Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 50

Hana to Akuma

Someone created the article again, can it be considered for deletion? It was deleted once before for lack of nobility. Samantha Lim88 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As it was deleted through userification, only way is to send to AfD which I've done as it still lack notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Excel Saga characters

This list looks messy, can someone help me tag and fix the list? I have been fixing up the main page and it woul be nice to see all parts of it running again =) (I would start but its 12:27 AM here >.<). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with referencing (I have the first 15vols of the manga here). I'm also sandboxing a new Excel Saga article. The current one is an absolute mess, and it's pretty much because of the way the content is written and placed. It needs a complete rewrite, it's actually less work then trying to alter the existing content. Give me a couple of days and it should be a lot better. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay and thanks, I have the 19th volume here if you need any info there and see that Excel is in its 20th volume released in English with 21 due in 2010. The current version of the Excel doesnt look that bad (in my opinion), it just needs cleanup, references in the anime, more manga release info and a plot extend (It was a whole lot worse before I saw a few months ago). If you are sandboxing a new one though best of luck and im sure it will be an improvement =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It's mostly done (in sandbox still). I've rewritten everything except the reception section from scratch (I'll deal with that last), using some of the information already in the article, and trimming a lot of it (especially unverified stuff). I agree the plot needs bulking up a bit, it was done quickly a while back because I was fed up of seeing all sorts of unrelated rubbish mixed in with it (and there was little distinction). I'm just looking for a source or two then it should be pretty much at B class, with a simple path to GA. As for the character list I would say the best thing to do at the moment is reference as much as possible, that should make it easier to see what can come out of it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I took a glance at the character article and it appears to be all character information with little references and in all in-universe style. I am looking for references now for out of universe info now, as for the list I suggest citing the manga and the anime as references (Which will take some time as I havent finnished reading the series, I do have the anime though). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


I don't know if it is proper to put it here but can somebody work on the Maschinen Krieger ZbV 3000 article? I've placed a number of tags, but haven't really come around to doing the legwork myself (though to be honest, the models are totally awesome). Anyone who can help, feel free to do so, thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Ronin Warriors characters

I have merged all the character articles relating to Ronin Warriors into List of Ronin Warriors characters because none of them appear to meet the notability requirement. A large amount of original research and fancruft has to be carved out to improve the new article. The category that held the individual character articles is up for deletion here because it is obsolete. ~ Hibana 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --KrebMarkt 07:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: using Anime News Network in references

Excuse me for not knowing this if it had been discussed, but I've been gone and out of the loop for a while. While reading through the GA reassessment of Lupin III, it appeared to me that using ANN for references was frowned upon. I was wondering why. While I understand that using the encyclopedia there itself as a source is questionable, since it is user-edited, the news on the website itself is very legitimate and verifiable, written by website staff and columnists who, if I am correct, are even paid for it (and even if they're not, they're selected based on an application process). The news on that website, in my opinion, make for very good, verifiable and accurate sources for use in Wikipedia articles, so I argue that the use of ANN as a source should be allowed, so long as it's the news articles themselves being sourced, not the encyclopedia articles. --AutoGyro (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lupin III GA review was in response to ANN's encyclopedia being considered a non-reliable resource. References to the encyclopedia were replaced and the article retained its GA status. The news and reviews sections of ANN are still considered reliable. However, there are still a number of other references to ANN's encyclopedia in other anime/mange articles that still needs to be removed or replaced. (previous discussion) —Farix (t | c) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Although the Lupin review was triggered by that, it was in pretty bad shape anyway. Although I wonder if AutoGyro looked at the page after reading the review, there are quite a few ANN news/review items used in the current article (which bar the addition of the upcoming TV special is more or less identical to the revision that passed the review). Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As someone who participated in the, er, rescue of Lupin III, I can assure you that indeed it was simply the ANN encyclopedia references that were, shall we say, cleansed from the article and not the news and reviews. (The article also needed a lot of beefing up though, by way of making the coverage comprehensive enough for GA -- but that's irrelevant to your concern.) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Move Discussion

I have started a discussion/request to move Fushigi Yūgi to Fushigi Yûgi: The Mysterious Play, which is the official English name. Discussion is occurring at Talk:Fushigi Yūgi#Requested move. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Character names over at Crest of the Stars and sequels

For several years now, the pages for this series have been using the wrong names -- instead of the official English spellings, they're using the spellings from the fictional language spoken by the characters. These are unrecognizable, and the manual of style is pretty clear on it. Is there anyone around with the resources to go through the pages and correct the names? Doceirias (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a very big mess to clean up. —Farix (t | c) 17:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This is why no one has touched it, yeah. Doceirias (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I have the Seikai Trilogy published by Tokyopop, so I can do some cleanup of the names based on that. Seems that most of the issues with name, at least according to List of Seikai characters is that the "Baronh" names are fan transliterations and are not from any official source. —Farix (t | c) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of cleanup, what about begin with the article on the fictional language Baronh? It has no sources and looks to be entirely derived on original research. It also doesn't pass WP:NOTE for a stand-alone topic. —Farix (t | c) 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of appendixes and articles and fanguides that discuss the official way to romanize the language, but all of the translations of the works themselves ignored it. Some of that article could certainly be sourced. Not sure where you'd merge it to, with the series articles split. Doceirias (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As written, its original research. But if the only sources are primary, it will still fail WP:NOTE. Perhaps an brief overview of the constructed language may be given in Crest of the Stars, but leave out the details on grammar, spelling, and greetings. —Farix (t | c) 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, did some cleanup around the names and merged or redirected three articles (Ghintec, Lamhirh, and Ath (alphabet)) while tagging two others as having serious issues (Baronh, and Technology and ships of the Seikai Series). —Farix (t | c) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam 00

I've started a discussion at Mobile Suit Gundam 00 about whether there is one series consisting of two seasons, or two separate series lasting on season each. This is in relation to some information that is potentially misrepresented in the article's infobox. —Farix (t | c) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode list transclusion

An RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Episode tables and transclusion regarding the use of tranclusions for episode lists and whether the practice should be ended. As we use this frequently in anime lists as well, notifying this project of the discussion seems approrpiate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

This is just me saying happy new year to everyone, I know it is slowly comming around the globe now (It is only 7:27 PM here), where ever you are tonight have a good one =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year You all :) --KrebMarkt 08:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

あけましておめでとう! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Anime and manga to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 16:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if we could have all of our feature pages tracked (even if they aren't the top 500)?Jinnai 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ANN and Manga Recon's 2009 Lists

ANN released their "Best (and Most Notable) of 2009" and Manga Recon their "Our Favorite Manga of 2009". It covers a good number of series, so I thought I'd leave a note here. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Romeo x Juliet

Romeo x Juliet needs an overhaul. I found a huge list of reviews. The episode listings can be split into another article. Production section can be improved. The article needs to be expanded in general. I think with all the external links merged into the article, it should easily reach a C or even a B class. (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro I locked myself out of my account.

Did some work on the article. Someone needs to split the episode listings into their own page (I can't do it myself). Also, the reviews at the bottom of the page can be used. (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro I locked myself out of my account.
Very quickly done. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Now the only thing left are the reviews. (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro I locked myself out of my account.

Firefox News

Found a Firefox News review of Romeo x Juliet. Can Gretchen Lee be deemed RS? She has written other articles on anime. (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro I locked myself out of my account.

I'm inclined to say no, but will wait for others to chime in as I don't have time to check it in full. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems more like a self-published work. (About Us) (Become an Author) Her reviews are currently being used in Black Blood Brothers, List of Speed Grapher characters, and List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsonal (talkcontribs) 11:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with it being a WP:SPS and that "news" system is entirely open and user submitted/generated. I would suggest stripping these out wherever they are found. —Farix (t | c) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm hunting down all references to Firefox News in our anime articles and removing them. In the mean time, I've started a discussion over at WP:RSN about the reliability of the website in general as there are numerous other articles outside of WP:ANIME's scope referencing the website. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Project subpage idea

I was just wondering the value of having a project subpage for source/information requests. I often find myself wondering if people may have printed material or know of any links off their head (outside the usual ANN/Mania type site)that may contain information useful for adding to a page in development, and while we have a reference library listing of magazines and such, it's often better to simply ask if someone knows if they may have something. Certainly for myself sometimes I am looking at a page and remember I might have a news article or other comment available on it.

So essentially a page where people can ask for specific information to help with their articles, that we can add to if we know or think we have something for them to use or add ourselves. For example I'm flicking through some Animerica's in the quest for information on a series, and I've come across an article on the original Gundam. I'm not likely to work on the gundam articles myself, but for example TheFarix does and might be after a specific piece of information. Yes we can list magazine contents in the reference library, but that's a lot of work, and often important information may just be a random snippet in a news section.

Am I making any sense here? Really I'm thinking along the lines of Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime and Manga but for articles that already exist, and preferably for specific questions. for example I'm after the true start of serialisation for Excel Saga as I know the year cited by reliable sources so far is actually incorrect. That's not the sort of question I feel is worth starting a regular section on this page (unless it's the difference between B and GA, which could be the case at some point), but it's something that someone could easily stumble across randomly. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean like....Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Video Reference Library? Or something more general? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well those are well and good, but I'm thinking more for asking specific questions to see if anyone can come up with specific information. I might want to know when show x was released on vhs in the US, someone might think "I think I've seen an ad", then go away for 10minutes and flick through any resource they may have. Or I might pick up some old issues on ebay, and I can check the page to see if anyone is looking for info that I might come across when looking at them. A place to ask for specific information, such as the request for any release info for Slayers. I've asked you if you have anything, but there could be another 5 users that may have something but may not have their resources listed. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say probably this page :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Which gets archived quickly. I'm thinking of a separate page with the idea that people can come along and help out as long as the information is required. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a neat way to try to avoid the FUTON bias, but the current system that we have isn't really working, and proposing a new process for this might lead to WP:CREEP. --Malkinann (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Magazine archives subject template

In order to make filling out the subject archives for magazines a little easier, I've created {{Anime-subject}}. All of the Animage subject index pages now use it, so you can see it in action by visiting them. Here's a link to the page indexing the first issue of Animage. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What about magazines that only cover one or two relevant articles per issue like Hyper? Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines/Hyper (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro
You can list all the games it covers, too. The link then helps people find the resource if they look at "What links here" from the toolbox on the left. Using it will make the formatting easier and it will make it consistent with other subject archives. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Butcher RS?

Is Christopher Butcher RS? He's "manager of the world-famous comic book store The Beguiling, in addition to being a freelance writer and the co-founder of the Toronto Comic Arts Festival." He is cited in PiQ, Man's Best Friend (manga), Ichigenme... The First Class is Civil Law, A History of Violence, A.D. Vision, etc.

As an extension to this, is Comics212 RS? this. (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

More: Deb Aoki interview. --KrebMarkt 10:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Walls of Recognized Content

A new bot has recently been created to automate the task of listing recognized (and formerly recognized) content on project pages. This has been implemented by WikiProject Physics, and you can see the example history there. With permission from other editors from the project, I propose we use this tool to automate the work of maintaining our lists of such content on the project mainspace. Arsonal (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and would remove some maintenance burdens from active project members. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
For the former featured/GA, can the bot link to the GA/FA/FL discussion? (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

Hunter x Hunter character merges

Can I get some help as User:Zyrxil is undoing the list merges for HxH claiming that the basis for the seperate lists is that Wikipedia allows topics to be split and cross-referenced and the size of all the content would be "more than 30 pages". Much of that information is trivial and there is a lot of original research as well, plus tons of infoboxes and other stuff that bloat the page. He has reverted several of my attempts to merge the lists together solely on that basis.Jinnai 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* He is now just throwing his fights up into the air and yelling "There's no plan! There's no plan!" and declaring any out-of-universe organization of the list as completely arbitrary. I'm not sure if someone like him can be reasoned with any more. —Farix (t | c) 21:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

merging {{In-universe/Anime and manga}}

looking at that template compared to the standard in-unvierse there doesn't appear to be substantial difference.

