over WP:ANIME/RS. Anime News Network reliability based on the situation and which areas of the website your are referring to. The ANN encyclopedia is not reliable and we've been slowly replacing the existing references. However, as an external link, it is still a valid link because of the news, reviews, and reports on bestseller lists that are also included in the ANN encyclopedia entry. The entries also include a staff listing which Wikipedia doesn't include do to article organization. BTW, you shouldn't be surprised that a hoax entry was deleted once it is brought to the attention of the staff. But you couldn't bother yourself to report it to ANN and instead started vandalizing Wikipedia. Now does anyone know how to report a hoax to IMDb? —Farix (t | c) 22:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No, ANN will not be banned. Will you stop vandalizing articles already. You have already been asked, then told to STOP it rather odd campaign against that site, and been blocked several times. If you continue such inappropriate behavior, your range could end up blocked. ANN links are fine as WP:EL, and please do not blame ANN for IMDB's erroneous information. IMDB is also user edited and has its own set of falsehoods and bad info. ANN's Encyclopedia is not considered a reliable source, because it is user edited, same as IMDB. However, both are valid external links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It was understood not to be able to detach the link of ANN to Encyclopedia as of now. Then, can the rule that doesn't erase the link to ANN but puts the disclaimer be made? I think that I am dangerous of the current state where "External link" is casually put. 211.129.139.216 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But Wikipedia has a policy of not including disclaimers in articles. There is also has a guideline that covers external links that are appropriate and links that are not. —Farix (t | c) 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
No, as no disclaimer is needed. The links stand on their own. It is up to the reader to determine if the information is or is not accurate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about the Gin Tama film

During October, ANN talked about a live-action film from Gin Tama by Warner Brothers but they confirmed it later per an announce of Shonen Jump[3][4]. However, in the confirmation, the did not specified if it was live-action or animated. Last week it was announced that there would be an animated film[5], and the official site has the Warner Brothers logo[6]. Does this mean there is no live-action. I'm a bit confused.Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ANN confirmed the domain was registered, but didn't know if it would be live-action or not. I suspect people figured it would be live action, since it was Warner Brothers, but now it looks like it was Warner Brother's Japan who did the registration, so probably was intended to be an anime film all along. I'd saw, no live-action is coming. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bootleg (TV serial)

Is this under our scope? The original work wasn't originally produced in Japan, but was adapted into an anime/manga. It's a bit different that an adaptation to anime/manga that could support an independant article without jepordizing the notability of either.Jinnai 08:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the source for Chocolate Underground correct? I would suggest finding a way to split off the anime and manga content while maintaining its notability. —Farix (t | c) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood+ Dispute

There is a dispute at Blood+, yet again, over whether it should be listed as airing on Cartoon Network (as it has for ages, per consensus), or changed to Adult Swim. Additional views appreciated at Talk:Blood+#Network. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warning discussion at the Village Pump

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the restoration of spoiler warnings on articles about fictional subjects. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers. —Farix (t | c) 03:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion now has several editors calling for the removal of plot summaries from all articles, except for what plot can be sourced to secondary sources (and therefore the bulk of spoilers all in one go). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Put notices on WT:FICT and WT:N as those guidelines should be warned. Possibly this needs to be brought to WT:V.Jinnai 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added this to the fiction notice. G.A.Stalk 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That proposal has pretty much been sunk because it creates a double standard. —Farix (t | c) 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing, but it really hasn't changed positions. No new reasons have been put forward, but proponents of the spoiler warnings are still looking for a similar solution. Jfgslo (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice about era changes at Mobile Suit Gundam 00‎

This is just a notice that I have twice reverted an attempt to change the dates on Mobile Suit Gundam 00‎ from Anno Domini to Common Era within the past week. The first attempt was on November 6 by and IP editor. The second attempt was today, November 11 by first time editor GrandMasterDr.Enigma (talk · contribs). I can only assume that the second editor is actually the same as the first editor. Not only is this a violation of WP:DATE#Year numbering systems and a previous ArbCom ruling, the "Common Era" is an entirely different timeline in the Gundam-vers (which shows why using timelines is a bad way to organize Gundam articles). —Farix (t | c) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

GrandMasterDr.Enigma has opened up a discussion at Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam 00#Formatting the era of the anime show "Gundam 00"‎ about the Anno Domini/Common Era issue. However it doesn't appear that English is his/her first language. —Farix (t | c) 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Read About Comics an RS?

Is Read About Comics a reliable source? According to its about page, Greg McElhatton was a founding contributing writer for the first 58 issues of Wizard: The Guide to Comics, served on the Small Press Expo Steering Committee since 1997, and served as a judge for the Eisner Awards, among other things. Thoughts? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 07:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

*poke* Anyone? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Woops, though I'd answered this one already. I'm inclined to say it is, at least for reviews. McElhatton has written for Comic Book Resources and wrote the Comics section intro for Year's best graphic novels, comics and manga. That plus his other credits would seem to make him an authoritative figure for reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network vs. Adult Swim

I think Collectonian is right to say that the CN vs. AS discussion on Talk:Blood+#Network has moved beyond the scope of that article, though I do not see much point in moving it to e.g. the AS article, since it would likely eventually end up here. So lets just bring it here.

Based on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim FAQ "Adult Swim is Cartoon Network's late-night programming block" and "Adult Swim is a separate entity that is shown on Cartoon Network but has its own programming, marketing, branding, and web presence.".

I'm willing to concede the programming block argument. However, I feel that the "separate entity" portion has not been properly addressed for the following reasons:

  1. Nielsen Ratings. The ratings for Cartoon Network and Adult Swim are now tracked separately (since March 28th, 2005). Articles for Anime airing on AS after the split should reflect this so the reader knows where to look for additional ratings information.
  2. Branding/Trademarks. Anime that aired on Adult Swim is marketed as such (e.g. see Sony's Blood+ DVD page). Articles should reflect this and more to the point, honor the correct trademark.

One idea I had was updating the the block templates used in the articles. For example add a programming block field to the TV template, or "Nielsen Ratings based on: " field, or something like that. That seems like an easy way to address it (it's not like we need to devote sentences to what is basically going to be the same for several Anime out there).

Anyway, thoughts? Advice? Guidance? Argel1200 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Completely object, of course. We finally got the infoboxes cleaned up some and shoving in something so useless and purely American-centric as a "Nielsen Ratings" is extremely inappropriate. It is not an easy way to address it. The easy way is to stick with what the sources say for that series and not try to conduct OR by applying personal research and opinions on Adult Swim/Cartoon Network as a whole to every article on every series that aired within the programming block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am so tired of this OR claim you have started throwing out. It's a fact that that the Nielsen ratings are listed seperately, so where is the OR?? And I just quoted the CN AS FAQ indicating that different branding is used. And here in the US the Nielsen ratings are the de facto standard for TV show ratings. I mean, they can make or break whether a new series even makes it (e.g. the Bablyon 5: Legend of the Rangers series was killed due to low ratings of the trial 2 hour movie). So how is it trivial? The info boxes make sense because this type of information is well suited for that format. Argel1200 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, per CN's fact, you yourself proved that Adult Swim is a programming block on Cartoon Network that is simply branded separately for advertising purposes. That does not make it a separate channel nor does that warrant Adult Swim having special/preferential treatment in the infobox, and certainly not its own special parameter just for it. It is trivial and no, infoboxes are not made for that type of information. Infoboxes are made to give a quick overview of the topic and summary of the article. Not for introducing non-related content, not for relating anything not already in the article. And, Nielsen ratings are not the only rating system, and please remember that anime programs are Japanese, not American. US ratings are of much lesser importance. It is an American-centric metric that even the main television infobox does not use at all. It certainly is not relevant or appropriate to the anime one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Collectonian, what part of "I'm willing to concede the programming block argument"??? It seems to me that you are just being contrarion for contrarion's sake. And I do not see how which "network" the ratings for a show are tied to is irrelevant or which branding is used are irrelevant (I mean, we had Anime that aired on CN/AS prior to the split which may have been marketed differently). On the other hand, I don't see the point in goign into it too much in an article, hwich is why an Info bo may make more sense. I think you are still missing the trademark issue -- from a "using the correct trademark" standpoint Blood+ aired on AS, not CN. Argel1200 (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
An infobox is meant "to present certain summary or overview information about the subject". It is not to reiterate every detail in the article. An optional field is not acceptable because the addition of a "Programming block" parameter to the infobox fails these questions:
  1. "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox?" No. Programming blocks are generally marketed in U.S. networks. The infobox specifically mentions "English network", and that can mean the anime is shown in Australia, the U.K., or English-speaking parts of Asia.
  2. "How likely is the field to be empty?" Other than for anime broadcast in the U.S., the field will remain empty. The addition of a secondary parameter to "English network" would usually warrant an equivalent addition for the "Original network" parameter. Japanese networks, as the inherent "Original network", will not be using such a secondary parameter as they do not market programming blocks.
Remember that an infobox does not affect only one article. Arsonal (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahh I see, thanks for the explanation. Argel1200 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I need to eat Krähe, err, I mean crow. I was looking at the Blood+ Part 2 boxed set at Best Buy the other day and the "As seen on Adult Swim" sticker mentiones Cartoon Network in the fine print. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. With that said, is there a way we can update the Project/MOS to formalize this so the issue doesn't keep coming up? Argel1200 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Using character names

I wanted to check if there's a consensus on name usage when writing about characters. It seems that we usually refer to characters by their given names. However, if a character is only referred to by his or her family name in the series, do we write about him or her using the given name or family name? Arsonal (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we use the given name though if no one in the series refers to them that way, I think using just the family name would be fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I usually use the family name as that's generally how real people are written about. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That is an interesting point to make, but what about a series with family members? It would be easier to generally refer to the characters by their given names by default.-- 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe we go by what RS use the most. This came to be an issue with School Rumble where different names are used generally based along gender lines (though not exactly) inside the work and by Independence RSes.Jinnai 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Princess Tutu Romanizations

An IP recently kept trying to change Kraehe's name to Claire in Princess Tutu, which was reverted and they were warned. They have since registered for an account and properly started a discussion at the talk page about whether the romanization (not the English name) of Kraehe is correct. Can someone more knowledgeable in that take a look at Talk:Princess Tutu#"Kraehe" / クレール / "Claire" and offer some insight. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gundam issue: Frau Bow

An editor keeps restoring their original research and other unrelated information to Frau Bow. He is also protesting it's merger into List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters and had previous removed the merge tag once before. More opinions are needed. —Farix (t | c) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Vearn?