Anime & Manga

{{In-universe/Anime and manga}}


{{In-universe}} Anyone know why this one was created?Jinnai 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea why it was created, but you could always add an |anime=yes switch that adds the only difference between the two. Wouldn't even be hard to do. Then, once they are merged, have a bot (or a person) go through and replace {{In-universe/Anime and manga}} with {{In-universe|anime=yes}}. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If you're gonna do that, you might as well do it for all the other in-universe spin-offs.-- 05:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There must have been a reason somewhere along the line, id leave it be, its fine and has not brought any problems in the past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They could all (all the subtemplates) be merged into one template using ifs. It would still accomplish the same purpose, and make things a little less complicated. Maybe this ought to be proposed elsewhere so more people can discuss it? Link here if you do propose it elsewhere. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. Not tonight as I'm going to sleep soon and am not sure where. Village pump?Jinnai 05:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted WP:Village Pump (proposals)#Merging cleanup templates and using if tags if you want to join the discussion.Jinnai 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Romeo x Juliet naming

I'm requesting commentary on the proper naming of the Romeo x Juliet article. Opinions are appreciated. Arsonal (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of anime conventions

I'm on my third revert here. Although I've already left a message at Acastegan (talk · contribs) who keeps adding a convention with no article to List of anime conventions despite the list's inclusion criteria. I'm not exactly confident that the editor will revert the last inclusion. Also, checking with shows that this convention will hold its first event in October of this year, making it very unlikely it can pass WP:NOTE for a stand-alone article.

In general, though, I would like to have someone else also keep an eye one the list. There have been times I've been unable to keep a watch on the list or I come close to crossing WP:3RR. —Farix (t | c) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it is okay now, he/she seems to have gotton the message and the newest edit was self undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Character spelling consistency

Is there any policy/guideline in regards to character naming consistency? One Piece: Grand Adventure uses the names from the game and specifically says it doesn't use Zoro which was decided upon a while ago for the list but Zolo.Jinnai 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, the guideline is that the names should be used consistently across connected media articles (such as the anime article, character list, etc), but for a standalone article on the game, I'd probably go with game's spelling and a footnote or note in the prose about it? Would also be curious to know if there is anything written about it though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Product catalog on Figma

I've attempted twice to remove the product catalog on Figma as a violation of WP:NOTCATALOG. At the same time, I tagged it for notability do to a lack of reliable third-party sources and remove several external lines to various blogs, image galleries, and YouTube as they do not conform to WP:EL. However another editor, Wbd (talk · contribs), is calling the removal of the product tables, notability tag, and external link "vandalism". —Farix (t | c) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because it is notable, it deserves to be there, and it should be there. I have stopped editing wikipedia altogether, so feel free to do whatever you want. I take offense at your reference and tone to me, but I guess it doesn't matter now.
--Wbd (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
By what definition is it notable? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talkcontribs) 19:36, January 8, 2010

My language was intemperate, and I apologize for that. Why is this users insulting message left, where mine was removed?
--Wbd (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If I didn't summarize your argument for notability correctly, then explain what you argument really is. But there was nothing insulting in my summary. —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you were being rude, not summarizing in good faith. Please don't insult the intelligence of the readers. I cannot satisfy your personal opinion for notability. Several hundred thousand toys made by a company that employs hundreds of workers isn't notable enough, fine. Just submit an AFD and get rid of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbd (talkcontribs) 02:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That is basically an argument for its existence making it notable, which does not meet Wikipedia's general notability nor company notability guidelines. How many employees it has or toys it makes doesn't make it notable. Significant coverage of the company does. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Farix's noting, if somewhat sarcastically, that you have basically argued it existed so its notable, is not a valid reason for the remark you made which was removed. WP:CIVILity does not say you can throw around insults at one person just because you think they are being uncivil towards you. Do unto others.... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would argue this, but there's no point. Have fun guys. --Wbd (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think part of the problem here is that WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't clearly disallow catalogs, but only catalogs with prices listed. While there is a general consensus that a complete listing of products like this is inappropriate (unless all the products are individually notable), I don't think it would be clear from reading WP:NOTCATALOG that this content is not allowed. Though its possible that nothing would have convinced this person that the content was inappropraite, I think a better explanation might have helped. Calathan (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My problem with the article edits is more than the catalog listing, but there's no real point in discussing it. I'm angry about the situation, because I feel like I have been shabbily treated, but I do not want to cause any more trouble for anyone else, so I would appreciate it if we could drop the subject altogether. I won't be making further edits to that or any other article. --Wbd (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well you don't have to go that far. Just read links to normally be avoided and reliable sources and possibly general notability guideline. Knowing what those say will help you know why Farix what he did. We're not saying the article automatically fails wikipedia's standards for inclusion, but that there is a proper method to go about showing that it meets it.Jinnai 07:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

MGM vandal?

I'm internet connection keeps going in and out. But I would like someone to review (talk). I've only been able to check a few of the edits, but they appear to be making a lot of questionable edits, in some cases rewriting entire articles. In particular they are changing the studios and claiming that several anime series were "co-produced" with major US studios. This is a trait of the MGM vandal, thought this time, incorporated other US studios. —Farix (t | c) 03:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reported to AIV - everyone one I checked were total factual errors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We should probably keep a list if IPs suspected to be the MGM vandal and see if there is a pattern. —Farix (t | c) 03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly not the first time Lupin III Part II has been hit, seems to be done every few weeks (on a side note I need to work on that article in the future if I can find some good sources - that or merge it to the main article). Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Below is a list of suspected IPs that show the same editing pattern from Lupin III Part II. —Farix (t | c) 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And here are a few previous reports to WP:AN/I.

Farix (t | c) 04:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can search my talk page archives for additional lists of IPs. This guy (or guys, as I think it is probably a group of bored friends) is all over the map with their IPs, so they are either spoofing, using anonymizers, or it's several different people all doing the same thing. Nothing much we can do other than fix the vandalism when we see it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (talk) was blocked today for another attempt at this. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mania lists

Mania has made two lists that may help with some articles' reception. See this and this. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

excellent, I can make use of the hero article in at least four articles, and it will support the creation of another article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's media


Just wondering if i should split this into its serperate season articles? as the page is now exceed 100kb. Also should this not be moved ot List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes? And the same with the yu-gi-oh one?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First main article need some fix before moving the information concerning the video games. See Wikipedia:MOS-ANIME
Afterward make the List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes and List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes (season 1), List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes (season 2) & List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes (season 3) based on the change of Opening & Ending themes of the Japanese release.
This is heavy clean up duty. So good luck --KrebMarkt 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok i will start work on it later got another article i need to pslit first but it doesnt require any where near as much work. Just wanted teh project approval before doign it so i can direct fans here who disapparove--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem.
Do what you want and can do with some relative fun. You can procrastinate the rest ;) --KrebMarkt 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok i have started work on this, but i havea problem i have trancluded the data but the sumamries is not getitng removed, i have doubled checked and i think i have doen everything right, onlyinclude, sublist|list of x episodes but i cant see wher ethe fault is.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See bugzilla:16474. You need to replace "Japanese episode list/sublist|List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes" with "Japanese episode list/sublist|List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D&#39;s episodes". Goodraise 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the show has a lot of part epsiodes what is the guideliesn for display them? currently it is episode title, part x, but i have seen many ways to display it including episode title: part x, my favourite episode title (x of y) but which format is used for AMP ?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Multi part episode titles

Hello all,

I am wanting ot know the policy for display this type of episode. There seesm teh be a mixture of formats i will list them below.

  1. Episode title (x)
  2. Episode title, part x
  3. Episode title: part x
  4. Episode title (part x of y)

Personal i like part x of y as it gives more information in my opinion. So if there a set way to do it or not? if not should we not set a way to do it so all list are the same?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, go with what the official title uses. :-) There is usually a mix of formats because different series use different ones.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't it depend on how they're translated officially? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I mean things liek this A Web of Deceit, Part 1 and A Web of Deceit, Part 2, there is no offical on screen titles so it depend son how the perosn put it on the page but there can be multi versions used i jsut think it look neater to use one but if we use a certain format i will do that if not i will jsut make sure there all teh same--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Are we using this on lists? just i dnt want to convert them if we aint using it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these should be used in episode lists for the original airdates (but not the alt date, I think). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless we start getting in the habit of using {{Infobox tvseason}} on episode lists, they should probably be avoided. This is to avoid creating an inconsistent format in the table itself as {{startdate}} should only be used once. —Farix (t | c) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? The season box is not necessary at all to use the template, and I don't see why it would make the table format inconsistent as a flag is available to switch between American and International formats. User:SmackBot was approved for going through and adding this template to all episode lists last year. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Because you will only call {{startdate}} in the row of the first episode while the rest of the dates will be formatted normally. This creates an inconsistent when viewing the table's code. —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
For episode lists, start date should be used for all the dates, not just the first episode. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
{{startdate}} should only be called once. Otherwise, it mucks up the microformat that the template was created for. —Farix (t | c) 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there something somewhere that states that? It isn't in the documentation, and as noted a bot was approved specifically that went through and converted many episode lists to use it for the dates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I must be in a Star Trek mode or something; I read the section title as Stardate, and wondered why we would even care about that in this project. ;p ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, me too. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

Reliable source Animetric

Reading over something in the archives, I decided to continue that discussion, since it came up in a current AFD. [1]