While I was searching thru potental manga to read I came across this: Vearn. This looks totally unsourced and a potential PROD cand. in my mind, im just looking for a second opinion here however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Going through PROD is too cumbersome. Our MOS says not to create separate character articles unless there is significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, so you can just merge that back into the main article. While I'm here, I might as well bring up the Rosario + Vampire character articles, which I've wanted to merge, but have never gotten around to it, so if anyone wants to have some fun, go at it.-- 18:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
For that matter, you can point to any random navbox on User:G.A.S/Sandbox1, and 4 times out of 5, there'll be at least one article needing to be merged listed in the navbox (and way too often, there'll be four or five - many of these are articles on characters or video games). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I simply redirect it to Dragon Quest: Dai no Daibōken. There isn't a need to send this through the deletion process when this would be the likely outcome. —Farix (t | c) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Character list

Should there be a character list for Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi to list all the characters in the series as the main page has only the main characters. Extremepro (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that several main characters are actually missing. —Farix (t | c) 00:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you specify which ones? Extremepro (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Starting with the other three Karasuma sisters and Washizu. this image in the character section shows 9 characters, but only two of them are listed. —Farix (t | c) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Basically restored article to its former state without the Sakon Saginomiya. Extremepro (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem in List of Gin Tama episodes (season 4)

In the article I wrote the titles for the next episode (185), which is going to be one containing two, but it is not shown in the list. Could you take a look? By the way, I noticed that in this article there is little room for title while previous ones there is such as episode 75 from season 2 Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapter list questions

Is the number list template more preferable than the *00X format for chapter lists? Also, two other questions, would the list List of Case Closed chapters warrant a split? It seems to be pretty long with no end in sight. And lastly, if someone has alot of free time, could they help with the ref error in that same article, I can't seem to find it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that ref error is caused by the page being too long; a similar thing showed up when we added refs to the Jojo's Bizarre Adventure chapter list, and we wound up splitting that because of it. Doceirias (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The references don't display because the page exceeds the post-expand include size. Splitting should take care of that problem and, yes, the page should be split. As for the chapter format, last time we discussed it, before {{Numbered list}} existed, we didn't come to a clear consensus. So, it's up to you whether to use it or not. Goodraise 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Yu-Gi-Oh! is now a sub-project of WikiProject Anime and manga, should this template also be absorbed into the main {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} banner? PC78 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The functionality was added to {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} a while ago, though it required a bit of debugging, and is still undocumented. See [7] for an example. G.A.Stalk 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it fully working now? If there's no objections, I can replace some transclusions with the main project banner. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be fine for general use, but I have not fully tested it yet (so list any issues you find, please). G.A.Stalk 16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Toy figures and merchandise

I was wondering whether or not mentioning figures and merchandise is acceptable for Anime/manga articles. I've seen that in the guideline for characters it's actually a good reference point about the notability of a character. But, does this also apply to non-character articles? I specifically mention this for some mecha anime and manga series, since several of them are attached to them as part of their business model, for example, a lot of the most recent series from the Soul of Chogokin toy line. So if it is acceptable to mention such types of merchandise, how long should it be and in which section? Of course, if it's unacceptable, there is no need to mention that. Jfgslo (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, its not included as its fairly common and pretty par for the course, except for brief mentions in the character lists/articles. If there is something particularly important/relevant about the merchandise, then it might be something to mention, but if all that can be said it is exists, it is generally trivial and not anything that needs noting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō afd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō - i'm posting this AfD as arguments are being made that may affect many series. Specifically that high sales figures (for long-running series) should be enough to show notability. There has even been discussion of revamping the notability guideline based on this.Jinnai 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new there, just Dream Focus's usual attempts to justify ignoring established notability guidelines. He seems to argue for keeping series based on sales figures whenever possible. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I really don't like how you just dismissed my comments as if I'm not there or am the same as Dream Focus (for whom you have good reason not to respect his opinions). Unlike him, I would never vote to keep everything or try to unilaterally edit notablity guidelines. Calathan (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Similar thing is happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petit Apple Pie - its not "contemporary" so because it is long running that's enough to presume notability and no one has to produce a single reliable source to back up anything. They are "too hard" to find. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be inclined to keep the article given the age of the series (being that it's from the early/mid '80s...), but I'm not feeling strongly enough about it to bother thinking out a proper comment and !voting in the AfD. =/ ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Dinoguy1000 - seems though that others agree with him inspite of any indication to the contrary. Many people have shown up with quick noms to "keep" based on that sales figure, which is itself questionable being from an interested party.Jinnai 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Almost every one of the keep !votes are from the ARS's "keep" brigade. It appears that they have returned to block !voting. —Farix (t | c) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take too long. He tried to modify WP:BK to add sales as a notability guideline[8]. It has been reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Voted delete for the first and keep for the second. I never mentioned sales, number of volumes or duration of the publication as my rationales. Sales are relative. A 6K tall mountain is something if it's in the Alps but not much worth hype if it's in the Himalaya. --KrebMarkt 06:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Voted keep for the first but am not voting in the second as Nihonjoe already addressed my point but in a much better way than I ever could. I never once considered sales figures, but I'm following a presumption of notability until proven otherwise for these two specifically. Arsonal (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately you can't really prove lack of notability. We can check everything we would normally consider RS in English and other foreign languages, but that doesn't mean we'll find everything,Jinnai 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone had mentioned this discussion to me since I was one of the main people arguing for the manga in question to be kept. I was arguing to keep primarily on the basis that Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō seems to be one of the most successful manga ever released by Enix/Square Enix, with the raw sales numbers being a secondary reason why the series seems notable. While Enix/Square Enix don't publish as much manga as some larger publishing companies, they have published enough over the years that I would think one of their top series must be notable. Personally, I think that WP:BK is insufficient for manga, and that a sales guideline should be added (either to WP:BK or as a separate added notability guideline for manga). I know that User:Collectonian is strongly opposed to this idea, and he was the main person who opposed adding such a guideline to WP:BK when it was discussed on the talk page there. However, I think he is mistaken in his assumption that any notable manga would have coverage in reliable sources that we here can find. A lot of these manga seem to have signs that they should be notable, such as long runs and high sales, but still lack reviews. Rather than the lack of reviews being a sign that these series really aren't notable after all, I think the lack of reviews is a sign that even notable manga aren't always reviewed in Japan, or the reviews aren't kept online where they are accessable. I personally think that we could come up with some acceptable guideline for considering manga notable in addition to what is in WP:BK. For example, something such as having at least 5 volumes with sales of at least 500,000 copies per volume, which I think most people (not necessarily most people here on this talk page, but most people on Wikipedia in general) would consider clearly notable. I would at least like to see some such guideline proposed and put to a larger discussion, as I feel that the articles being kept or no-concensused at AfD is evidence that many people think the current guidelines are insufficient. I also think that modifying the guidelines for manga (or for WP:BK in general) would bring them more in line with other notablity policies on Wikipedia. For example, the guideline for music allows sales figures, while the guideline for athletes makes an assumption that anyone who is successful enough to reach the top level is notable even if coverage can't be found (someone who took 1 at bat in Major League Baseball seems clearly less notable to me than a manga that sold millions of copies). There are also de-facto policies where every real community, every major geographical feature, and every high school are kept at AfD on an assumption that they are notable even if coverage can't be found, as coverage of places in some countries may be hard to come by. I think a similar case could be made that manga in Japan lacks coverage compared to similarly notable works from other contries (though for manga, unlike places and high schools, it is clear that not every manga is notable). Calathan (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Giving Shōnen-ai back its own article

Is anyone against me giving this term back its own article? It seems "off" that it was merged with Yaoi, considering that they are mostly not the same thing (one is more about the emotional, the other is more about the physical; though they do sometimes cross paths). I feel that having the term Shōnen-ai redirect to Yaoi only creates confusion by making some people feel that they are the same thing. The redirect of Shōnen-ai does not even redirect to the Shōnen-ai section in the Yaoi article. Editor Malkinann, who proposed and made the merge, gives this reason for making the redirect that way: "it's not a good idea to redirect it to the section on shonen-ai, as there is a tension between shonen-ai as classics and shonen-ai as 'light yaoi'. the section only treats classic shonen-ai.)" What do I think of that? Well, now...any manga or anime considered to be shonen-ai will instead point to Yaoi. Even with Shōnen-ai having a small section within the Yaoi article, it makes it seem as though Shōnen-ai is simply some subgenre of Yaoi. Though the term Shōnen-ai has had negative connotations in Japan, due to its previous association with pederasty, a lot of American manga/anime fans distinguish between Shōnen-ai and Yaoi; as we know, they usually take Shōnen-ai to simply be about the emotional...and Yaoi to feature more of the physical (such as kissing and sex, though it is sometimes also about the emotional). Yes, some people (especially males) call any type of homoromantic male relationship "Yaoi," but that does not mean that these two articles (Shōnen-ai, and Yaoi) should be merged.