  • shows a pdf of a press release which quotes for a positive review I Dream of Mimi. [2] A major retailer things the site is notable enough to quote a review from.
  • Anime Fringe list in its Top 25 for the year of 2003(tallied at the start of the following year and published). [3] Only a paragraph describing it, but they clearly thought it notable, one of the 25 most notable Anime/manga related sites on the entire internet.
  • is currently used in the reception section of 37 Wikipedia articles [4]. So that's 37 editors at least who believe it a reliable source, otherwise they wouldn't add it. We can bring in more to comment on this if anyone disagrees. Dream Focus 03:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Your Right Stuff link is broken, it just goes to the google home page. I don't think this is a great example though as it's an incredibly minor title, it could easily be the best they found. Right Stuff are still a small company.
The reception argument is a little too flawed for me. For the most part they are all low quality articles, and low quality articles are full of unreliable and non-notable sources - the evangelion articles like using random blogs and forums for example. It doesn't really provide convincing evidence. I'd wager that we have thousands of articles using ANN's encyclopaedia, but they shouldn't be (in that case we dealt with the high quality articles), and we can only remove it as we come across them. And it's no secret that most editors don't know, understand or even follow "best practices", they just add what they want to. We can't catch everything. The usage of the site in those articles isn't going to suddenly make it reliable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
[5] The link works fine for me. And I don't see anything wrong with the articles I've read on it. Dream Focus 04:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not working here, can you not produce a less complicated url?. As for the articles, they are are almost all c class or lower, many of them badly written. They've not received the same attention to detail as other articles and will have had less attention paid to the reliability of their sources. Theres nothing wrong with that (I wish we could get all our articles to a set standard, but it's not possible), but saying 37 editors thought it was notable doesn't make the point you think it does. It just shows that 37 articles have random sources in their references. If you gave me some GA/FA/FL articles using it, it might strengthen your case to me rather then weaken it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
First link is a PDF with it. Works for me.
However I'd say as this isn't their first work Rightstuf has posted its likely they do have some industry contact (just minimal) which was argued they didn't last time. However, Rightstuf is still a commerical source and they will cherry-pick their sources to get the best-sounding one to sell items. What it does is show the potential for being a RS, not guarantee it.
If you can find a non-commerical RS that quotes them then that would be better indicator.Jinnai 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing at all that shows they meet WP:RS. It is clearly a self-published site whose author has no desire to say anything about himself per its about us page. Its being spammed in 37 articles is irrelevant as plenty of articles have non-reliable sources being thrown about. Its the top 25 list from 7 years ago is also meaningless for the purposes of its being a reliable source. As Jinnai already noted, its being quoted is also fairly pointless. Publishers will scour the net and quote anything that looks like it pumps up their works, often without permission and while doing so in a misrepresentative fashion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It completely fails the requirements for a self-published source. Having a single statement—often not even a complete sentence—quoted in a press release does not qualify as "previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Press releases themselves are self-published sources and marketers will find anything, even misrepresent quotes, in order to spin a positive angle on their product. This is why press releases are not reliable sources except under limited circumstances, such as for simple facts. To be "previously published", it requires entire articles that were independently published by third-party source, and not just snippets here and there. —Farix (t | c) 04:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the entire article, but definatly more than 1-2 lines.Jinnai 05:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I would stipulate either a complete reprint of an existing review, or a "new" review published in a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
They could copy the lead section and link to the rest of the article (assuming the lead section was not 2 lines) and should be fine. It's essentially the same thing - ie they aren't just posting a link - and might be used by some already known RS SPSes if they have bandwidth issues. EDIT: while it may not be an issue for all-text articles, a lot of such articles use images and sometimes clips.Jinnai 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not RS to my opinion or to make myself clear there isn't enough unquestionable evidences that Animetric reviews are both credible and worth mention in reception section. Why should be given weight to Animetric reviews? Provided evidences don't answer this question.
    More deplorable is that some editors are so "desperate" to fill the reception section that any review will do regardless the quality of the reviews and reviewers. I view this discussion as: I want Animetric RS so XYZ article won't get deleted. There is no concern on quality of the source and even less quality of the concerned articles. --KrebMarkt 09:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That is essentially what this whole exercise is all about, trying to "save" hentai articles, which don't normally receive reviews by reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 12:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, its an attempt to "save" Blood Royale (hentai), which is at AfD and which has only one RS review, As with regular manga and anime series, notable hentai get enough reviews/coverage from actual reliable sources for notability. This one just isn't noable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it is not an attempt to save an article. It is me trying to figure out why you don't consider it a reliable source. And no, notable hentai or manga do NOT get reviews in many cases. They are notable because of their number of readers, not because two or more people mentioned them in a review somewhere. But no sense trying to have that discussion again with this group. Kindly give me a link to where all the sources you consider notable, which review this sort of thing, are listed at. Dream Focus 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
"This group" of course being the ones who actually work with this articles, versus you who primarily comes in, states keep in AfD under incorrect claims that some unverified claim that it has X number of "readers" determine notability. When have you ever actually worked to improve anime/manga articles per Wikipedia guidelines, versus "this group" who work their asses off on them? If you're going to come in and ask a question, don't crap on other editors hard work. Every actual notable manga has actual coverage in reliable sources. Just because YOU think its notable doesn't it so. And before you trot out your usual three kept AfDs - the issues were not that it was notable because of "sales" but because there were demonstrable expectation of sources that were not easily available. This is the same for all topics on Wikipedia. Otherwise, you could have an article about you because you get read by so many people because you're on Wikipedia. After all, how many people read it? That must make all its editors notable. If you are legitimately asking for a list of sources for anime/manga which are verified as reliable, then look up to the top of the page. The links are in the box, marked "Reference libraries." There are dozens of reliable, online sources, as well as books, magazines, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You say not to crap on other editors hard work, but isn't that what you do when you go rampaging around mass deleting large numbers of articles? You don't help the project by destroying things that are part of it. If anyone wasn't interested in it, they wouldn't find it anyway. And yes, credible sales figures have been found at times, you objecting to even the New York Times Bestsellers list as a source. [6] Also, when there is no doubt of a series having 15 million copies in print, millions of those obviously having had to be sold, you still object. [7] And when I said how many people read it, I meant how many people bought it, or bought the magazine it was featured in and had a notable run within. Dream Focus 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It's worthwhile to investigate potential sources to see if they are reliable sources and can be added to the reference library, as this helps us create broader reception sections for notable topics, and may lead to more topics being identified as notable. (e.g. Desire Climax, which didn't appear notable until French reviews were located.) --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously not all notable manga, anime, and hentai are going to be mentioned in these sources. Relying entirely upon that to determine if something is notable, will result in many things being wrongfully destroyed. And anything past a certain age isn't likely going to have any mention where we can find it. Dream Focus 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Collectian, Dream Focus, please comment on content, not on the contributor. Ikip 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I said hard work that actually improves the encyclopedia, not anything anyone feels like doing just because they can. By that argument, vandalism shouldn't be removed because it took some effort. Similarly we shouldn't fix grammar errors and bad writing because it took someone's effort, but by your argument, its "destroying". The editors here actually work to improve articles. They work on writing, add sourcing, and cull out the excessive plot and inappropriate stuff that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, we know, you disagree with all of them and would basically like Wikipedia would be like Wikia, but it is not and hopefully never will be. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, improving it does include sourcing and removing that which is not notable nor sourcable. Those who wish to simply write about their favorite series have plenty of options, including Wikia, blogging, and making their own websites. Thousands of fans do it every day without feeling any need to come try to add it to Wikipedia articles. And yes, we all know you point out the same two AfDs over and over, never mind the dozens if not hundreds deleted since. And I did not argue against the New York Times Bestseller list being a source, I argued that appearing on it alone if absolutely no one reviewed or discussed the book is not enough to call it notable. Big difference so please do not misrepresent my views. Multiple times you have argued that its the readers who are reliable sources, and in several AfDs you have argued for sources that are not reliable, such as blogs and the like based solely on readership. So I ask you very simply - would you call me personally a reliable source for anime and manga? My review blog gets thousands of hits, after all (over 2000 in December alone). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Animetric gets plenty of traffic, coming in as the 77,872 most popular site on the web.[8] Your site doesn't even registered. The host however does rank in with a rather low score. [9] Out of all the websites on the internet, it is the 18,695,676 most popular. So I'd have to say that, Animetric is a reliable source while your site certainly is not. Dream Focus 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You've completely failed to see Collectonians point. She isn't claiming to be a notable site, she's pointing out that popularity means nothing. She's right too, none of our reliable sources are there because they are popular, they are there because they meet the requirements for reliable sources. I also laugh at your suggestion that titles of a certain age don't have sources - Last year a article based on a 40yr old franchise kept its GA status because sources were replaced and added, and a article based on a 30yr old franchise has just had a complete rewrite and expansion with the use of many sources both old and new.
Have you considered that people would give you an easier time if you didn't keep making the same silly claims while dismissing all established procedures and consensus? Google hits are irrelevant, site rankings are irrelevant and you have failed to provide any credible evidence for proving this site is notable. Popularity does not make something reliable or notable, it makes it popular. Wikipedia has guidelines for reliability in articles and in sources and one guy sitting at home blogging his own reviews is not reliable or notable. You choose to ignore the guidelines, referring to them as "suggestions" (when if you actually read about guidelines, you'll see they are more then that) but then put all your faith in claiming something is notable because people use/read it, when it's long been established that it doesn't work like that.
You've had several people with established track records in finding, using and understanding what reliable sources are (and using them to write WP:Good Articles and Featured Articles/Lists) tell you why the site is not reliable or notable for use as a source, yet you have ignored them to insist we follow your flawed arguements. You think the site is notable/reliable. Fine, but don't ask for an opinion then ignore it simply because you don't agree. If you changed your approach to editing you will enjoy more success because you won't run straight into brick walls that are there for a reason. The site is not reliable for use as a source for many reasons given to you, deal with it. This issue here is not wikipedia or the anime project, we actually want sources. The only requirement is that they can prove they are suitable. You haven't done that and nothing here will change anyones mind on Animetric. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Onion has an Alexa ranking of 1,880.[10] Does that mean that the Onion is a reliable source do to it's high Alexa ranking? Anyone who knows that the Onion is a parody site is will tell you that you're an idiot for calling the Onion reliable. Popularity has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. But also, Alexa ratings are a poor standards to just how popular a website it because it depends on the presents of a toolbar to measure hits. So those numbers actually aren't calculated based on the number of page views a website receives, but on the number of page views by those with the Alexa toolbar in their browsers (a very small fraction of web-surfers). WP:ALEXA provides further details on why Alexa ratings are not to be relied on. —Farix (t | c) 11:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a humor site wouldn't be taken seriously, nor was anyone suggesting that it would be. For serious review sites, you can't argue reliability of a review, that making no sense at all. Some reviewers will like something, others will not, reviews nothing more than someone's personal opinion about something. If a magazine has a hundred thousand subscribers, then its reviews are used, it notable. If it has three thousand subscribers total, then it wouldn't be taken seriously. Whether you like how well the review is written or not, is not relevant. Dream Focus 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dandy Sephy actually mentioned something worth noting here, Dream Focus. This WikiProject does not have the ultimate say in determining reliability of sources. That responsibility belongs to those who review nominations for good articles and featured articles. As such, we always have to defend the reasons why this WikiProject finds a certain source reliable. It is the opinion of those experienced with nominating (and reviewing) articles that Animetric would never pass a source review in GAN and FAC. The reasons you have proposed for its reliability would never satisfy the editors there. Arsonal (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No one elected those people, nor were they appointed by anyone. Its just whoever shows up and decides to give their opinion, isn't it? Dream Focus 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We should end the discussion as it's going nowhere. --KrebMarkt 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to continue, then just stop posting. Don't assume others will stop, just because you decided you didn't want people to keep discussing this. Dream Focus 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@Dream Focus If you don't like our assessment of Animetric you can still try the Reliable Source Noticeboard WP:RS/N but be warned the RS/N board is run by neither elected nor appointed editors. --KrebMarkt 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Animetric, but about how reliable sources are determined. I think I made my case very well. It all comes down to the opinions of whoever is around at the time, there no general vote, no large scale participation of editors, no one appointed by the Wikipedia foundation. Dream Focus 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Animetric is a reliable source. The real question is, how much weight we should give their reviews. Goodraise 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it a reliable source? By that idea that just because its an opinion, again, so am I or anyone else with a blog? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If a source is reliable always depends on the kind of statement you wish to support with it. Lets say you added the statement "Collectonian likes Tokyo Mew Mew." to the series' article's reception section and added a reference to your personal blog. That would be fine from an RS/V standpoint. (WP:V states in the WP:SELFPUB section that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Nothing else is happening here. You and your blog are reliable sources for your opinion, just as Animetric's reviews are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors.) The (policy) reason why we don't stuff our articles with that kind of statement/reference combination is found at WP:NPOV, specifically at WP:DUE. The grand majority of the web's blogs don't deserve any weight in Wikipedia articles. See also my post from 22:38, 12 November 2009 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Sites cited by established reliable sources about almost the same topic. Goodraise 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviews are all piece of PoV, so the questions are why a given review is worth mention in an article and how much room & importance we should give it. I always fell uneasiness each time a mention a RS review because it's like putting reliability and subjectivity together.
Animetric is probably trustworthy but there is still a gap to credible for general audience. I'm clearly unsatisfied by Dream Focus arguments in Animetric case. --KrebMarkt 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that DF is now lobbying to have WP:RS changed to state that X number of hits is enough to consider a "review site" reliable.Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#What makes a review site a reliable source?. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Lobbying? I asked opinions before making a change to the page, and got a discussion going. That is the proper way to do things. Dream Focus 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Collectionian was intending to say a demeaning statement. She was simply informing interested parties, those who discussed with you about Animetric, that you are doing so. That is perfectly within your right to lobby, or ask, for such changes. However it's also the right for her to inform others in an appropriate manner of your attempts. That's all this should be-a statement of fact.Jinnai 04:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As Jinnai notes, lobbying = to request a change in a policy or guideline. It was intended as a simple statement of fact, and not intended as an insult or otherwise add a negative connotation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anime News Service

I'm not sure if Anime News Service has ever been discussed for RS. It was active between 1998 and 2007 as a provider of Japanese media industry news and provides complete archives. I'm not that familiar with the site, but perhaps editors with more knowledge on the early days of anime websites can provide some insight. It seems that it was founded a few months before either ANN or AnimeOnDVD. I have don't really have any investment in this; I just want to put it on your radar. Even if ANS doesn't meet the criteria, you might be able to find some leads from this source (because I did).