Shotacon and Bara (genre) still have articles, and I do not see why Shōnen-ai cannot/should not have its own article either. It needs a little fixing up, such as with more references, but it is a solid enough article. Sure, it is small, but so is the Shotacon article. Both can likely be significantly expanded. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be opposed without seeing what you have in mind that would clearly show they are different and backed up with a lot of reliable sources. Most English readers do not differentiate between the two, nor do most marketers and retailers. I would, however, disagree with the idea that the term shouldn't redirect to the section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also opposed to have an article forshonen-ai, first for the reason mentioned by Collectionian, second because people will likely start edit warring on whatever XYZ series belong to either yaoi or shonen-ai and third the "significantly expanded" argument raised the Original Research flag in my mind. --KrebMarkt 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we saying that Yaoi and Shōnen-ai are the same thing, simply because some American readers, marketers and retailers do not differentiate between the two? As I basically stated before, that is no reason to basically say "Yeah, you are right" to our readers. Yaoi emerged from Shōnen-ai, not the other way around. If they were the same thing, there would be no need for some American manga/anime fans to treat them as two different things. A lot of American manga/anime fans who are well-versed in anime terms do often differentiate between the two (as seen with fanfics); this is the very reason we even had two separate articles for these topics.
As for people edit warring over which series belongs to either shonen-ai or yaoi, was this a problem before? And how is this not a problem now? People can still edit war in that way, with these two articles merged as they are now. The series Loveless, for example, is currently linked to Shonen-ai in the infobox. If someone felt it should be classified as yaoi, they could come along and change it to that, and then an edit war could start if someone opposed to that change. But is it really that difficult to differentiate between shonen-ai and yaoi? I don't think so.
There would be no original research in my contributions to the Shōnen-ai article. If others started to add original research to it, then that is what reverting is for. Furthermore, this article would likely be watched closely by editors of this project, like most all other anime/anime-related articles here.
If most editors here are against my restoring this article right now, then I will go ahead and fix it up in my word document (which I am not sure how long it will take) and then present it in my user space for you all to see later. In doing that, I will be hoping for thoughts on my changes and expansions to the article and whether or not there is now consensus to split these two topics once more. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
We can't judge an article that hasn't been written. However, one of the problems with an article on shōnen-ai is that there hasn't been any evidence that reliable sources have covered the term or the genre separate from yaoi. If reliable sources are not differentiating between the terms, then there is no way that Wikipedia can differentiate between them either. It doesn't mater how some "fans" use the terms if that usage is not documented by a reliable source.
As for the problem with a list, that problem can be easily solved. Simply don't include the list. In almost every case, a "genre list" is entirely original research based on personal interpretations. But such lists also don't add anything anything to the article except being a laundry list. And on the topic of genres, I do think we need to be more stickers on requiring reliable sources for this bit of information. —Farix (t | c) 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course you cannot judge an article that has not yet been written, but I was originally talking about restoring the article on Shōnen-ai that we already have and adding reliable sources to the unsourced information. I am of the mind that the Shōnen-ai article should be restored or the Shōnen-ai section in the Yaoi article should be expanded with a bit more of what was in the Shōnen-ai article, and with a bit of fresh information.
I am aware that fans do not count as reliable sources here at Wikipedia, unless those fans are documented by reliable sources. I was making a point, and that point also extends to the fact that differentiating between these two terms is not just limited to fans. Reliable manga and anime sites also differentiate between the two. Anime News Network (ANN), for example, will sometimes label a manga or anime as part Shōnen-ai or as part Yaoi; what they label as Shōnen-ai is often more on the emotional side, and what they label as Yaoi is often more on the physical side. Clearly, the manga/anime media sometimes differentiate between the two as well. Sex and gender are often used interchangeably, but that does not stop the fact there is a difference between the two and us from presenting those differences here at Wikipedia. The same for Vegetarianism and pescetarianism. If there was no difference between Shōnen-ai and Yaoi, then there would be no need to go into as much detail (no matter how little) about Shōnen-ai as we do. We would simply mention it as an alternative name for Yaoi and leave it at that.
On the topic of genre lists, I disagree that almost every case is entirely original research based on personal interpretations. How difficult is it to recognize that an anime is action, drama, supernatural, or all of the above, etc.? The only thing that I can think of being misinterpreted as a genre within a manga or anime is romance when the romance is more implied than shown. But we do go by sources when listing manga and anime genres here at Wikipedia. Such lists do add to articles, as in informing the readers immediately of what type of manga or anime each series is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Write it in your userspace first. It's better to present something with reliable references to convince editors to recreate a deleted/merged article that is contentious. I have no prejudgments about it, and I did the same thing with an article unrelated to this project before. Arsonal (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that once the Shonen-ai section has enough verifiable and reliable sources to develop a individual article, you may have more luck stating your case. You say the section should be expanded and updated with new information, so I would suggest perhaps drafting such an expanded section in user space to gauge opinion with. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you all for your opinions. I stated before that I would work on it in my word document first and present it in user space to you all after that...if most here disagreed with restoring the article now. I will see what I can do, though I am not sure how long I will take with it. Hopefully, I will be able to make good enough changes. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"How difficult is it to recognize that an anime is action, drama, supernatural, or all of the above, etc.?" Believe it or not, it can be pretty damn hairy when there is a dispute, especially when it comes to the sub-genres. That is because what most genres are is pretty much left up to to personal interpretation. While a particular genre may seem obvious, someone may view it differently. There have been disputes on if a series is fantasy, gothic, or supernatural, and even the difference between comedy and drama or action and adventure.
"But we do go by sources when listing manga and anime genres here at Wikipedia." I really wished this was the case. However, if you look at the articles, you will find that the overwhelming majority of genres listed are never based on a reliable source or set of reliable sources. In almost all of these cases, the genres listed are based on someone's personal interpretations of the work and of criteria of the genre. This is why I say we really need to be stickers for using sources in relation to genres.
"Such lists do add to articles, as in informing the readers immediately of what type of manga or anime each series is." I completely disagree and history has shown that these lists are nothing more then laundry lists. While a couple of examples are fine, when they are sourced, these examples are always better integrated into the article. But if you are going to have a list of examples, what is the limit of the list? How do you chose which examples are listed and which are not? —Farix (t | c) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article follows the fashion of linking to the appropriate categories in the bottom of the article, as in Yaoi#See also and adding the category to appropriate articles/creating articles to go in that category. The boys at WP:ANIME/REQUEST and myself have been working on identifying notable titles and populating the categories, although the yaoi category is currently the catch-all. (E.g. A Cruel God Reigns - from the 90s onwards, which would suggest it's BL and go in the yaoi category, but it's by Moto Hagio, which would suggest it's classic-shonen-ai.) I have been trying to include sourced examples in the main article, like Zetsuai being an example of awful female characters.--Malkinann (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not seeing how it is "pretty damn hairy," TheFarix, except for maybe the fantasy and gothic genres. Or like I commented on earlier, implied romance. And when I stated that we do go by sources for these genres, I meant/mean that almost every manga/anime article I have looked at here at Wikipedia has the genres backed up by reliable sites such as ANN (in the External links section). Just because I have not edited a lot of manga/anime articles here at Wikipedia yet...does not mean that I am not familiar with a lot of these manga and anime articles or this project and its debates.
I still disagree that genre lists are simply list crust. It is important information, in my view. It is quick and important information telling the readers what type of manga/anime they are looking at. If these genres are better integrated within the article, then so is everything else in the infobox. The stuff in the infobox is usually already in the body of the articles, anyway. The infobox serves as quick, important information. How are the genres of a story not important, considering that they define the story? And where do we stop at listing these genres, you ask? Well, we could make a rule about that here at this project, such as stopping at four. Or we could go along with stopping at how many genres ANN lists for either manga/anime, though I would not want to go along with the number ANN generally lists...since some people may count the themes as the genres as well. Either way, I am for these lists being in these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"I am not seeing how it is 'pretty damn hairy,'" Then clearly you haven't been or read through any of the genre disputes.
"And when I stated that we do go by sources for these genres, I meant/mean that almost every manga/anime article I have looked at here at Wikipedia has the genres backed up by reliable sites such as ANN (in the External links section)." External links are not references. Also, the external links to ANN found on most anime and manga articles are to ANN's encyclopedia, which is an unreliable source. And the genre listings in ANN's encyclopedia are the most unreliable information on the ANN encyclopedia as ANN doesn't even ask for sources. Even ANN's staff will tell you that this bit of information is not to be trusted.
I don't know of a genre article that has an infobox. But infoboxes are a summary of information stated in the article. I don't see how an infobox is comparable to a list of arbitrary chosen genre "examples", with no limits to how many examples are listed, and no criteria of what is chose as an example and what is not. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That is not it. It is rather that I clearly do not get how it is "pretty damn hairy," except for in the cases I mentioned. It is quite easy to recognize action, drama, supernatural, and some other genres. Anyone who would dispute Naruto as being action, for example, is being plain silly.
External links are not typical references in the sense of how we edit here at Wikipedia, but they are still references (as in sources). Also, I already know that the external links to ANN found on most anime and manga articles here are to ANN's encyclopedia, which is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia, but it is not as prone to as much editing as Wikipedia is. I have never seen vanadalism there either. And you say that the genre listings in ANN's encyclopedia are the most unreliable information on the ANN encyclopedia, that ANN doesn't even ask for sources, and even ANN's staff will tell you that this bit of information is not to be trusted, but I state that almost every one I have seen is correct in naming the genres for either manga/anime. In addition, I was going along with the fact that we do not source these genres and most other things within the infoboxes.
An infobox is comparable to listing genre examples because, depending on what field it is, it can also have "no limits to how many examples are listed, and no criteria of what is chose[n] as an example and what is not." An example of this would be the Romances field in the general soap opera infobox, where we typically strive to only name the prominent romances and not the flirtations/single kisses (since some people see flirtations/singles kisses as romances). But like I stated before, the genre limit can be tackled here. That is what this project is for. We could easily come up with a rule as to how many genres to list. Four is enough. Mangas and animes are not limitless in regards to how many genres they are a part of, and often stop at four or five anyway. The obvious genres should be listed, and the less evident/speculated genres can be kept out.
Obviously, you and I are not going to agree about the genres matter, unless it is gathering consensus to limit it at a certain number, and that is fine; we can agree to disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Anyone who would dispute Naruto as being action, for example, is being plain silly." I would actually call it an adventure. This is just one example of how the genre is not always obvious. So it requires a reliable source to back up the claim since the genre can be disputed.
"External links are not typical references in the sense of how we edit here at Wikipedia, but they are still references (as in sources)." If an external link is a source, then it should be listed as a source. The problem with ANN's encyclopedia is that because it is user-edited, it fails the definition of a reliable source.
"I have never seen vanadalism [at ANN] either." Funny as I just recently reported a case of vandalism on ANN's encyclopedia just recently. See the project archives for more details.
"but I state that almost every one I have seen is correct in naming the genres for either manga/anime." And just how do you know that they are correct? Do you have a reliable source that states that the genres listed on ANN's encyclopedia are correct? I've seen plenty of wrong genres listed on ANN's Encyclopedia, and even attempted to send in corrections. I've also seen plenty of "genre stuffing", which also occurs on Wikipedia, were someone includes every genre possible, no matter how much of a stretch it is. For example, someone adding Sci-Fi and Mecha as genres for Love Hina. Here is one such example of genre stuffing on ANN. —Farix (t | c) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The {{{genre}}} field in the infobox is not a list of genre examples, nor is it remotely the same as a list of examples on a genre article, such as the one you are proposing for the recreated shōnen-ai article. —Farix (t | c) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Naruto can also be called adventure; adventure is also listed as one of its genres. But I do not believe that anyone disputing it as action would be taken seriously on that front; that argument would not hold up, with or without a reference calling it action.
If an external link is a source, there is the chance that it is also listed as a source within the higher body of the article. That is the case with a lot of Wikipedia articles. Not all sources need to be used within the higher body of the article, though, and sometimes External links serve as holding places for those extra sources...in the same way that the See also section is suppose to serve as a holding place for links not yet used in the higher body of the article. You say that the problem with ANN's encyclopedia is that because it is user-edited, it fails the definition of a reliable source [under Wikipedia's rules]? Yes, which is why we link to it in the External links section. But if we felt that it was completely or even mostly unreliable, I doubt that we would link to it at all.
Not funny to me. But, hey, I did state "I."
And just how do I know that they are correct? You mean how do I know that they are usually correct? Do I have a reliable source that states that the genres listed on ANN's encyclopedia are correct? Yes. They are called DVDs, comments from the creators/producers, etc., and reviewers of various manga/anime magazines classifying the animes as pretty much the same thing. Your having seen plenty of wrong genres listed on ANN's Encyclopedia does not mean that they are usually wrong. I have seen plenty of wrong stuff on Wikipedia, but I believe that Wikipedia is generally correct; it has been proved as such in the math and science departments at least. And considering the level of traffic on Wikipedia, access to editing/vandalism, I am still willing to bet that these problems are far less prominent on ANN.
What are you talking about with that last paragraph? I was talking about the genre field in the infobox all this time. I thought you were saying that we should not have the genres listed in the infobox, because they are "chosen" and "limitless" and all that other stuff you stated about genres. Why else do you think I was mentioning the infobox and readers looking at the genres listed there to get quick information about what type of anime these stories are? What were you talking about all this time in regards to lists? The type of list that was in the former Shōnen-ai article? I was not proposing a list of examples on a genre article, such as the one that was in the former Shōnen-ai article. I would be opposed to that type of list as well. I wondered, when you first replied and mentioned lists, why you had mentioned something about lists, but I figured you were talking about the genres in the infobox...with the way you were going on about genres. I should have asked you earlier what you meant. It would have saved us from all this debating. I apologize for being dense. That happens at times when I am worn-out in life outside of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Another reason I did not "click" on the type of genre lists you were speaking of is because the version of the Shōnen-ai article I was looking at did not have those lists; looking further through the edit history, I see that those lists were removed from that article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Currently the yaoi article covers all three major terms/movements together because there is significant overlap between shonen-ai, yaoi and Boys Love. I've toyed with the idea of renaming the article Boys Love and merging the Category:Yaoi and Category:Shōnen-ai together into a Boys Love category, but the term isn't yet ubiquitous, and it does not seem to be getting traction with English-language publishers. When I've looked for sources about "shonen-ai", I've primarily found sources treating BL works with mild themes (Gravitation (manga)) rather than dealing with old-and-classic shonen-ai (Kaze to Ki no Uta). When possible, I've tried to follow Wikipedia:Explain jargon in the article. (This is also why Shonen ai redirects plainly to yaoi rather than the shonen ai section - so that people read the Yaoi#Usage section first.) Talk:Shōnen-ai and Talk:Yaoi/Archive_2#Merge_proposal might also provide some illumination here. Shotacon is a hybrid between yaoi and lolicon, and it's got enough sources discussing it that it gets its own article. Bara also has its own history and sources, being a cross-pollination between Japanese gay culture and beefcake magazine aesthetics and artists. When I merged the two articles in 2008, I only WP:PRESERVED the sourced information, but if sources can be found for material I deleted, then so much the better for Wikipedia. An alternative to sandboxing a new article on shonen-ai might be to expand the Yaoi#Shōnen-ai section with sourced information until it's ridiculously large and then propose a split? --Malkinann (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your thoughts, Malkinann. I still feel that if the section on Shōnen-ai in the Yaoi article is to serve as an article on Shōnen-ai for now, then the Shōnen-ai redirect should point there. Without it, it is even more like Shōnen-ai is simply an alternative name for Yaoi. We can simply expand the Shōnen-ai section there, to make clear the things we need to and with more important information. I still plan to fix up the Shōnen-ai article and then present it in my user space, as I stated above, but that section on it in the Yaoi article can certainly be better tweaked for now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. If shonen ai redirects straight to the section on shonen-ai, anyone looking at it would bypass the lead, which says that shonen-ai came first and yaoi is an offshoot of that, and the usage section, which explains the dual meaning of shonen ai as being old and classic and as being new and WAFF. --Malkinann (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Shōnen-ai section, to me, suggests that Shōnen-ai came first. Either way, we could tweak the Shōnen-ai section to state which came first, and link to the Usage section through a pipelink. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
@Malkinann Gravitation (manga) was reviewed as yaoi. Remember the French book on yaoi that i have to finish summarizing in English when i will stop procrastinating :( --KrebMarkt 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And I have one English-language source that calls it shonen-ai due to its focus being on the careers of the characters. Given its age, it's Boys Love, but where do we put it? That's why I wanted to merge the categories. --Malkinann (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, in Yaoi#Usage section mentioned above by Malkinann, it states exactly what I have been stating here (backed up by reliable sources):