Arsonal (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Google site search is a great tool. AnimeNation doesn't cite it once or twice, but there are 386 hits. 6 for AnimeFringe, 167 for ANN, 247 hits for, 143 AICN hits, and 7 hits, and a few from RightStuf. And obviously we've used it ourselves in ~50 articles for years now.
So yeah, if we trust any of the sites you listed, ANS's status as a RS is not an issue. --Gwern (contribs) 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because the sites it links to are realible, (i a not saying any of the above are) but that does nto mean the site that cites tehm is realible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, notice that ANN, for example, in most of those hundreds of hits is simply parroting whatever ANS said; it would be kind of odd if we regarded ANN as reliable, but not ANS as reliable. If ANN considers ANS that reliable, who are we to disagree? --Gwern (contribs) 21:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
ANN also issue updates and corrections as info becomes available, can the same be said for ANS? Just because a reliable source uses something else for it's original source, doesn't make that source RS. Being cited by a reliable source is not the same as being a reliable source. I'm on the fence, clearly they have been cited by sources we consider reliable, but it's just a random person posting news items - which aren't always credited to the original source. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Side note for anyone wondering: The relevant guideline text is located at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources. Goodraise 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seiyū up for deletion

An editor has nominated Seiyū for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SeiyūFarix (t | c) 11:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
Anyway, it looks like he was trying to use AfD to "force" some sort of change. It was speedy closed. If anyone's interested, there's a discussion about the appropriateness/necessity of the article here (or at least the appropriateness of the title). --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Dropped few lines there. The article talk page has some wonderful pieces of BS, BIAS and other i don't like it in its history. I hope people will start being reasonable. --KrebMarkt 12:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding to The Yagyu Ninja Scrolls page

May I create new pages for some of the characters on The Yagyu Ninja Scrolls page? There is a lot of valuable information there, but it may be a bit much. Would new brach-off pages be okay to create, or would they not be important enough to justify their creation?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpocho (talkcontribs) 06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not. The characters are not notable enough to have their own articles, so the creation of the articles could not be justified. First, it would be good if the series article itself showed the series was notable. As it is, it has only a single review, a brief one at that, which is not enough to meet WP:BK. Then, the main article needs a lot of clean up, as the character sections have several with overly detailed summaries that repeat the plot. The main characters should have, at most, a single brief paragraph that notes the major points of the character, without significant/extensive minor detail. Conversely, the actual plot section is lacking and does not seem to cover the entire plot. With that clean up done, the main article needs a production section, if sourcable information is available, and as noted a better reception section. If you want to help improve the article, you may find WP:MOS-AM useful in this regard, and studying other articles that are considered high quality, such as Tokyo Mew Mew - a featured class article. Once the main article is in good shape, if the character section is still too long, then the creation of List of The Yagyu Ninja Scrolls characters may be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ANN rankings

Recently, User:Jagged 85 added some user-generated rankings from Anime News Network on Clannad (visual novel), though I previously removed them as they are strictly user-generated, and I believe rankings based on this alone are generally not reliable enough for inclusion for the reception of an article, no less a GA. Am I right to assume this, or could there be exceptions?-- 23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say you are correct. Same as IMDB user ratings are not reliable nor helpful for inclusion, the ANN user rankings are not. They are user-generated and easily manipulated, nor do they really add any value to the article as it isn't a valid statistical measure of the series popularity. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. They are absolutely worthless, and unlike the polls by the likes of Animage, can't be said to matter to anyone. --Gwern (contribs) 23:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, what about the character polls in most anime/manga?Jinnai 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen them used in various GA character articles, though personally I've always questioned their value. Its a poll of the readers of the series, there is generally a fairly limited number of choices, and it suffers from the same statistical issues - purely those who choose to reply versus random sampling and easy to manipulate the numbers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not quite as easy. You can't use a bot running 24/7 to get someone to win. I guess it would be best to see how non-anime/manga articles use such similar polls, especially as it would be useful as real-world info for characters. I think it may be an issue of WP:DUE since some polls are more reliable than others rather than a blanket "no".Jinnai 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
We've visited the issue of online polls/user-ratings thrice before, the most recent was less than a month ago regarding MyAnimeList's user-rankings. Each time the consensus was that they were not reliable. So I'm not seeing that consensus will change anytime soon. —Farix (t | c) 01:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
True, I was more curious about offical offline polls.Jinnai 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen IMDb rankings being mentioned on many film articles and have not come across any issues about it being unreliable before. Given the large number of voters that the IMDb/ANN/MyAnimeList rankings attract, wouldn't that be a good indicator of how popular certain anime are? What better alternatives are there to gauge the popularity of an anime? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sales for one. Even if you add IMDB, ANN and MAL rankings together, they won't reflect the popularity of the series amongst anyone other then the users of those sites. Fan opinion is not RS, and IMDB isn't either - it's specifically listed as an unreliable source because it's user submitted content (the reason why we stopped using ANN's encyclopedia). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime and manga/Online reliable sources.Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
They are unreliable. People have, unfortunately, added them to film articles, often ones not being well watched at the moment. They are not a good indicator of popularity or anything else, as they are easy to manipulate. As Jinnai noted above, one can easily use an automatic program to pump up votes. Sales, real awards, and critical reviews are what reflects a series notability. Popularity is best measured by longevity, I would think. Reliable sources still talking about the series in 10 years, 20 years, etc? Written about in anime/manga books? Academic papers? Etc. Another issue with IMDB, ANN, MAL, etc type rankings are they generally only reflect the "what's maybe hot right this second" rather than true popularity and notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the English title or Japanese be used?

Seton Dobutsuki Risu no Banner should be renamed Bannertail: The Story of Gray Squirrel (TV series) as it based on the book of the same name and was translated into English as I have a VHS copy.

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Bannertail: The Story of Gray Squirrel is the title of the original novel the series was based on, however as it has no article, Seton Dobutsuki Risu no Banner should just be moved to there, with no disambig, as the English title is the one used by Nippon itself[11] A disambig should not be added just to add it, after all. If one was needed, though, it would be Bannertail: The Story of Gray Squirrel (anime) rather than TV series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Robotech episodes

This article needs much cleanup, because of the obvious sourcing from the Robotech website. I have posted the appropriate tags. Anyone want to help? --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I can't say I agree with any of the tags.
  • One source: the article actually uses multiple source in the form of individual episodes along with a fan website. Though plot summaries don't need to be sited as they are self sourced. However, it still lacks reliable third-party sources. Something that can be fixed with an expanded lead section.
  • Cleanup: Exactly what needs to be cleaned up? What I see is a lead section and episode summaries that need expansion. I would actually replace that tag with "tooshort". A proper lead would also help with the list being based entirely on primary sources.
  • Rewrite: The article doesn't need to be rewrite; it needs to be expanded.
I'm removing these tags, along with "Citation style" and "context" for the reason above and replacing them with "tooshort", "primarysources", and "expand". I'm also removing the "references" as they appear to be nothing more than linkspam to the fansite. —Farix (t | c) 14:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
But the episode summaries look like they are too much taken from some other off-wiki episode guide. I'm basing my analysis on episode guides of other TV series. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you really confirm the copyvio charge? I compared the summaries to the episode summaries from the Robotech fansite that were used as references. They share nothing in common in terms of word phrasing or details covered. While most of the episode summaries are too short, that can be fixed by expanding the existing summaries. —Farix (t | c) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I just checked. The copyvio alarm rang because the summaries came verbatim from the YT episode descriptions. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started reworking the summaries for Macross Saga. I had to check the episode guide from as some of the summaries were too vague. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Farix, I'm getting a copy of the old Robotech Starblaze art books sometime this week. They have an episode guide, perhaps that would help in rewriting the summaries because the current form of many episode summaries here provide very little substantial information. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not go to the officail YouTube channel and watch the episode. It would be far better to expand the summaries by watching the series instead of basing it off of another summary, and thus introducing errors or allowing interpretations to slip in. —Farix (t | c) 05:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not yet encountered a Robotech channel on YT and I think I can fix up the rest of the summaries, given enough time. It wouldn't do to create whole articles out of the episodes either because of the dangers of some redirect nuts coming in and messing up everything. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There are links at the bottom of the list to the official YouTube channels. As for individual episode articles, they shouldn't exist in the first place as the individual episodes are rarely notable on their own. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If I ever have enough cash, I'd get my hands on the Protoculture Collection, but whatever method works as long as the final result is worth it. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I just got the three Starblaze guides and I'll review it as well. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC) isn't a fansite its the official website owned by Harmony Gold for Robotech surely the site pages for episode guides are legitimate. --Dwanyewest (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because they are legitimate doesn't warrant any sort of copypaste, from the official site or the YT channels. BTW, the summaries from the website are lifted from the Starblaze guides.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks in navboxes

One of the things G.A.S and I did during our navbox cleanup a few months ago was to remove redlinks from navboxes, in line with WP:NAVBOX#Properties (bold point 2) and WP:Red link#When to create red links (last paragraph). However, both of these pages also allow the inclusion of certain red links if there is a very good chance that the linked article will be created (although they also state that it's generally a good idea to write the article first). Therefore, I would like to add certain links to navboxes - specifically, links for character, film, video game and related lists - where appropriate. Thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think its better just to wait until they are created. There are some articles that it would be appropriate to have say a chapter or character list, but 4 years later still don't actually have them. Its not as if waiting will be detrimental to the navbox :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting either, but adding the link would help encourage the creation of the lists, and I only intend to add links where there are a number of articles that could be merged into the new list (there's plenty of examples of that just among character and video game articles in our navboxes). I'm not suggesting waiting would be detrimental, either, but going ahead and adding some links would potentially be more useful than waiting. =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Navboxes serve a different purpose than the rest of wikipedia. Their purpose is to navigate, not encourage the creation of, articles.Jinnai 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand that quite well, having removed more redlinks (and section links/redirects) than I care to think of. However, as I said above, I would only be adding links to "high-value" lists, nothing else - in this case, I believe the links' value would outweigh any potential harm done by having redlinks in navboxes. If you'd like, I could provide a sample list of the links I'd add. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If you intend to create them within a reasonable amount of time (assuming someone else doesn't), then that might be okay.Jinnai 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Double Arts

Double Arts, which was deleted last year, has been recreated by a editor who appears to be relatively new to Wikipedia and may not know what the standards of inclusion are, Chenoan (talk · contribs). I've asked on the article's talk page if there have been any reliable third-party sources since the previous AfD. However, given that the series already canceled before the first AfD do to lack of popularity, not holding out for any new developments. —Farix (t | c) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing, then tag it as a G4. There's nothing more added as far as I can see. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Custom search engine

I've created a custom Google search engine using Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, other sites that occurred to me, and filtering out many bad sites using WP:MIRROR and manual examination of search results. The result is akin to a really long search query of a bunch of "site:foo" and "-wiki" parameters (longer than you're allowed to manually use: I filter and include >200 domains.)

The engine is available at . (The URL is broken because apparently CSEs are blacklisted in general, but I've applied for an exemption for that URL & this page.)

The results seem to be pretty good as far as finding RSs go, in my testing, but I'm sure I've missed a lot of good sites. I apparently am allowed to 'invite' people to add sites to it, so feel free to contact me. Hope people find it useful. --Gwern (contribs) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A sample search: It's interesting to note that valid hits are still turning up all the way on page 15 or 20, even though by that point most of them have degenerated to merely name-checking.
It's also interesting to compare with a regular search: --Gwern (contribs) 01:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I went and seconded your request. We'll see if that means anything. :-) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The first link now works, but the second one (direct link to a search) doesn't work correctly. I have asked that the whitelisting is tweaked. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone been using this? How has it been working out for you? --Gwern (contribs) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used it yet, but I think this should be added to the RS page (and whereever else we have a list of useful research links). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Did some test runs with stuff I have sourced quite well and seems to be hitting quite well for English sites. Not so much for Japanese (when the Japanese title is also in English). I used School Rumble (スクールランブル) and Fate/stay night (フェイト/ステイナイト). While I expect such in a normal google search, I would hope for better in a customized search.Jinnai 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I used all the links on our RS page and a few English-language Japanese sites, but I don't know any Japanese Japanese sites. That's probably why - the included English sites get weighted heavily enough to push whatever Japanese sites you were expecting far down the list.
As I said before, I can apparently invite people to add sites. If you have some you'd like to see... --Gwern (contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Offhand if you don't have any linked on the internet resources page, I can't think of any offhand (but that doesn't mean they don't exist). My concern would have to do with weight. At least Japanese websites shouldn't be pushed down as far as others because they are also relevant.Jinnai 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You can't have your cake and eat it too. I can't push up the 171 selected English sites without pushing down everything else. (Even with 257 sites on the blacklist, that still wouldn't improve the raw results very much without the 171 sites on the whitelist.) There is no option which says '...and do all that, but if the site isn't in English, give it the same ranking it would've'd anyway'. --Gwern (contribs) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The never ending discussion

In Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh!#YGOTAS editors are still discussing whether the series is worth mentioning due to the copyright infringements it has. Although some claim that 4kids is okay with that (source?) Yu-Gi-Oh! is owned by more people. A user created the section Yu-Gi-Oh!#Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series in the article with an award that I removed since it does not credit TAS. It seems that since the article was deleted various times, editors want to give it a subsection. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As i said over there at best it deserv es a meantion that exists as a illegal form of the show and stress it is illegal notihng more it certianly does not deserve it own section it is jsut fans wanting it to be there--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Its been deleted infinite times. It does not "deserve" a mention unless actual reliable sources give it coverage, and more than just one anime club's editorial in a local paper. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
By meantion i mean "There is another production of the show that is illegal name adbridged" and of course it need ot be sourced bu ti was uinder the impression there was a relaible source for it it jsut fans wanted it to have it own section.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What F1 might this be?

In her afterword to After School Nightmare volume 6, Mizushiro says that the story was originally inspired by memories of watching F1, and so was conceived of as a more science-fictional story than what was eventually published, years later. Anyone have any idea what F1 she might be referring to? None of the articles on en.Wiki seems to apply. Given she was born in 1971, I'm guessing this would have been broadcast/in theaters in Japan some time after about 1980. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Any idea if F1 is written in another form in the Japanese volume? Arsonal (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to track down the scans yet. Will work on it again tonight, unless someone happens to have the volume in question. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
From my inquiry and knowing that i don't read Japanese, what you are looking for is located on Japanese vol. 6 dust jacket flap. Unfortunately the scan, i found is too blurry to be usable. --KrebMarkt 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ja. I found what seems to be the same JP -- apparently there were at least two scans Out There, but I've only found this one plus several pointers to dead downloads. The Chinese edition either didn't include that section or the scanner didn't bother with it. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm checking with a source I have to get a scan of it. I'll let you know. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
*ping* Have you had a chance to do this? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Guess not ... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD discussion

I think ,we are concerned by this " Change WP:PROD to prevent removal of tag on unsourced BLPs, then prod 'em all" discussion. We have mostly authors, directors and voice actors articles concerned. --KrebMarkt 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it concerns us too much, since pretty much any author or VA worth having will pop up in the Internet RSs, but everyone should oppose anyway because it's such a bad idea in general. :) --Gwern (contribs) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday, I tried using the tool described at Wikipedia:CatScan to look for articles in Category:Japanese voice actors with Template:BLP unsourced. There were more than 100 such articles, so I do think that there are articles related to this wikiproject that need looking into. Calathan (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. And most author/VAs are actually fairly unnotable in our area, because they don't really get much coverage in RSes except the big ones. Personally, I support the proposal, as I strongly dislike the idea of having any unsourced articles about living people. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What I meant is that the proposal is stupid & petty in requiring one random source for anything; especially with my engine, it's trivial to get a source for 'X is a voice actor' etc. This is because we're lucky inasmuch as we only know of people through secondary sources like news coverage or the works of fiction themselves. (Demonstrating existence has never been the hard thing for anime & manga articles; it's notability and referencing for the obvious & interesting bits that is hard.) --Gwern (contribs) 13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think our project can sort them in the same way we did the articles assessment drive. As the author/VAs notability, you can't know if they are notable or not until you try to find coverage because the over reliance on Anime News Networks database. For those who are interested Animanga unsourced BLP.

Comment: Things turn out into a Full fledged RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and we have also this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions. No one should rejoice especially when some editors mention "Wiki civil war". --KrebMarkt 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Mania article

Mania has published the 10 iconic anime heroines article which may help with some articles' reception section. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from it being a ridiculous list (Rei, 10th? seriously?), another great article for reception. We really should keep a proper note of these types of "list" articles. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
'seriously?' - if you mean to say Rei is too low, I agree. :) Pity it doesn't mention any of the popular Rei descendants like Yuki Nagato. --Gwern (contribs) 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Heavens, someone actually noticing Oscar and Sapphire, both from non-licensed titles. (Or, not licesned in English.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Cought! Well Oscar is notable at least in France. I remember her making even making it into a paper encyclopedia (don't ask where). --KrebMarkt 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Made a sandbox in User:Tintor2/Anime and manga polls with all the ones I remember. Everybody is welcome to add more articles.Tintor2 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I added two. But I don't remember how dates are supposed to be formatted. Does anybody? ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally American format, since Japan isn't really partial to one or the other. The date of the articles should be in mmmm d, yyyy format, while access date can be in that format or ISO, but must use one or the other consistently throughout the article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As a Japanese subject is not inherently American, I believe WP:ENGVAR applies. --Malkinann (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And? That falls under that as Japan has absolutely no national ties to one or the other, and as most of the anime/manga articles use American format, for consistency, best to do so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Japan has no national ties to one or the other, so whatever English variant the originator of the article uses goes, including dates. Consistency with other anime-manga articles is not required. --Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No national ties? ... /me wonders what happened to the Occupation of Japan, the nuclear umbrella, or the United States Forces Japan. --Gwern (contribs) 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Most times, I see dates in Month Date order or the ISO format in Japanese sources. I'm not sure if they put the year in front when dates are fully written out. —Farix (t | c) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
year/month/date when written with kanji. For book dates at least. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to raid their features section as part of my own attempt to keep a handy list of sources, we could probably justify a subpage for handy mania (and indeed ANN) links. It might be worth us working on this individually with sources and then collating them. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Can someone confirm that Animax anime database isn't user editable? Thanks. --KrebMarkt 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Animax is an Asian satellite network, so I would be rather surprised if their program database is user editable. It would be like Cartoon Network's program database being user editable. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. Animax have data on old stuffs like Ulysses 31 which is very handy. --KrebMarkt 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise and ELs

User:Gwern has started another edit war over external links, after he attempted to add eight ELs, all archive links, to the article on January 5[12]. They were removed and moved to the talk page, per WP:EL that archive links do not generally meet EL and they are review links. An explanation was posted with them on the talk page. He revered on the 12th, calling them "rubbish removals"[13]. At this point, additional views to help resolve this dispute would be very helpful at Talk:Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise#Sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does EL say archive links do not meet EL, hm? I'm starting to get tired of asking you to provide quotes and citations for your interpretation of guidelines. --Gwern (contribs) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We've been through it before and per the discussion, archive links do not meet WP:EL which very clearly states in the what to link section that they must be functional.[14] for an official site, an archive link may be something to discuss, but for most, they just are not useful nor appropriate. And the current talk page goes in at length about El NO 4 and not putting review links in Els -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A talk page is meant to convince me that archive links aren't to be used? srsly. And as I've said, #4 says nothing about removing, as you keep saying. But this is only rehashing the WOH talk page. --Gwern (contribs) 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no rule against linking to archived pages Someone is just trying to enforce their personal opinion on others. Unless the material on that page is a copyright violation, or it has links to sites that allow illegal downloads of copyrighted material, there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed. Dream Focus 16:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Its called consensus after a discussion among multiple editors. Sorry you don't like it, but that is how Wikipedia works. And yes, the EL does put the burden on YOU who wants it added to prove its valid and valuable. You have not done so. Your entire argument is based on your dislike of WP:EL and apparent preferences to interpret it for glutting a stub article with half a dozen dead links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Putting words in my mouth again? I don't see any consensus in that discussion, between the small number of people that participated. I did not comment on any of these specific links, only on the argument against something because it was archived. I see nothing on the guideline page that is against this. The only link I added back was Roger Ebert's review. I see now the guideline page says "Professional reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section. That must be consensus of the five people or less who were around to notice and discuss it on whatever day they changed that one bit. Whatever. Dream Focus 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't replying to you, but to Gwern, and the discussion had dozens of editors. Its in the archive linked above, and its also being rediscussed now on the main talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's called a consensus when a few editors disagree with a few editors, and the discussion never makes it any further than the talk page archives? Gosh, I'd better go make some socks and start editing Wikipedia talk:Notability so I can get my secret furry fetishes declared notable. If only I had known this years ago!
And I presume 'main talk page' is Wikipedia talk:External links#Conflicting guidelines?, which doesn't offer much support for your position, as far as I can tell (but a lot of chatter about a lot of stuff).
As for burden - yes, I've done a terrible job justifying linking to, or, or THEM Anime, or Roger Ebert's review. Truly terrible! Your point by point criticisms and refutations and quotes of guidelines have utterly demolished me. --Gwern (contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, grow up. Wikipedia talk:External links#Why #4 was added is the recent discussion (and not the one that resulted in the change to the guideline that occurred in November), if any others actually want to know for future reference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The current reading of WP:MAYBE #1 seems to be the opposite of WP:FURTHER, which states that RS web links may be listed either under a 'further reading' section, or combined with the external links section. There are many reasons to retain RS links in the mainspace in either an external links section or a further reading section rather than on the talk page - they are more easily seen by both readers of Wikipedia (who may not understand talk pages) and by editors. This means they are still helpful to readers of Wikipedia, as they can visit the links if the Wikipedia article is less-than-useful to them, and for editors of Wikipedia, a list of links in the mainspace is less likely to be forgotten, as it's 'on display' in the mainspace, and it can be embarrassing to have a larger further readings section than a references section. In an ideal world, all the further reading external links would indeed be used in a reception section, but that's not a good reason to remove RSes from a further reading/external links section, as perfection is not required. --Malkinann (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also surprised that Collectonian seems to feel that reviews are not further readings (see the recent history of Romeo x Juliet) - they seem to me to fall under "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article". As WP:WAF recommends including information about reception, I therefore feel that review links count towards WP:FURTHER, and should not be removed from the article space, as the editing policy states that articles don't have to be perfect. --Malkinann (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me to join this late to this discussion. As i'm clearly more skilled to source article, i often find myself with a "Bunch of Credible & Reliable Source Coverages" without the ability to digest and write something out of those sources. So i found myself with two choices drops the reviews in talk page or drop them as external links. I drop reviews as External links in the case where they are critical to assert the article notability. That's far from the best solution but some obtuse editors have to be pointed at evidences of notability in the most blatant so i resort to literally spoon feed them those evidences of notability. --KrebMarkt 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Since the 3 other editors who have commented here have not supported Collectonian's removals, I'm going to go ahead and undo her edits. This seems as like to consensus as we will likely get (and I thank Malkinann for the WP:FURTHER guideline supporting my additions). --Gwern (contribs) 16:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Should Japanreviewed be removed from external links?