The terms yaoi and shōnen-ai are sometimes used by western fans to differentiate between the contents of the genre. In this case, yaoi is used to describe titles that contain sex scenes and other sexually explicit themes and shōnen-ai is used to describe titles that focus more on romance and do not include explicit sexual content.[1][2]

And that is, of course, what I mean about the two terms being differentiated. I will use those sources and others. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Some key points there. "sometimes" and "western fans". It does not indicate that it is the widely accepted meanings nor that they are valid views, only that it is done by some "fans" (not by the industry itself). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, Collectonian. But it also does not mean that these views are not valid; after all, this topic was seen as valid enough to be covered by these reliable sources. I get what you mean, though, and will look for sources about how these two terms are differentiated by the industry/media. Thanks for always being so helpful. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

List-defined references

A couple of months ago, there was an update to the referencing system that allows for list-defined references. I know in a few cases, using list-defined references may be idea. One is to prevent the main citation containing the reference from being inadvertently deleted when there are multiple citations to the the same reference. Another is to sort a list of references in a more logical order, such as chronologically or alphabetically. Or in the case of episode lists, make the code a little bit easier to read. —Farix (t | c) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

This fan video came back yet again and was speedy deleted while under AfD. The usual suspects have taken it to DRV to try to get it recreated yet again, despite its having been deleted in five previous AfDs and countless CSDs. Latest discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 25#Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PC's dead

Posting from psp. I have FAC School Rumble if any can help w/ even minor issues. Let them know as it takes too long to type. Jinnai 08:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They have been duly notified. Link to FAC here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jason Thompson

Jason Thompson's article created here: Jason Thompson (writer). I currently have capped internet. So, anyone interested in expanding his article with the links piled on the bottom of the page? Extremepro (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

Editors with knowledge of Japanese popular culture (particularly related to anime) may, perhaps, be interested in this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dears move

I have twice now reverted a copy and past move from Dears to DearS. The editor who conducted the move contests that the move should be non-controversial and that my reverts are "blatantly inane". —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he actually cited the help page when doing it wrong. They do have a point that it looks extra silly in this case, and may be a good example of the need to make an exception. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
How is it pronounced? "Dears" or "Dear S"? If the later, it might actually fall under the exception for using all lowers (like SAT). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the Japanese, it's pronounced "Dears". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Then I'd say it should remain at Dears, per WP:NAME :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A move request has been started on the article's talk page. —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Book on Anime and Manga

I'm creating a book from wiki articles on anime and manga using Book Creator. The list of links for the book can be seen here: Wikipedia:Books/Anime and Manga. Anyone interested in suggesting links? I'm going to add links from {{Anime and manga}} for the while being. Extremepro (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Going by the "real world" books, the manga section should probably be first (since it came first), rather than second, and should have a genre subsection with links to those articles. Then maybe after both sections, a bit on the companies starting with the list and then with maybe the top Japanese companies (Shueisha, Hakusensha, Kodansha, Shogakukan, etc) and the top English distributers (Tokyopop, Viz Media, Funimation, maybe Chuang Yi, etc). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Finished adding the links from {{Anime and manga}} to the book. Anyone can download the book in PDF format. Anymore link suggestions? Extremepro (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Should current Project FA/FL/GAs be added? Extremepro (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that might be good. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles added and book is currently at 172 articles. Not sure how much that is in pages. Anymore article suggestions? Extremepro (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Each individual member of the Year 24 Group that we have - the main year 24 group article is very general and probably wouldn't be too helpful. --Malkinann (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Created a chapter for the Year 24 Group. Now total of 182 articles in the book. Extremepro (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List all the problems in the pdf/open office doc here: Help:Books/Feedback. Also does anyone wants to help me make an introductory page to the book here: Book Introduction, keeping in mind that most templates are excluded in print. Extremepro (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to go absolutely nuts, you could also look at the Top and High rated articles and include them? --Malkinann (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With the book currently at 1240+ pages with Twin Spica, I think that's enough articles. Though we could work on a foreword/intro to the book. Extremepro (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GAN reviewer solicitation

I'm looking for someone who is willing to give a somewhat thorough GAN review of Twin Spica in the next few days. I realized I have just over a week before traveling for the holiday season and would like to be able to directly address any questions reviewers may have before I'm reduced to sporadic Internet. This is an interesting series because there were practically no English sources on it, and I had little to start with. Even scanlations are stalled at less than a third of the series. I was lucky enough that Vertical Inc announced a licensing agreement in September, so a few preview analyses were made. That license won't be published until May, and neither of the two adaptations have been licensed either. (Virtually nothing covering the original English broadcast.) This article has potential though, and I aim to at least get it into FAC by the time the first English volume is published. Thanks in advance! Arsonal (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm up for that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Project scope: Film and cultural critics

A couple of film and cultural critics have been tagged with the project banner.

  • Hiroki Azuma is a Japanese cultural critic that has written some papers on anime as well as many other topics
  • Taihei Imamura is a Japanese film critic who wrote a book on animated films.

Do either of these biographies fall within our scope, or is it a bit of a stretch? —Farix (t | c) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Under the current wording of the scope, I don't think so. I also don't think critics should be part of the scope in general, unless they are primarily notable for their anime and manga related work. Goodraise 23:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems too much of a drift to include such articles. There has also been a number of album articles and singer/band tagged with the banner. —Farix (t | c) 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I feel this 'primarily notable' definition runs foul of WP:HOLE - Dru Pagliassotti, for instance, is a fantasy author, editor of a horror magazine, and a researcher in boys love, and going by amount of publications, she's probably not *primarily* notable for her BL-related work, but she does do a fair few things towards BL research. Hiroki Azuma, has written a couple of very interesting pieces about moe and Evangelion. --Malkinann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"I feel this 'primarily notable' definition runs foul of WP:HOLE" - HOLE is not a policy or guideline, so I don't see how anything could be "run[ning] foul of" it. It is an essay intended to make editors write useful stubs about people. What does that have to do with inclusion in a wikiproject's scope? Goodraise 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I meant that if you don't follow that person's work, it's hard to see how they fit into the project, and it's hard to tell for stubs that are possibly made by someone whose primary interest in the person is for their other work - you wouldn't necessarily know them from a hole in the ground. People who are professional cultural critics discuss lots of things, that should not take away from what they have already done in anime-manga studies. I am inclined to think the scope of the project is too limited if "major aspects of fandom" does not also include the study of fandom and those who study it. --Malkinann (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon infobox

Is there anyway we can trim down the content in Sailor Moon's infobox as the infobox itself takes up 5 and a bit pages when rendered in book form. (Most other articles only have 3 pages' worth of infobox) The bloated size is mainly due to the other publishers/networks in the infobox (like an insane amount). Extremepro (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You should take that up with WP:SM, perhaps? The networks are in the infobox because they are all networks which have aired Sailor Moon in English around the world. --Malkinann (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that we are deprecating the |xxx_other= fields, you can either take them out or convert it to prose in the article /w sources. Also, I would suggest removing the |network_en= fields to reduce more blot. —Farix (t | c) 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Since when are we depreciating the xxx_other fields? Is the mos changing again? --Malkinann (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It's in the discussion page for the infobox. I just noticed it last week myself. Arsonal (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd remove any networks/publishers that are not verified by reliable sources in the article itself, and any that are not English or the original releases. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Or start up a discussion on Talk:Sailor Moon to that effect - the English releases are treated in greater depth with citations that could be ported to Sailor Moon on Sailor Moon (English adaptations). --Malkinann (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A site containing anime English airdates

The site Toonzone contains episode lists with English airdates from various anime and other animated series. I was wondering if it's a reliable source since there various episode lists that are needing sources for this. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked through WP:RSN to see if it has already been discussed? —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Some discussion from December 2008. Not sure if it discusses a part of the website you're looking at. Arsonal (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you give a direct link to such a list? Goodraise 23:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(To Goodraise) If clicking into all shows, and then into a series, an error is shown. The only I could find is the one of Naruto Shippuden as I entered it from the section of this week's schedule.Tintor2 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since several Wikipedia-Books are Anime/Manga-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Anime & Manga people can oversee books like Seasons of YuYu Hakusho much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class can sure help categorise this project's related books. Extremepro (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed that books like WP:Books/Anime and Manga are way too long. Right now this would be a 1200+page PDF and double that in print. It would be better to split the book by topics, such as "Anime and Manga" which sticks to the general concepts (history, themes, types of anime/manga...), then perhaps a "Manga Compendium" then an "Anime Compendium" would would have the individual manga/anime articles, then another book for authors or something like that. As a rule of thumb, books shouldn't be more than ~350 pages in PDF, as there's apparently a 700 page limit on printed books (however, I don't know if its a hard limit, or just that after 700 pages the books are too bulky). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
User:PC78 updated the template in the sandbox. Anyone for/against this change ("this change" being adopting the book-class)? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I support this change. Btw, our parent project, WikiProject Japan has already implemented the book-class. Extremepro (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I also support this change (and, seeing the actual code changes, there may be a bit of performance I can fineggle out of the code). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Translators

Are there any project members willing to translate Chinese, French and/or Japanese into English? This can help with the translations backlog especially with the French ones. Extremepro (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of translations would it be? (Reviews, interviews?) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
My Chinese isn't very good for full translations, but I can help if you need some clues from the Chinese articles. Arsonal (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To Kaguya-chan: It would be mostly reviews. Look at my sandbox for some. To Arsonal: You could look over my translations of Sharp Point Press and Ever Glory Publishing from their respective Chinese pages. I'm fluent in Chinese in speech but never received formal education in Chinese writing. Extremepro (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Serialization template

I've recently wanted to start cleaning up some manga magazine articles on my watchlist, and after looking at Shojo Beat, the idea struck me that the project may benefit from a serialization template which makes inputting the information easier, and would also standardize the serialized manga of the many manga magazines attached to this project. Currently, most manga magazine articles have maybe a basic history (if that) and a huge list of serialized titles. Looking over Hana to Yume is a good example of this.

Now, while the table used in Shojo Beat is a good example, I would also like to add in an optional field for the illustrator if it is different from the author, or otherwise change the column to "creator(s)" and merely label them as (author)/(artist) if applicable. Or have two columns, author and illustrator, and in the case where there is one author just make it so that the two columns are merged for that particular series. I think the genre column could be optional too, and the completed column would only be applicable to non-Japanese manga magazines, I believe. So what do you think?-- 08:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding illustrator would be fine, I think. It should probably be separate columns, since having the table sortable seems to be strongly preferred in PRs and the FAC. I certainly wouldn't mind if there was a template that could make it easier to mark the current series versus all the CSS now. For the genre column, it was not originally in Shojo Beat nor Shonen Jump (which is modeled after SB), but when SB went through its FAC, it was strongly requested as a compromise to my refusing to put plot summaries in for every title (as was all the date and sorting code that was added). Also agree the completed column is probably optional for Japanese mags as they generally run to completion, and can be footnoted in the rare exception. I know in my more further reaching plans, I intended to model Animerica Extra after the success of SB's formatting, and attempts have been made with Weekly Shonen Jump, though the bulk of its lengthy serialization history is blessedly in a standalone list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A serialization template would be good, but note that merged table cells and sortable tables don't mix - there was someone working on a new version of the sortable table script that would have fixed this and other issues, but that work seems to have vanished into thin air. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh well then. So then what would be the suggestion for the author(s)? Use "Creator(s)" and indicate the (author) and (illustrator) on a manual case-by-case basis, or use "Author" and "Illustrator", and list the same name twice when it's the same person? I would be in favor of the latter per less work for the template users, though dislike the redundancy it gives. And would using the color-coding for ongoing series still be used, or could we find some other way to mark currently ongoing series?-- 05:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible sections shown as floating boxes

In PDFs, Collapsible sections, such as |publisher_other= and |network_other= in {{Infobox animanga/Anime}} and {{Infobox animanga/Print}} are shown as floating boxes. This is seen repeatedly in Wikipedia:Books/Anime and Manga. It also causes words to wrap around in the Infobox even if there is space. Original discussion here: Help:Books/Feedback#Collapsible sections shown as floating boxes, related discussion: Help:Books/Feedback#Box within Infobox. Could anyone try and tweak {{Infobox animanga}}to make it not show "box-in-infobox"? The same thing is happening with {{Infobox Television episode}}. 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the PDF generator is not be fully CSS compliant. Since we've already deprecated the |XXX_other= fields in place of sourced prose, the articles on the book list should probably be the first to be updated. Not that I fully understand what Wikipedia:Books is all about. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This would greatly reduce the infobox size of most GAs/FAs. Especially Sailor Moon. I'll get started on it then. Extremepro (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For those interested, the following articles are the ones affected by this bug in the book: Azumanga Daioh, Earl Cain, Free Collars Kingdom, Fullmetal Alchemist, Hibiki's Magic, Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl, Lupin III, Sailor Moon, School Rumble, Speed Grapher, Strawberry Panic!, Tenjho Tenge, Yotsuba&!. Extremepro (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added the 'noprint' class to the rows containing the collapsible tables, so this should solve the problem with the PDF rendering at the cost of removing the 'other' fields. In the process, I've also added the noprint class around the 'list of' links in the table as well, since their presence doesn't make any sense in a printed version. —Farix (t | c) 00:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That would help a lot. Extremepro (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PDF renderings

Looking at this PDF rendering of Earl Cain, the entire infobox is wonky. I'm going to check a couple of other articles with infoboxes and see if they are rendered the same. If so, then we may need to do some adjustments to where the imfobox doesn't display, but the image is still kept. *shrug* —Farix (t | c) 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

After some experimentation, I have come to the conclusion that the PDF renderings of infoboxes is horribly broken. In the long run, we are probably better off not have the infoboxes display. —Farix (t | c) 04:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the PDF rendering of List of Bleach episodes and ... Wow, that is a very oddly rendered episode table. Seems that there are a lot of serious bugs with the Print/export feature that need to be worked out. —Farix (t | c) 04:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The Earl Cain infobox looks fine to me, what's the problem? Also I've narrowed down the problems for the ugly tables (which is related to the collapsible infobox problem): Somehow the "width" parameter is ignored, and this turns pretty tables into horrors. I've filed a ticket for this: http://code.pediapress.com/wiki/ticket/750. Hopefully this will be solved quickly. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The problems is that the article starts after the infobox. This is hardly desirable. The PDF rendering should be a near duplicate of what you would see on Wikipedia. If the infobox is to be printed at all, it needs to stay along the right side of the page and allow for the text to wrap around it on the left. Another issue is that images are randomly resized. Some images are rendered smaller, like the lead image in Earl Cain, while others become larger, such as the lead image in List of Bleach episodes. This makes planning for both print and screen rendering nearly impossible. —Farix (t | c) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes appear this way for all articles (e.g. Electron). Rendering of articles in the book creates a structure somewhat similar to those rendered in Wapedia, though images there are not presented with wrapping text. Arsonal (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that a Wikipedia page is much wider than book or printer pages, so infoboxes would take well over half the page, and that is also pretty ugly (click "printable version" under "create PDF" to see what I mean, and do a print preview). Perhaps it would be possible allow word wrap to if the renderer recognized infoboxes and "shrinked" them (smaller fonts) combined with wider margins. I thought you meant this particular infobox looked like ass compared to the other ones. They all look like this, and this one is one of the best-looking ones IMO.
We're aware that something needs to be done with infoboxes. We just don't know what yet (but your idea is good, so that might serve as a starting point). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Question on nominating article for GA status

I recently did List of Canaan episodes and had it assessed for a B status. Need some help on how I should "nominate" it for a GA status, it's my first to do it. Ominae (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean Featured list status, not GA. Looking over the examples of recently FL passed episode lists would be a good start, and then a copyedit of the summaries is needed. Look over the FL criteria, and a peer review is also recommended before taking it to FLC, but not mandatory.-- 05:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Lists would be nominated for Featured List status. There is no Good List status. Arsonal (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've put the peer review template onto the page. I need someone to start the process as nominator can't be the one reviewing the article. Extremepro (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've duly started the process: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Canaan episodes/archive1 - please everyone leave some comments! --Malkinann (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Commented. Extremepro (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Crunchyroll licenses

I wanted to get the opinion of other editors on the status of Crunchyroll licenses. There are several anime series it licenses that have not been licensed by any other companies, e.g. the currently airing Kemono no Souja Erin. In other cases, there are some series that have been dual licensed to Crunchyroll and another company that releases it in home video format. In writing articles about the various anime solely licensed to Crunchyroll, is it preferable to use their translations of fictional names and concepts or to use direct Hepburn romanization and translation? Reliable sources may rely on these translations for their reviews, but the website also seems to have a reputation of not having a consistent quality with translations. Arsonal (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If Crunchyroll is the sole licenser, then we must use their translations, even if they are inconsistent in quality. I think, though, that most of their licenses are not true licenses, in the usual sense, but rather a distribution agreement for releasing the Japanese company's own English translation. Either way, though, as they are official and sometimes the only English release, per guidelines their spellings/translations should be used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New magazine stub

{{Anime-mag-stub}} has been created to handle anime and manga magazine stub articles. I've started placing it on the appropriate magazine articles. {{Manga-mag-stub}} redirects to it. Articles tagged with this stub are sorted into Category:Anime and manga magazine stubs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2009's top-selling manga in Japan, by series

Just dropping this link off from ANN

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-12-04/2009-top-selling-manga-in-japan-by-series

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talkcontribs) 19:10, December 4, 2009

By individual release: 1–25, 26–50 Arsonal (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

YuYu Hakusho up for Peer Review

I've requested YuYu Hakusho for peer review here. Please come share your thoughts. ~ Hibana 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion archive reorganization

Our deletion archiving is currently weights in at a whopping 210 kilobytes and becoming too big to manage. It's more of a pain to actually archive completed deletions and errors are harder to find. It may be necessary to split the archive up across multiple pages based on the date of deletion. Thoughts? —Farix (t | c) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sort by year of each article's first nom. Some of the articles have several noms that span years so categorise by first nom then order them alphabetically. Extremepro (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
While it may be simple for most second nominations under the same name, there are a few nominations were it is the same article, but under a slightly different name. And in some cases it is an article that was part of a mass nomination under a different name, but nominated a second time under it's own name. The archiver will have to check each year's lists if multiple nominations are to be kept together. This would actually be more tedious then the existing organization. So I would prefer a system where we don't have to sort the list alphabetically or worry about keeping multiple nomination together. —Farix (t | c) 01:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record, this has been on my to-do list for quite some time; I just never took the time to really think about the best way to split the archive and then to do it. For starters, though, the Templates, Categories, Other, and Prods sections can all be split off into separate pages. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've completely redid the archive splitting the discussion by year with each year on it's own sub-page and the current year is transcended onto main archive page. Discussions are also sorted by their dates (most recent at top) instead of alphabetically (which was becoming increasingly more cumbersome). Hopefully, the archives will be much easier to maintain. —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EMagi reliable?