Japanreview is used in some of our article's external links section. The website is a blog written by a non-industry expert and therefore not RS. I wondering if we should remove all links to this site? Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He isn't a notable critic, nor a reliable source. It fails WP:EL being just a random blog. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed EL from all 8 articles. Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing non-GA/FA/FL items from portal

Since the discussion on that page seems dead I'm posting it here. Basically it boils down to whether we should remove former featured content from the portal as its purpose is to showcase our best articles and there have been a lot of changes.Jinnai 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

\i think the answer is obviously yes and that goes for any project why advertise articles that do not mee tthe top critia and make peopel think that is the best on offer. Maybe some sort of tempate or bot updating is besT?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, any such items should be removed. I don't think anyone is really maintaining the portal contents anymore, are they? I know I stopped probably a year ago because I was kinda tired of being the only one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Take 'em out. I came close to updating the portal content a few months back, but ran short on time or something and didn't actually do it. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't former-featured items just step down to whatever they were before they became Fx? Unless they drop below GA, I don't think they should be removed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't apply for lists, but I'm not sure about FAs. Probably best to ask there.Jinnai 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily; an item's quality can change quite drastically between the time it's promoted and demoted, and the standards can shift quite a bit as well - this is particularly true for items demoted after spending a year or more at Fx level. In addition, for very early featured items, it is possible that they never recieved a quality assessment prior to being featured. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay I replaced/updated text on the 11 "articles" (ie not character). The only one that might be contriversial would be lain, but I removed that due to its apparent imminent removal. I just replaced the relevant articles with the most recent GAs (as we've had no FAs).Jinnai 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Character's/biography's done. I need an admin to delete Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected biographies/16 as we do not have 16 such articles anymore (the biography listed was used to replace someone else).Jinnai 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I start editing FLs on the portal, I have 2 questions.

  1. Given that titles like Bleach have an enormiously huge number of seasons compared to other anime like Rental Magica which have only or Naruto which has 2 chapter pages, do we want to place a limit on the number of seasons/chapter lists so that one anime doesn't dominate? Unlike character/biographies, we have a decent selection of lists.
  2. Should character lists be included here, in character/biographies list, or not show them at all?Jinnai 06:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say yes for limiting, maybe 1 or 2 episode lists each, and 1-2 chapter lists, unless the main list is featured, then just do that one. One option could be to list the first FL list for the lengthy series, then note additional ones in the "See more" link section or something similar. For character lists, they definitely should be shown. I'm inclined to say they should go with the lists because they are lists, though if there are few character articles to work with, they could go there as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Collectonian - if the main list is featured, only it should be listed; if not, list the "earliest" list which is featured. Not sure about linking to the other lists from the "See more" link, though... --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Crows (manga)

Crows (manga) needs expansion using its ANN pages. 'Nuff said. Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TG (fanart) to be deleted

TG (fanart) seems like a good merge candidate but I have no idea to where. Can someone intervene before it's deleted altogether? -- Banjeboi 01:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely original research and none of it can be verified, so there is nothing to save. —Farix (t | c) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. It isn't a good "merge" candidate, it just a random bit of strange OR fan thing. 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It might warrant a line or two somewhere, though I can't think of the best place where. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, I think the term is a protologism and not in real use. The article was apparently created in order to popularize and promote the use of the term. —Farix (t | c) 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! -- Banjeboi 03:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Worst (manga)

Is the character list long enough to warrant a seperate character list? Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not once those subheaders for each character (which are discouraged by our style guidelines) are converted to definition or bullet lists. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Converted the character names into bold. Still the article has a massive content list. Does anyone own a copy of this series. If so that would help a lot. The character list can be cut down to the main characters only. Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Cutting down is warranted. For a popular series, I can understand a detailed character list. But just from the article, I don't know that Worst is all that popular. --Gwern (contribs) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwern, it's not about popularity. any recurring character can make it into the list, but at the same time the character has to be involved in the story most of the time.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BN, I think for a list of characters that is 10 screens long, the series needs to be pretty popular to justify it. I don't mind 10 screens of minor DBZ or NGE characters because those are multi-decade multi-billion dollar franchises - but for an apparently minor manga like Worst, it's excessive. --Gwern (contribs) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

well worst has no sources or refs, so of course the list needs to be cut down to the most notable characters, but i don't think number of characters is due to popularity in general. maybe in sources yeah.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor Character lists

A discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters purportedly asking for "advice on when a list of minor characters is appropriate and what the content should be" and is moving towards a suggestion that they be allowed under WP:SALAT. Views from project that deal with fictional works would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Magical JXR

just letting you know that i created a page about Magical JXR, if anyone wishes to fix it or help out, that would be great. it's on User:Bread Ninja/MAgical JXR.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Magical JxR isn't in WP:ANIME's scope, as it is a Korean comic. You might find it fits in WP:COMIC or WP:KOREA's remits better. --Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ojamajo Doremi

Regarding Ojamajo Doremi, I'm curious as to how this article should be redone. According to Wiki's MoS, I'm supposed to use the official English names, right? I have no qualms with the article being renamed Magical DoReMi because it is the international name after all, but what about the characters? I'm having more trouble with List of Ojamajo Doremi characters than I think.

Toei's official English site uses their original names, and this show has become such a cult classic that people only know them by their original names. 4Kids did license the series, but it didn't do well in the US, not to mention they only licensed the first series so the rest of the characters that are introduced were never given English names. It seems a bit tacky to me to have a mix of this.

I tried editing this article like Tokyo Mew Mew and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters although the manga was licensed first so that's why their original names were more well-known. However, what can I do for List of Ojamajo Doremi characters? lullabying (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

go by the official english website.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Toei's or 4Kids? lullabying (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be more inclined with keeping the Toei names and including additional mention of other translations. This is a case of an abandoned license such as Yotsuba&!, which I believe favors the newer translation with mentions of any different translations. Arsonal (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yotsuba&! is still in transition, as the new edition's names are still in process of becoming better known, as shown by use in reviews. As such, the alternate translations of Carbo & Danbo are both mentioned (which is the change most mentioned by reviewers), but the article still uses the older Fuka instead of the newer Fuuka. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Astro Boy straw poll

Please come participate in this straw poll on whether Astro Boy should be called an android or a robot. There seems to be some disagreement over this. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Naruto characters

Lately, there haven been several IPs reporting the "latest" plot developments on the talk page of List of Naruto characters and probably incorporating them into the list. I've removed the onese from the talk page as a violation of WP:FORUM. However, since this is a featured list, we may need some more eyes on the list to keep everything in check and make sure that the character descriptions don't turn into a detailed retelling of the the most recent chapters. —Farix (t | c) 20:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell Soundtracks

Since the soundtrack articles for GITS:S.A.C don't hold enough notability i though it would be best to merge them into one article. I already started a page for it. It's right here, User:bread Ninja/Music of the Ghost in the Shell series. Anyone is free to help out. I already removed the images and I'm going to put the track listing into a tracklist template.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The GITS OSTs really don't have enough notability? I'm stunned - I assumed they were some of the best-selling OSTs around, on par with Cowboy Bebop or Macross or Evangelion OSTs. --Gwern (contribs) 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Outdated. See K-On :p --KrebMarkt 19:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
But surely the success of K-On doesn't make it harder for other OSTs to sell notably... And seriously -
Despair! Despair! This world of crappy-music-slice-of-life-anime-doing-jokes-better-done-by-Lucky-Star-or-Azumanga-Daioh-yet-selling-more has driven me to despair! --Gwern (contribs) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to know that...anyways....anyone here wants to help me on this project?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All i could offer as assistance would be sourcing the soundtracks with charts ranking when relevant. --KrebMarkt 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

that would be great.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ann company

Another editor has nominated {{Ann company}} for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 29#Template:Ann company. —Farix (t | c) 13:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew and OBrasilo Yet Against

Despite two ANI's, OBrasilo is back yet again demanding that all of the foreign language versions of Tokyo Mew Mew be covered extensively in the article, despite their having no sources and the consensus among most articles hat such extensive coverage of foreign language editions is both trivial and giving them undue weight. The article mentions sourced releases of other language versions. He wants all the voice actors, name changes, and episode lists for each. He's been to ANI twice and has throw out lies claiming the author herself personally wrote his "friend" and told him she wants this coverage too (conveniently only after he made his own argument), harassing other editors who disagree with him, and basically coming back every few weeks to try to bring it up again. The discussion is at Talk:Tokyo_Mew_Mew#Non-English adaptations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration project revival - round 2

Six months ago I proposed restarting the collaboration project. Or rather, starting a new one as the old one has been inactive for three years. Despite a positive reaction to the idea of doing it, the discussion didn't really go anywhere and stalled after initial suggestions for what we could do. However six months is a long time, and I believe it should be rediscussed.

The first issue to consider is the most important one - man/women power. I don't think this is a huge issue in itself, i think we have enough people who know what they are doing. I don't want to volunteer anyone, but I can think of 6 people who would almost certainly be active in such a project, and we should hit 10 easily. Of course the key factor is that we have a set of people with a range of skills between them.

The second issue is of course what format it will take. What articles do we want to concentrate on, what stage do we take them too, whats the timeframe? We may not even stick to one article at a time - such as looking for sources for one article, while writing one article while another goes through copy editing/tweaking.

My current proposal is this;

  • Gauge interest from those willing to spend time working on the sub-project.
  • After a week or so (less if the interest is clear), weigh up if it's worth taking it further
  • If we proceed, set up a placeholder project page so we can start the discussion about the details on the talk page. If we discuss the entire thing on this page, it will get in the way of regular project chat.

So who is interested in reviving the project, and what are your initial thoughts about doing so? Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still interested, as I was six months ago. I think we have some core articles that could quickly move up to GA/FA level with some concentrated, coordinated project attention to give them some serious love. Ditto some of our most viewed/popular articles. Most of these have a ton of sources out there, just little to no experienced editors giving them the attention needed to pull out those sources and use them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
FAC seems to be an issue recently, lets see how School Rumble turns out. That said, I have a couple of articles I'd like to get to FA :P Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's currently back up for PR. I plan to put it up once the PR ends though and hopefully it goes better this time.Jinnai 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
My view on how to effectively do such a cleanup drive:[email protected]/msg52129.html
Modulo the Haskell-specific points, I think this is just as applicable to improving anime/manga articles.
Yes, it does require sustained long-term effort by someone; but that's called leadership. --Gwern (contribs) 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also still interested in this, in spite of my greatly reduced activity on here (mostly because I'm holding off until I find a job/get a new computer). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can consider the idea dead in the water, there was much more interest the first time. Oh well. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Punctual collaboration can work but not a sustained and recurrent one. --KrebMarkt 07:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for a project, I would suggest starting with the biographies. Very few of them are sourced to any length or use very poor sources, such as ANN's encyclopedia or other Wikipedia articles. Most of the list of works are also not formatted in complying with the style guideline at WP:LOW and frequently don't have the series title in italic or the year the work was released. Some are even poorly organized. —Farix (t | c) 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the unreferenced BLP mini drive, i'm only likely to work on one biog (which I'm currently sourcing, and I think you may be able to help there judging by the magazine page). As far as independent projects go, I've got plenty! Dandy Sephy (talk)
Maybe a culture shift needs to occur? --Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

David Welsh RS?

David Welsh writes for the Flipped! section of the The Comics Reporter. Example He also writes reviews on his blog Precocious Curmudgeon. Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are those sources reliable? They aren't on our list or WikiProject Comics.Jinnai 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The Comics Reporter is on our RS list. If we can establish that Welsh is an industry expert then his writings on his blog can be used. Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
David Welsh came up in the Twin Spica peer review. He has also been published by BusinessWeek. Arsonal (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He is RS, we discussed it in the past search our project talk archive. He is part of the Comics/Manga reviewers "Scene". When i will stop procrastinating i will write a something about that "Scene". --KrebMarkt 06:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "scene"? Extremepro (talk · contribs) as (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A dozen and more RS Comics/Manga critics interacting each others in reacting to one another reviews and essays.
Two examples of interactions:
Best Online Comics Criticism 2009=>One More Best of 2009: Comic Criticism=>Meta: Comics criticism and a confession=>Choice words from 2009=>5 Female Voices in Manga Criticism
xxxholic-aholic (roundtable): xxxHolic Roundtable: The Beauty of Ink and the Power of Yuko=>In Which Kinukitty Natters on AT GREAT LENGTH=>Art Nouveau Meets The Twilight Zone=>Calling a Spade a Spade=>The Ukiyo-e in the manga=>A Rambling Review in Four Points=>xxxPorn=>On the Pleasures of Comeuppance Theater=>Just the trilogy, A roundtable comment=>xxxholic Roundtable Round Up
Non exhaustive list of involved critics/reviewers:
Utter madness to keep up with them --KrebMarkt 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Add those people who are not already on our RS list to the RS list. (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

Sure i will add them if no one objects ? --KrebMarkt 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Interactions with other critics is not among the criteria for a reliable self-published source. And frankly, I think we should steer as far away from blog reviews as possible. —Farix (t | c) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A round table is critics confronting their reviews. The crux of the problem is: Does a vetted critics opinion on comics is worth something when it's within The Comics Journal and worth nothing when it's in the critics blog?
Something i admitted long ago that we have no means to decreed on which media manga critics should make their reviews. --KrebMarkt 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
They really should all fall under WP:SPS, as the blogs are "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --Malkinann (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ping* - any thoughts on the other critics? --Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What? Well just not forget to contextualize: why it is given weight to those persons reviews. In the list i forgot someone like Erica Friedman, the yuri critic & publisher but we have already discussed her case in the past. --KrebMarkt 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The last couple of times I've asked for more opinions on potential RSes, I've had a less than overwhelming response. Given that I've added a source to the online page after asking and getting only one response, and then had the source removed simply because there was 'not enough' of a response to my initial query, I thought I would ask for more discussion about all these potential sources. --Malkinann (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Truth is that using those sources is clearly limited to experienced editors because of the necessity assert the critic expertise and the fact that those sources must not be used outside their scopes. Unexperienced users will not explain why a reviewer is an expert and are prone to use them to assert stuff not in their area of expertise. --KrebMarkt 06:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability check

While cleaning up the backlinks to some of articles that were deleted though AfD or Prod, I came across The Devil Does Exist. A check for reviews only comes up with one by Johanna Carlson at Comics Worth Reading. Anyone else want to take a crack at it? And if they don't come up with any more, nominated it for deletion? —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. The Taiwanese drama adaptation of this manga, Devil Beside You, was licensed for Japanese release [15][16][17]. According to this, the manga was reviewed in Manga: The Complete Guide. It is also licensed in Europe, so there's some material to look in that direction. Here's the US official site. Arsonal (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm checking for European licensing. With a RS for the drama adaptation, it will meet WP:BK #3 for a notable adaptation in this case a TV drama. --KrebMarkt 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok dropped refs to non-English licensor in the talk page. There are some limited coverage in France by RS. Last point did anyone noticed that Mitsuba Takanashi BLP article is unsourced. --KrebMarkt 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You should have seen the train wreck it was before. -_-; —Farix (t | c) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Woow more merit to you. I'm utterly scared on how many BLP we will have to clean up. --KrebMarkt 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It's why I usually do them when the articles are nominated are deleted or whenever the notion strikes me. We have 2,167 biographies currently tagged within our scope, so the task is daunting. However, there are probably plenty that haven't been tag, which only adds to the intimidation factor. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Overall, I like to avoid relying on WP:BK #3 as a way to support a manga's notability. By the way, I noticed that #3 has left out television adaptions. Is this a recent change or have we been interpreting this incorrectly all along? —Farix (t | c) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The quote is a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form. TV Drama can be counted as an art form or else it will be pointless to give yearly TV award for the best drama and the like. The same is true for manga or light novels to anime series adaptation. That said this manga also barely pass WP:BK #1 with 3 reviews from 3 RS websites. --KrebMarkt 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of things to argue with that. But since there have been other reviews found, it's now a moot point. The thing I just don't like about #3 is that many people look at the adaptation(s) and then stop looking for any other reliable sources that may allow the manga to pass WP:N outright. —Farix (t | c) 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, we should aim for the more solid and durable position which is WP:N. --KrebMarkt 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like more than just 3, Kreb: --Gwern (contribs) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You have to refine the used key words. I used: Mitsuba Takanashi "The Devil Does Exist" review . --KrebMarkt 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Manga mania

Does anyone know how long this UK magazine ran for? I just bought 27 of the first 34 issues on ebay (bargain - £20inc delivery!), but have no idea how many issues it ran for.On a side note, these are going to come in very handy :)Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat suggests 93-98 for the English language, until it was replaced by 'Manga Max'
Apparently various foreign versions are still going. --Gwern (contribs) 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tenchi Muyo!

Tenchi Muyo! has no sources and is confusing. Anyone wish to help find sources before nominating it for deletion? seems like a some-what well structured article, the sources might be easy to find. I'm searching now.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on make-work: --Gwern (contribs) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, the mere idea of suggesting this is afd worthy screams "lack of being bothered to look". It's not some random franchise no one has heard of outside of a few scanned manga chapters, even a quick search on the obvious sites would have shown this. Clearly it needs some work sourcing, but it shouldn't be difficult to get something on there.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You timed that well, I just added a reference I just came across for a vague release date in the uk for one of the ova's. It needs a lot of work, but an afd isn't it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

well i never planned on Afd the article. but i recently have been seeing this user nominating many articles for deletion and it just scares me that some potential articles will be deleted.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The recent spate of nominations (over and above the usual background of housekeeping tasks) have been almost exclusively directed against articles about living people -- manga creators, voice actors, musicians, et cet. -- that have no explicit references. Franchise articles aren't really in danger at the moment. If you're looking for something to do, helping reference the former (especially the voice actors, as they are the most vulnerable at the moment) would not be a bad way to pitch in. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Men, i have mostly edited BLP this last 15 days :(
Tenchi Muyo! won't be targeted for AfD because it's just too big to be overlooked. 3 anime series + few movies + few OVAs. WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media for series broadcast in a major network in this case TV Tokyo is applicable here. That not counting the DVD reviews that are floating around. --KrebMarkt 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, there's easily enough on the franchise to get it to GA, if anyone feels like taking the time to start merging and sourcing. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If somehow it is targeted, I'd request a snowball keep because it has been cited as an genre influential anime. That doesn't excuse its current version and there should be sources found.Jinnai 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC Extra Stage unlocked

This in not the fellow up from the unsourced BLP RFC but a brand new spin-out one on unsourced content in BLP article.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content --KrebMarkt 07:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

is a reliable source?

Hi folks, this source has arisen on a particlar article, I can't find anything suggesting it's a reliable source by WP standards. Does the project have any experience with this website? Someoneanother 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable_sources#General and this -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the project's sources list somehow. Thanks for the assist, that source is already used in the article and has plenty more info which can be used. Someoneanother 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced fanbunk from

This one is currently targeting the articles Frieza, Piccolo and Vegeta. I already explained to him Wikipedia's core policies on uncited data, but he won't listen. Could really use some assistance here. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He/She continued making stupid edits after being warned, and they've been blocked for a short period. Hopefully long enough to keep them away. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sket Dance

Sket Dance has been restored after a successful DRV. I have attempted to clean up the article and create a reception section. But more attention and a copyedit would be appreciated. —Farix (t | c) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Dennō Senshi Porygon‎"

I didn't notice this until recently, but several editors are discussion put in an in-article disclaimer warning into "Dennō Senshi Porygon‎" (AKA, the Pokémon seizure episode) about the potential harmful affects of viewing a video clip embedded in the article. —Farix (t | c) 01:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If some curious person clicked on before reading the bit about some people hospitalized for two weeks, and other problems, they could be harmed. I clicked it before reading that, curious, but then Firefox crashed. No way to know if you are vulnerable until you actually see it though. Also, is this a copyright violation? I'm removing it now for public safety. Dream Focus 05:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless they are in a very dark room (unlikely when using a computer since you can't see the keyboard or anything else around the computer very well), there shouldn't be a problem. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All the Super Dimension series

For the longest time, User:Egan Loo (who hasn't contributed since March 2008 now) basically owned these articles and refused to let anyone change the titles of the shows in the series. He insists that all of them should have "The" at the beginning of the title because he says that's the "official" title. He also insists that since he was one of the translators for the AnimEigo release of Super Dimension Fortress Macross, that he should know.

However, every English-language release I've seen for every one of these titles omits the "The" at the beginning on all box artwork, on the titling in the actual show, etc. None of them include it. I should also note that I own all of these titles, all of them in English (that have been released in English, anyway, and several in the original Japanese release), so I have plenty to reference as far as the English titles go.

These are the titles affected here:

I propose moving them to the titles actually used in English-laguage releases rather than Egan Loo's opinion of where they go. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Jp official Macross website uses "The" as does the DYRL Saturn game iirc, but like you to my knowledge none of the English language releases do. AnimEigo and ADV's Tv releases certainly don't use "the", and Kiseki's UK vhs releases used "Super Dimension Fortress Macross II" or just "Macross Do You Remember Love". Manga Ent's release of Macross II also drops "the'. I support a rename, although the articles need work anyway (I'm up for helping if anyone plans to do some serious editing on them). Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User editable

Can anyone tell me if that chunk of data is user editable?

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 12:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be. There are a couple login links, though, so it may be editable if you have an account. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance needed

Ok, i did what i could for Runa Akiyama after 1.5 hours of search. Now if someone who do understand Japanese can jump in to fix the remaining issues it would help a lot.