Is http://www.emagi.co.uk/ reliable? I'm trying to use this for Indian Summer (manga). Extremepro (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Their about page doesn't give much reasons why its reviews should be given weight in article reception section. Certainly trustworthy but lack credibility to be mentioned in reception section. Sorry. --KrebMarkt 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing in the reference library

Is it possible to list the articles affected by the reference library book in a subpage of their own with page numbers? Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines/Animage for the magazine, for example. I suppose we could start with Manga: The Complete Guide as five project members own a copy of it. Then we can slowly move to those ref books that have their own article and so on. Also, is it possible to add magazines from other languages to the reference library? Extremepro (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This has already begun happening (though it's been a while since I added anything to them, it being a lot of work). They are sub pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library:
I would not object to each book having an individual page, though, if people wanted to do that. To answer your final question, magazines from any language can be added to the reference library magazine list, but be sure to indicate the language if it's not immediately obvious. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Can magazines, like Hyper (magazine), where there is only one/two anime reviews per issue be added to the magazine section of the reference library? Extremepro (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to just create a separate page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines/Hyper and make a list of the reviews and which issues they are in. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Started. Should note that I don't actually own the copies of the magazines. I just borrow them from my local library when needed. Extremepro (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New Type anime database

Can Japanese fluent people check if New Type anime database is not users editable and thus could used as Reliable Source? Thanks. --KrebMarkt 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The website is run by Kadokawa Contents Gate, a member of the Kadokawa Group, and does not appear is have the ability to be user editable.-- 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will use it for anime series which official website went BOOM. --KrebMarkt 08:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You could use the Internet archive in conjunction with {{wayback}} for dead official sites.-- 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Serial Experiments Lain

I have nominated Serial Experiments Lain for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extremepro (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

About time someone start a FAR on that one. I admit i was too coward to do it so more credits to Extrempro.
Query: Can someone tell me why Anime Jump! reviews are reliable? Thanks --KrebMarkt 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike Toole been around a while, and has also worked for ANN. Writes under his real name, and is/was one of the better critics around -- not one to provide a summary and a two line opinion. Doceirias (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will Anime Jump! in the reference library once this discussion get archived. --KrebMarkt 21:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Anime Links Template

Is the {{anime-links}} still used? It's still there in Angel Cop. Extremepro (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still used on around 120 articles. Its utility has since declined with the removal of AnimeNFO and AniDB do to concerns over copyright violations. —Farix (t | c) 22:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Primarily only by its creator. I'd be inclined to say replace with the proper templates when found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted website is back.

AniDB.net is somehow getting through the black list filter. I've removed it from a number of articles again. Do we need to make a new request? —Farix (t | c) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd saw so. They should hopefully be able to tweak the filters if you point to the add diffs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP

This article has been unsourced since its creation 4 1/2 years ago: Keiji Gotoh. He's an anime director and manga artist. I looked for sources and couldn't find significant coverage in English, though it may exist in Japanese. Can anyone improve it to provide at least a couple of decent sources? Fences&Windows 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that the list of works to be grossly incomplete. I'm not exactly sure what the bases for inclusion or exclusion, but I've add in a more complete list of works. —Farix (t | c) 01:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

THEM Anime findings

Well,

About time someone provide evidences on whatever THEM Anime is RS or more accurately why it should be given weight to their reviews.

Here we go: G4TV AnimeFringe's Top 25 2005.

That enough for me to give THEM a modicum of weight. --KrebMarkt 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical commentary for a scene from School Rumble

Could use some suggestion where to place it. Talk:School Rumble#Commentary for bike scene Should it be added to the reception section and ifso, where, or the anime description?Jinnai 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

New bio stub

I've created {{Anime-bio-stub}} and begun populating it. It covers individuals or groups (such as composer group, for instance) who work in the anime industry. This is for real people, not fictional characters (for which {{Anime-char-stub}} should be used). Please use it where appropriate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to have this added to these articles by means of a bot: I do not think that most of those articles changed much since the tag and assess (or is the intention that this exclude artists, voice actors, etc? I find the intended scope somewhat ambiguous.) G.A.Stalk 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If the group already has a specific stub (as is the case with the two examples you gave), then this stub doesn't apply. They would be sub-stubs of this one, however (perhaps on the manga artist one, if you consider it to be part of the overall anime industry). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I should also note that I haven't yet gone through the following cats, if someone wants to begin working on them (I won't be doing more for another 20 hours or so): Category:Anime directors, Category:Anime character designers, Category:Anime screenwriters, and Category:Japanese animators. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I see... in that case an automated list could still be used, but the intersects/exclusions should be refined (AWB has functionality to do so manually, but it is beyond the abilities of WP:CATSCAN. Are there other exclusions that should be considered if one uses Anime and manga biography work group articles as a starting point? G.A.Stalk 05:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I recommend just using the categories I listed there as I've done all the others (about 60 stubs or so right now). I have caught several articles which were listed as start but were stubs, and several which were listed as stubs but were start or higher. Not sure how you automate checking for that, though. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no easy way. G.A.Stalk 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through Category:Anime directors. Will work on Category:Anime character designers, Category:Anime screenwriters, and Category:Japanese animators later. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ain't It Cool reliable?

Is Ain't It Cool reliable? (Stolen from KrebMarkt's edits). Extremepro (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say so, as it has been quoted by other reliable sources for both news and reviews[9] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. AICN is considered reliable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Add to online resources page? Extremepro (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yea, with a wikilink to this discussion once it got archived. So no one will wonder when we agree that it's a RS. --KrebMarkt 17:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability checkup

I'm going to begin a notability review, starting with the articles in Category:Action anime and manga. These articles currently do not show that they could passes WP:NOTE or any other sub-guideline. Several of these I'm confident can pass WP:NOTE, but they need work to show it. —Farix (t | c) 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First batch

  1. 009-1 ANN + Mania + DVD verdict reviews. Extremepro (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. 6 Angels
  3. Agent Aika ANN + Mania + DVD Talk + THEM Anime reviews. Extremepro (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. AIKa R-16: Virgin Mission ANN + Mania + DVD Talk reviews. Extremepro (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden
  6. Akumetsu French reviews --KrebMarkt 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Amakusa 1637 French reviews --KrebMarkt 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Angel Cop ANN + Mania + Buried Treasure reviews. Extremepro (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Angel Links ANN + Mania reviews --KrebMarkt 20:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Angel's Feather - Mania review only. Extremepro (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
ANN reviewed it in a Shelf Life column [10]. Calathan (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It would actually be better if the reviews were actually used to develop a proper reception section instead of just stuffed in the "External links" section. —Farix (t | c) 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would be better. But sometimes all you can get is baby steps. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i deeply apologize to not be good enough in English to write reception sections. Well, when you need 15 mins to write just one sentence then you clearly are not feat for the job. --KrebMarkt 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Amakusa 1637 is an excellent adventure by a damn fine writer that lasted 12 volumes, but it seems to have not been licensed outside of Chinese and Thai, which makes notability hard to demonstrate. By the letter of the law, I think that one would have to be merged/redirected to the mangaka. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wait, licensed in French by Akiko. Kreb -- anything from that direction? —Quasirandom (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Safe! Long Animeland review + 2 lesser weight ones from a generalist French RS Sci-fi website saved it. Akiko belong to the long list of dead French manga publishers. --KrebMarkt 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment First batch mostly done save for Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden which suffer from the "it's in Shonen Jump so it deserves an article" syndrome. --KrebMarkt 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Second batch

  1. Angel/Dust - AnimePro reviewQuasirandom (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Ao no Exorcist
  3. Aoi Blink - is tv series (and a Tezuka series to boot) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Arc the Lad - :Should almost certainly be merged with the game article (which should probably be renamed to be more general). Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    Merged. Also redirect the one episode article to that section of the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I agree with merging that. The anime has plenty of reviews (ANN1 ANN2 Mania.com THEM Anime), so notability isn't a concern for merging, only whether the content would be better presented as its own article or part of another one. I think there is enough content for a stand-alone article (especially if the reviews are used to write a reception section), and also that once merged the content kind of overwhelms the article (since the games are each covered in other articles, with only a brief summary in the series article). Also, a merge was opposed back in 2006 (though I'm sure article standards were different there), but I would at least think a merge would warrent a discussion with editors interested in the games who might not have seen this dicussion. Calathan (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've realized that at the time of that merge discussion, the article which later became "Arc the Lad (anime)" was just "Arc the Lad", and the discussion was more about merging Arc the Lad Collection with that article, but the rest of what I said still stands. Calathan (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, Useight just moved the Arc the Lad (series) article to Arc the Lad and didn't leave a redirect behind. I created a redirect at Arc the Lad (series) due to the number of links going there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. Area 88 - anime adaptation, plus Shogakukan Manga Award, plus one of the first three manga in English —Quasirandom (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Armitage III Mania reviews, ANN1, ANN2. I remember it was a fairly big deal at the time of the r1 release, several mags covered it in some detail. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Armor Hunter Mellowlink found two reviews in Animage (September 1988, July 1989), also listed with brief reviews on pages 269 and 271 of Anime: A Guide to Japanese Animation (1958-1988). There are likely other reviews in Newtype, Animage, Animedia, and Anime V. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    Also discussed for about a column (a decent amount of space, considering the layout of the book) in The Anime Encyclopedia, p.713. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Armored Trooper Votoms found Mania, THEM, OTAKU. Malkinann/KrebMarkt
  5. B.B. Won the 1989 Shogakukan Manga Award for shonen. --Malkinann (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Banana Fish

Some of these are, "Seriously, WTF? Why are they still unsourced?" —Farix (t | c) 01:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They're probably unsourced because they were made before WP:FICT, or made by people who don't understand that for an article to remain on WP, sufficient reliable reviews must first be located. I thought that we had already had a notability review with Tag and Assess '08? I've taken the liberty of striking Banana Fish. --Malkinann (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Angel/Dust has English, German, French, and Italian editions; the English edition sank with only a single Ozaku ripple, but the German got some notice (the most clearly reliable one linked above). Kreb, anything for the Tonkam edition? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Has an entry in the French Manga Dico which is the sole French dictionary on Manga. --KrebMarkt 20:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Arc the Lad anime: The Boy With a Flame should be probably deleted/redirected. --Mika1h (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirected. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Armor Hunter Mellowlink should be merged (with massaging edits) into Armored Trooper Votoms. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See notes above. I'll have to dig up the issues (I just looked in my index of content for the magazines). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Snow Wildsmith's LJ?

I hadn't realised this before, but Snow Wildsmith, a teen librarian who writes for Graphic Novel Reporter and School Library Journal also keeps a yaoi-devoted LJ. As she is a reliable source, would it be OK to use her LJ as a source of reviews? --Malkinann (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say she is RS due to the fact that she has reviewed for the ALA and ICv2 amongst other things. Question is: Can she be regarded on the same level of say, Patricia Duffield?Extremepro (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

UK Anime Network RS?

Is UK Anime Network RS? More info on the about page. Extremepro (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have any issues as far as WP:SPS is concerned. That's good enough for reviews, but I think this site may have more potential for us as a general source. So the real question is, do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's hard to tell with just a brief once over. Perhaps someone from the UK anime scene can enlighten us on UKA's reputation. —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick google search doesn't show anything to validate them as a more general source. However, I will note. Mostly blogs or info on their mascot merchandise. Was one Japanese site that might be promising, but it looks like its probably just a random blog. Jinnai 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I would have said no, but after a quick look and read of the about page I agree with it passing SPS. unfortunately I've not been involved with the actual scene in the Uk for 4 or 5 years, so I can't give a great deal of help regarding their reputation. Based on the current site I'm leaning towards a yes, but hopefully someone knows more then me. At the least, we can use their reviews. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Issue isn't RS but weight can we give it as much weight as ANN's review? As Dandy Sephy said we can use their reviews but we should not give them too much weight. --KrebMarkt 07:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say they should be given equal weight. Why would ANN's reviewers be given more weight than other reviewers? —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I had some time to kill today so browsed through Neo in WHSmiths. There was a full page, full color ad for UKA towards the back of the magazine, and a contributor to the site is indeed the editor of the mag. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Animetion RS?

Is Animetion RS? Extremepro (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at their 'about us' page, it doesn't look promising. This is a self-publish website that wouldn't be able to pass WP:SPS without more evidence. —Farix (t | c) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Detective Conan Summaries

I'm not sure how detailed the summaries for a mystery animation should be, so I would like some critics on the summaries of List of Case Closed episodes (season 17). I realize my grammar may be bad and repetitive so criticisms appreciated. Please list critics here. Thanks. P.S if I posted this wrong, my bad. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Playing catchup

Power was restored about 4 1/2 hours ago with cable internet restored just a few minutes ago. It will take a while before I am fully caught up in the discussions. —Farix (t | c) 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Anime voices}} linking

Because Farix removed autolinking back in June, there are about 1068 articles using the template which will need to be fixed so the articles of the voice actors are linked to. Also, the documentation for the template was never updated and still states that it will autolink the names used in it. I nominate Farix to do it since he's the one who created this mess. (^_-) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a task worth suggesting to have a bot do, too, as it would basically be checking the article to see if there are double square brackets used in the template, and if not, adding them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I would almost suggest having it done with AWB, except that I'm not sure if we want to link to nonexistent articles during this cleanup run. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with redlinks as they simply point to articles which need to be created. If we determine later the person doesn't meet WP:N, then we can remove the redlink. Having it there in the meantime won't hurt anything. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairy Tail Character List Help

It seems we need some help editing the List of Fairy Tail characters article. The article has been tagged with in-universe style and source issue problems since last year. I'm looking for any secondary information in addition to sources and the likes to add to the character descriptions. As well, any help in regards to reworking character bios would be appreciated. Fox816 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In Talk:Fairy Tail I added some interviews with Hiro Mashima which may contain some creation info from the series and characters.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look and see what I can get from it. Fox816 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fansite as a source

Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) is using the fansite Evamonkey in Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)#Further reading for an unknown reason (it seems like a guide). The fansite's administrator himself states he is a fan of the series and a student. I removed it but it was reverted because of the things it contains. I tried discussing it with User:Gwern, but no clear reason was given. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that the site's administrator being an NGE fan is already a problem because of the obvious fanboy slant towards the articles. WP:EL has to be followed as well, and your removal of the site is in line with it. In the same breath, I remember removing two Metal Gear fansites that an anon pushed hard to include two years ago (citing the case of Lupin III) and got burned hard for doing so. This is no different. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a completely inappropriate link, failing all aspects of WP:EL. I've removed it again. In honestly, most of that section is rather bad. If any of that is RS, it should be used in the article. Most of those links should probably go. Gwern's readdition of that link while acknowledging it violates WP:COPYRIGHT is particularly disturbing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Evangelion articles will never reach any decent quality mostly because of the attitude of one user. My advise is to not bother wasting your time and work on something else instead. All I got was abuse for trying to make the articles actually fit inline with WP:MOS-AM because of excessive ownership issues. I couldn't be bothered with the hassle (not helped as I had no proper internet at the time). Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Dandy, whoever did that to you needs some uw-own slapping and Gwern seems crass with some of his edit summaries, brushing off Tintor's work under the lines of "So what?"--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Tend to agree. Gwern may need some admin intervention. They restored the link with the edit summary of "spam spam delicious spam!".[11] On another article, they added another inappropriate El with a note of " to any trigger-happy removal nazis, be good enough to scroll down and see who the post is by". Yeah....its no wonder no one wants to deal with the horribleness that is NGE...meanwhile, I've removed three other links from that article and links to it in five other articles. Glancing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion, it seems clear that Gwern and one or two others are acting in very non-neutral fashions regarding NPOV, disregarding reliable sources because they think they don't know what they are talking about. *insert eye roll* Suspect, in the end, those of us who recognize the bad behavior going on, though, will run again because its too much hassle to deal with that kind of issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully the only Evangelion page I'm likely to bother working with any time soon is a currently non existent page. That said I fully expect some hassle when certain pages get tagged for merging (although the mergeable content will already be there) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If admin intervention is sought, it may be best to look outside the project - I haven't looked over Gwern's behavior much myself, but it's possible they'd respond better to an impartial, extra-project opinion than a biased, intra-project one. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible additional award

Is the newly added Anime Barnstar wanted, given the two existing Anime awards?

If not, should one or both of the existing awards be listed among the topical barnstars at WP:Barnstars?

Note: The new barnstar was created in bad faith but I have re-defined it to standard barnstar language, "The Anime Barnstar is awarded to those who make outstanding contributions to Anime-related content." I was unaware of the two other awards when I did that.

Note 2: The image in this barnstar is the subject of a deltion discussion, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 22#File:Anime barnstar.png davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, considering the history of it though your turning it into something good is much appreciated. I do think the existing ones should be included among the topical ones though. :-) Could maybe turn it into an alias for the existing Sakura one though? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The BarnSakura is the Anime Barnstar, the barnstar for anime related article work. If an anime related award should be listed at Wikipedia:Barnstars, it's the Sakura. The BarnLoli though should probably not be listed there as it should only be awarded for work related to this project. Goodraise 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced it with the BarnSakura since that is the legitimate anime/manga "BarnStar" and turn {{Anime barnstar}} into a redirect for {{BarnSakura Award}}. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter articles

There's a lot of cleanup that needs some work here. Not only are there multiple character articles, there are multiple character lists with lots images and bio templates in the lists and a lot of excessive detail and articles on in-universe elements that don't have any real-world relationship. Normal spinouts:

The episodes actually could be split into their seasonal releases. At the very least I don't think the OVAs need to be merged here as that's 70 something episodes with them. The TV episodes should be moved though and a master list be created.

Extra articles
Characters
Other elements
Other character lists.

The only ones that might have any chance of their enough notability would be the indivisual characters listed. Given these were created before the US DVD releases some research should be done before merging those. The rest i doubt it.Jinnai 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone can make a version of File:HatsuTypes.png i can try to merge Nen article. That replaces (or has in addition to) the Kanji with actual English text. That image because it is purely text beyond the hexagram box is not able to be copyrightable under US law so there is the possibility of making a commons version of it.Jinnai 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with that. All the other character lists should merged in the main list and some trivial characters need to be removed.Tintor2 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

MyAnimeList RS?

User:Dsdsasds added a point about MyAnimeList on Clannad (visual novel), but I do not believe the website meets WP:RS, and since it was not listed at WP:ANIME/RS, I decided to make a thread here to make it clear if it is to be considered reliable or not for inclusion.-- 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't reliable source at all. Its user edited and purely a community site. Any registered user can add/edit the content from what I can tell on the FAQ, and it has no history of reliability. Also violates WP:COPYRIGHT as it blatantly copy/pastes content from other sites, including ANN, and it gives info on obtaining fansubs/dubs of even licensed series. Thought that site was blacklisted already. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the above post, it's source on anime description is indeed unreliable. In fact most of their sources are quotes from wikipedia articles. However what source I'm using from the web, is the score of the anime ranked by thousands of anonymous users, not its reviews nor it's anime description. Dsdsasds (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That is also not reliable. It is user content not valid numbers, and easily manipulated. Further, because of the copyright issues, it should not be linked to at all, per policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is able to prove itself easily that the scores obtained is indeed judged by the thousands of users. This can be seen as even it's own wikipedia article, MyAnimeList had said that 'The website was created and is actively maintained by Garrett Gyssler, who goes by the alias of "Xinil". Currently, there are thirty-eight staff members who update the anime and manga databases, moderate the community, and post news stories.[1] As of July 14, 2009, MyAnimeList claims to have registered over 200,000 users, of whom over 13,000 sign in every day.' And if you read the last sentence, there is 13k users signing in, thus it is not surprising it can reach 17k of votes on its ranking. Wikipedia had acknowledged it 13k users claiming, and thus had it added on it's wikipedia article. Unless you can actually edit the article that the article meant that the claim was a lie from MyAnimeList itself from the start, I do not find the web anywhere near suspicious/lie. Anyway, I'm a member of the website for 2 years and I do not consider the site a fraud at all, It's system was true and neat to me all this years. You may however view the last sentence as unreliable source as it is a mere quote of me, but I have my own reason for being so determined why I think the source is reliable. For the copyright issues, they had references linked back to the wikipedia issue at the end of the description, that is how I'm able to know the description for anime they used are source cited from wikipedia. The score of clannad obtained claimed was not a user content as well. If you scroll down to it's statistic, you will see that the score is now Scored: 9.011 (scored by 19211 users) and it's changing constantly depending on the the vast number of users editing on the MyAnimeList cPanel. You may create a new free account yourself, and rank the anime yourself and see if the changes apply to see the proof for yourself. I hope you can reconsider my entry, and sorry for the numerous edits.Dsdsasds (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, user ratings are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a primarily user edited site and fansite. It is, again, not a reliable source in any fashion, and yes it is very easy for anyone to manipulate the numbers the same as IMDB or any other user rating sites. as you yourself just noted, I could go on and register for an account and make ratings. I could go on an register for numerous accounts and rate series. There is no control. It does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source, and it is full of copyright violations making it completely unusable in any fashion (not just stealing from Wikipedia, but also ANN, other sources, and pointing to illegal content). Its great that you like the site, but its user reviews and ratings are not suitable for Wikipedia use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
True that it's score is easily manipulated by having users creating multiple accounts, but like any others successful site e.g wikipedia, The web have active strict moderators constantly on a look out, constantly updating it content and constantly ensuring everything is on the go, that is how websites like MyAnimeList are able to earn these success being even in the Alexa rank. If it is indeed pointing to illegal content as you claimed, then wouldn't it make wikipedia wrong to even add it's article in the first place, which may eventually point to MyAnimeList Dsdsasds (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The vetting for user submitted content is minimal, and I've seen many, many mistakes for what should be supposedly obvious information. ANN's encyclopedia isn't considered reliable, so MAL's submitted content certainly isn't. And I say that as someone who maintains a account there for keeping track of what I have or haven't seen/read. I still question the notability of the site even having an article (not to mention the ridiculous lack of neutrality in its creation), but theres no chance it will be considered a reliable source. And user revews have never been reliable sources, no matter how they are collated (and being ever changing, they aren't practical to use). Once again, this is something we don't allow with ANN's user reviews (part of a much larger site which we do use information from if its not user submitted), theres no chance of it happening here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the users reviews are indeed unreliable, however as I said in the first post, the sources we are using are the scores of a certain anime obtained from thousands of random anonymous ratings to elaborate the anime success on the website among fans. Not its reviews nor it's anime description. Dsdsasds (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
it's a different way to describe and write the same thing. They both reflect the opinions of someone. The fact that 50 people might give a score instead of a review has the same weight, it's just someones opinion. It doesn't matter if 40 of the 50 agree, it's just user opinion the same as someone writing a user review. It's just semantics, the end result is the same: user content. We don;t allow one, why allow the other just because more people are involved in it? And I'll restate a point made previously, the scores are always changing, thus making them instantly unreliable. we don;t allow user scores collated in a similar way from Anime News Network, a site that we do allow news items and staff reviews from. so why would we allow them from MAL, a site we don't think is reliable at all? Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC) And, as we have now all said, it is not a reliable source at all, not in any way, shape, or form. It is not a rating of "fan success" it is non-reliable scoring of users of a single site which does not represent even the majority of anime/manga fan. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
MyAnimeList is definitely not a reliable source by any stretch of the definition. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's user ratings are no more trustworthy than ANN's user ratings as on-line popularity polls have no credibility whatsoever and would be undue weight. Besides I thought I removed all references to MyAnimeList a couple of weeks ago. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It may not represent the majority of the fans, but certainly a vast number. True 50 or 40 might might have the same weight of a review, but what if the score retrieved are from 19,000 users. Yes 19,000 is certainly not even the majority of the fans, but it certainly represent a large proportion of the fans. The score's digit may be always changing, but the changes are always little, as editing an average score, scored by 19,000 users by a 0.1 digit takes few another few hundreds users to vote the entire opposite choice of what the 19,000 users had vote. The constant changes in number is certainly not a factor to be considerate as it is extremely obviously certain the score will last the same/minus 0.1/plus 0.1 for months at the very least. When the time comes when it is indeed not as popular, and the ranks had dropped, that is when editors are for. We edit it to its next suitability.
Its definitely a good way to elaborate on the show success, not just on their DVDs, but from 19,000+ random anonymous on MAL as well. Dsdsasds (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. An on-line popularity poll is unreliable do to its self-selective nature regardless of how many people may have "voted". And checking on the article history of MyAnimeList, it seems to have been improperly recreated and should go back to AfD or speedy deleted under G4. —Farix (t | c) 03:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
CSD was tried, and rejected: "remove speedy, the article has been expanded quite a bit compared with the deleted version. seems to gain some more notability after the event "CraveOnline Buys..."[12] Would have to go through AfD again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Nominated. —Farix (t | c) 03:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, no it is not a good way to elaborate on anything. It is not a reliable source, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another DRV for YGO:TAS

Once again, into the breach. Will also be listing this in the delsort page. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Serialization template created

Based on the previous discussion and the request on my talk page, I finally got around to creating {{Serialization list}}. Note that the template currently is just a rough draft, and is open to being changed - in particular, I'm wondering if the English, kanji, and romaji titles should be placed into separate columns or whether a different background color for ongoing series would be preferred (and I'd also appreciate someone else writing some stub documentation ;) ). Thoughts? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sample implementation at Shonen Jump (magazine)#Series. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
For the most part, it looks good, except the table should have a white background instead of gray. I don't think the kanji/romaji titles are really needed for the magazine articles. I think on-going should have a default color with maybe an override option, or an option to do by focus? Like blue for shonen, pink for shojo (stereotypical, I know :p) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I never really see the difference between the default wikitable background and white, but I'm not against that change either; consider it done. =) The kanji/romaji parameters were added per the request on my talk page, and they make sense for Japanese magazine lists where the majority of titles do not, and should not, have separate articles. I also considered an override option for the ongoing color, although it was mentioned that maybe an alternative mechanism for marking such series could be found. I'm not so sure about specific, situational colors, though; it really goes against traditional color usage on Wikipedia (that is, that coloring should serve a purpose and be consistent between articles, rather than just being decorative). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the basic design right now is spot on, and still feel the kanji/romaji fields should be kept for Japanese magazines, such as Hana to Yume where a large amount of the serialized titles do not have articles, and will probably never meet WP:GNG to get their own articles anyway, but still deserve to be listed in the magazine article. Also, I'm not even sure the color-coding for ongoing series is even needed, since the "ongoing" listed in the "last issue" column shows which series are still ongoing, and the only reason I can see why color-coding has been used is for easy viewing, though since such issues were passed in such articles as Shojo Beat, I see no reason to not go along with it. Also, I would request a way to remove the "completed" column when in Japanese magazine articles where the vast majority run to their completion, and any that didn't would be able to be footnoted.-- 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I had support in the template for kanji/romaji from the initial save; my concern was whether it would be preferable to have them in separate columns or combined with the English title (as they are currently). The color-coding isn't strictly necessary, but does serve as a quick visual marker for those series that are still ongoing, and doesn't seem to be a problem with GAN/FAC reviewers, as you mentioned. The "Completed" column can be removed simply by removing all instances of |Completed= in calls of {{Serialization list}}, though now that you mention it, I still have to add a bit to {{Serialization list/header}} to allow the column's header to be removed as well. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 09:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Much better. On my screen, the default background is a dark gray and almost unreadable :-P Could we maybe go with yellow over green, unless there is something in the style about a preferred highlight color? I personally like the highlighting for the visual differentiation/highlighting, but not so married to it that it can't be removed if others find that just having "Ongoing" is enough. I would be curious, though, as to how it would handle Shojo Beat, which is highlighting the series that were running when it was discontinued, so they can't be called "Ongoing" :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? It sounds kind of like your monitor is set incorrectly, or it's going out - the background color for the table.wikitable class in MediaWiki:Common.css is set to f9f9f9, a very light gray. There's nothing I'm aware of about a preferred highlighting color, I simply prefer the light green over light yellow myself, and am open to other suggestions. =) The highlighting is completely separate from |Last= or |Completed=; it is solely determined by whether |Ongoing= is set or not(and, conversely, |Ongoing= doesn't have any effect on the output of |Last= or |Completed=). {{Serialization list}} would handle SB's list just fine; I'll convert it in a minute to demonstrate. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 09:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
My monitors are fine...both are new. I just don't keep my monitor at top brightness. So it looks darker to me. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
While I was making the documentation as requested, I realized a few things. First of which is that the "Ongoing" field which supplies the highlighting has to be removed entirely for the highlighting to disappear, as in, just setting it as "no" will not cause the highlighting to go away. I think "Series" should be "title" to be in line with {{Infobox animanga}}. I still would like to see those kanji/romaji fields too.-- 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This results from a habit of mine of using #if instead of #ifeq for such "binary" parameters - I just don't see the point in asking that editors specifically set the parameter to "yes" or "no" to get the desired effect, since then you have to consider if they use alternate capitalizations or different values while using the template. |Ongoing= can be blanked to remove the highlighting, if you really want to leave the empty parameter in a page's source. I also changed "Series" to "Title" per your suggestion; I had misgivings on that choice from the start (and kanji/romaji has been in there from the start; see above). ;P
This looks great; I look forward to implementing it later on today. Thanks for your hard work. :)-- 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest axing |Genre=. This field is problematic enough on the main articles and often become centers of original research. Unless that is we make it a habit of explicitly referencing the genre in the articles and/or table. —Farix (t | c) 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Adding genres was required for Shojo Beat's FAC in lieu of actual plot summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that none of the genre's are sourced and are likely original research, even in the main articles is a problem for any featured article. —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
They've never required sources, though, not even in main articles. Same as with films and television. Tend to agree, they are original research in many ways, but unless we are going to go across the board with requiring them, not sure what else is to be done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further tests to the template show that the "Completed?" column still does not disappear even if the field is removed. See Template:Serialization list#Japanese magazines. Also, when both the "author" and "illustrator" fields are used, the illustrator's name is shifted over to the "genre" column.-- 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of these would be because I'm lazy about documenting, not because the support is broken. ;) To properly hide the "Completed?" column, use {{Serialization list/header | Completed = no}}, and for adding the "Illustrator" column, use {{Serialization list/header | Illustrator = yes}} - these can both be combined, BTW. Sorry for not updating the documentation appropriately! =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've further tweaked the documentation and noted that you've started updating Dengeki Daioh, Juhachi, so how's the template so far? =) (and just a personal note, I've never much cared for that particular documentation style, so I may look into other ways to do it (if I come up with anything, I'll also be updating the documentation of {{Infobox animanga}}, {{Graphic novel list}}, and {{Episode list}}/{{Japanese episode list}})) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The template's so far working out great. What I've found so far is that I'm unsure if supplying the kanji/romaji for series that have articles makes sense, since I found myself doing that a lot in Dengeki Daioh, and I kind of found it unnecessary if that info is just found on the respective articles, but then I thought that if I was going to supply any kanji/romaji that I might as well do it for all series, though would like your opinion on this. Just going through and adding all the ongoing series was very time consuming, though mostly because I had to translate many names of authors/illustrators, and the trials I went through finding first issue dates for many of the series that don't have articles or any other easily verifiable means to find that info; you will see that two series just have years listed, and two series don't have any date because I could not find them. Furthermore, adding in the genres was hit and miss at best, since only the series that already have articles on the English Wikipedia have their genre's listed, so many of the series in the table don't have genres listed as I am not familiar with them. This makes me in favor of scrapping the genre column altogether when, in cases like these, where much of the genre column is left blank.-- 06:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm fine with scrapping it, I just want to make sure others support the removal and that it doesn't really aid the articles, unless we're going to source ti all. Since it was required for the one FAC, I want to be able to point to discussions of this point in future ones to explain why they aren't there :-) (of course, then the argument/question becomes, if its OR in magazine articles, why have it in series articles when the same problem would presumably exist?)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)