  1. Add information on the person third way she was named and stared: 秋山るな see ja wiki
  2. Find Romanization 阿貴的家族 アークエ・ファミリー全員集合!! and アークエとガッチンポー
  3. Find translation for those roles: 夢子 and アーマ

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 16:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bunch of Questions

What structure changes should I make to List of Case Closed characters so it would reach B-class? Would the summary length of List of Buso Renkin episodes impede its chances for Featured List? Also what would be the best website to translate Japanese to Romaji names? Some of articles about the series in Weekly Shōnen Sunday are missing notability, should they be deleted? Could someone help me establish notability for User:DragonZero/Defense Devil, its four volumes in and I still am unable to find sales info. Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Case Closed characters: Generally character lists should be organized in sections of "Protagonists", "Antagonists", and "Supporting characters". Character names should not be bolded in their sections, nor should there be all that bolding in the references. A creation/conception should be added above the list of characters. Minor characters should be removed. Will answer others later if no one beats me to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The episode summaries seem fine to me. They should be between 150-300 words, and as long as they have the main points of the episodes, including the ending, its good. As Farix notes, they should be of consistent length though. The kanji also should be removed from the lead for the series title, and the bolding, per general consensus with other FLs. You may want to check some of the FL ep lists to see how those leads were done. I'd also recommend dumping the DVD tables and just summarize the tables in the lead, per some of the most recent FLCs and PRs on them. And yes, any of those series that can not have notability established should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I keep getting mixed advice on the DVD tables. I was told to include it for the 17th Case Closed season FLC but I suppose just following the Bleach Seasons is adequate. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
DVD tables are situational. In some cases, it would be easier to summarize. Arsonal (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If any manga series is unable to pass either WP:N or WP:BK, it should be nominated for deletion. As far as episode summaries go, they should be anywhere from 100 to 200 words. However, the thing to keep in mind is that they should be fairly consistent in length, except for recap episodes. There will also be problems with repeating the kanji found in the main article, such as for the series title, as well as bolding for list articles. You should also avoid WP:OVERLINKING. Terms should generally be linked once and applies to references as well as in the text of the article. —Farix (t | c) 02:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Baccano! episodes' FAC

List of Baccano! episodes is at FAC. Last response was on February 2. It's not that it's going horribly, it's just that I'm not well-versed in these kinds of things, but I'm getting a little anxious. Hence this poke. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 07:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability in Biography articles

An editor over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chieko Higuchi is insisting that a voice actor biographies must have third-party coverage even if the VA passes WP:ENT before the subject can be included in Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Other editor was quite correct in his request for verification, but he has also now withdrawn the nom so its a moot point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The editor wasn't requesting for the content on the article be verified and sourced, that was done the first day of the AfD easily enough. Instead, he was insisting that the article be more than a stub and must demonstrate coverage by third-party sources, even if the sourced content already demonstrated notability. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CSE broken

I'm afraid Google has broken my CSE:

Sorry, guys. --Gwern (contribs) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems your not alone in your problem.Jinnai 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CSE broken & fixed

I'm afraid Google has broken my CSE:

Sorry, guys. --Gwern (contribs) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems your not alone in your problem.Jinnai 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


As of today, CSEs seem to be unofficially fixed and everything restored, so I'm resuming use. I'm still a little upset, but I've been assured by Googlers that it was just a bug and nothing malicious or policy-related, so... I guess I'll just regularly download backup copies of the filter-set. --Gwern (contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clamp members


I would like your input on whatever it's worth discussing the merge of Satsuki Igarashi, Ageha Ohkawa, Tsubaki Nekoi & Mokona into Clamp. 1 is barely sourced and 3 are unsourced BLP. None of them seem notable outside Clamp's body of work.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days and I can possibly put something together. Animerica 5-1 has a Clamp feature and group interview. I'll address the BLP concerns as a quick look suggests I can reference some of the basic bio info. Notability can come after imo as the information will be verified for if its merged. I've not got the time to do it before work. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Azu Manga Daioh characters merge

I recentlly removed a bunch of old merge templates because the talk had stalled for over a year pretty much. Is there any references to be added to the character articles though? I know the DVD's have character bios and such. I think the characters should keep their own articles because they appear to cover alot and each character is notable in its own right. Ayumu Kasuga for example has the references while Kagura (Azumanga Daioh) does not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago I planned to do some merging, but tbh I think there are probably enough sources out there. There is a Newtype "heroines" booklet/feature that may have some of them in (IIRC Nihonjoe has it). Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Does being #7 supporting character count? :) --Gwern (contribs) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does, especially from them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you delete a talk page?

Talk:Alraune Queen is not needed anymore as Alraune Queen has since been turned into a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just blank it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Done it was not deleted though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You have to have an admin delete it. Generally its not deleted as long as the main space still has info, even if its a redirect.Jinnai 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I redirected it to Talk:List of Saint Seiya characters. Balnking it will only confuse people. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


just letting you know i placed a merge proposal in the ghost in the shell franchise article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, it wont appear, so i;ll ask here. i suggest we merge the manga and trilogy novel articles onto the main franchise article and possibly merge the innocence novel with the film.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

.hack series

the .hack series needs a lot of attention. The main franchise article .hack, List of .hack characters and .hack//G.U. need to be wikified.

Personally if it were up to me, i would separate the list of .hack characters by game or novels. I'm not so sure, like list of project .hack characters and List of .hack conglomerate Characters (something like that).

Sorry if this barely meets the scope of this wikiproject, it's just that i really want this to get attention and the playstation wikiproject is barely active or don't care.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Army of the Southern Cross

While going through the list I found this, Is there a reason why this is being kept? No real work has been done on it to help improve the article in months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strawberry 100%

Anyone want to work on Strawberry 100%? I've blanked the reception section as it was entirely unsourced and based on personal views of a couple of editors and was not based on any reliable sources. I've also tagged the main article and the character list as there appears to be a more extensive OR problems in both. —Farix (t | c) 13:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of material to work with: --Gwern (contribs) 14:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Flag Clean up Proposal

Since its been a few months since consensus agreed flags should be removed from the infoboxes, I've made a proposal for getting the boxes cleaned up at Template talk:Infobox animanga#Clean up? as well as opened a discussion on how countries should now be formatted. Views appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A shame because it shows the reader the nationality of the manga and all of the companies nationalitys that picked up licences. With all the other things on wiki that flags are used when they are not supposed to on why signal this out? Dont mind this, just an opinion. I do not think adding the flags would offend anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's more of a matter of compliance with the manual of style on use of flags. In my opinion, emphasis on the country of publication is unnecessary. Most of the time it is understood that a manga or anime would be first released in Japan. Even the English-language licenses technically need no specification of country other than the fact that they are published in English. It would also cause unnecessary confusion if another country imports an English-language license because it is not published in English locally. I'm currently employing {{Tooltip}} for Twin Spica but am not sure whether its usage complies with the policy on accessibility. I have also used the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes in Summer Wars. {{Vgrelease}} also seems to be a popular option. Arsonal (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I like the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 method best, without the tool tips. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's straightforward but unfortunately breaks down when you have anime that are broadcast on Animax Asia in at least 5 countries. Arsonal (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...that's true. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For starters, the |XXX_other= fields have been deprecated and should be replaced with sourced text in the article. So that will eliminate most of the need for flagicons. Personally, I like to do the same with the English parameters, including |licensor=, and leave the information in the infobox to focus entirely on the original Japanese release. Thus completely eleminating the need for icons or any other form of national notation. —Farix (t | c) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Excellent idea! ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm also leaning toward that way. It's more something to add information in prose especially if you have to bring the source that goes with it. I found, it's too easy for some editors to stuff infobox with flags, leaving the job to source them to others editors. More of those flags got ditched during GA review due to the lack of source. --KrebMarkt 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some general thoughts from me (sort of responding to several comments above, so not bothering trying to indent right): my personal favorite method out of those which I've seen is definitely {{vgrelease}}, but I hate imagining how complicated a version for our articles would have to be, even completely ignoring all releases except Japanese and English. I am also dead-set against just using unadorned ISO 3-letter codes for countries, since there will be plenty of readers who don't know what country a given code is for, and some of the codes are ambiguous (KOR, for instance, is specifically for South Korea, but it would be a very easy mistake to make to think it refers to Korea as a whole, and I doubt anyone could tell me offhand what the code for Cambodia, for example, is). These problems are mitigated somewhat when we again limit usage to just Japanese and English releases, but they are definitely still there. I also like Farix's suggested approach of rolling English release information into the licensor field, which I think could be used as an excuse to get rid of country information in the infobox altogether (like non-English releases, English release intricacies could then be covered entirely in the prose). I would, however, appreciate anyone coming across unique cases (such as a series intended for release in one or more countries other than Japan), listing them here or on Template talk:Infobox animanga to ensure we end up with consistent handling of those cases. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Toon Zone RS assessment

Members of this project are invited to comment on an assessment of Toon Zone ( as a possible reliable source. Arsonal (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

English or Japanese title?

Should Uchū Senkan Yamato: Fukkatsu hen be renamed by its English title? Dwanyewest (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Space Battleship Yamato seems the logical name, although I've no idea if we should translate the subtitle. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the english title translation is Rebirth Yamato maybe that should be the name Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ANN is giving the title as Space Battleship Yamato Resurrection. The official Starblasers website is giving the title as Yamato Rebirth. Are there any sources for a title of Rebirth Yamato? —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Asurada series Cyber Formula racecars

I do not see any notability in these, there is even a succession box that starts with Asurada GSX as well as a Cyber Formula driver infobox. In all is this really all notable and in universe enough or can it be prodded? As it is also Future GPX Cyber Formula is a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Toaru Majutsu no Index terminology AfD

Is it me, or have there been a lot of SPAs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toaru Majutsu no Index terminology? Perhaps someone should check to see if there isn't an outstanding meat puppetry calls on some forum. —Farix (t | c) 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of SPAs, not all voting on the same side, which is odder still. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a bad faith assumption as there are suggestions it's possible. [18][19] One user voted after a message was left on his talk page. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated mis-categorization of shows under the "kodomo" demographic

The new user Fairryprincess (talk, contribs) continues to categorize various animated WMT series such as Princess Sarah and Heidi, Girl of the Alps as kodomo, even though these series have not been published in kodomo manga publications and have not been referred to as such by any notable or published source. Even after I explained the policies of verifiability and notability and that demographic categorizations such as seinen or kodomo must be supplanted by reliable sources, this user has continued with these disruptive edits. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and warned for edit warring. The behavior sounds oddly familiar....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And yes, it's possible that an anon with an history of similar edits might have resurfaced with a new account. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 20:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that kodomo is not a genre, but a demographic group. But as far as I know, we do not have any published demographics for the World Masterpiece Theater series. So labeling something in the series as part of a particular demographic is unverifiable. —Farix (t | c) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AMS-119 Geara Doga (October 2009 Merge)

Going through the merge list I found this, it appears to be a result of a closed AfD. Should a new AfD be proposed if this is not to be merged? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would be inclined to just redirect it to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack since the AfD listed no target and its for a single work. Else, yep, another AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not hear anyone objecting to a redirect. It sounds better than another AfD unless someone really opposes it, there were no keeps to be found in the past AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Silence means consensus I am just going to be bold then and redirect the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

IP editor changing publication and removing end dates

I like someone else to go over the edits of (talk). I've noticed that they have been changing publications dates or removing end dates entirely from the infobox. Many of these end dates have been sourced in their respective episode or volume lists. Here is one example from Shugo Chara!. I'll also note that the same IP has been editing Fushigiboshi no Futagohime and List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters with both articles looking extremely grotesque, the former I've already reverted. —Farix (t | c) 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Brazilian IP account, (talk), which I like someone to review their edit history. They are also changing publication dates, changing titles, and adding a non-template navbox to several article regarding the Anime Grand Prix. I'm not sure that the navbox is appropriate. But if it is to be kept, it should be trimmed to just the winners and made into a normal template. I've already had to revert the editor twice at Mobile Suit Gundam 00 over splitting the seasons into individual infoboxes dispute a previous discussion on the matter. —Farix (t | c) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Nihonjoe moved it into a template and I trimmed it down to just the winners and use the English language titles. However, the IP reverted the trimming and titles. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how that template is useful, viable, or appropriate at all. Its big, ugly, bloated, and it doesn't seem like a remotely noteworthy "award" to even list on articles. Its a single magazine's user voted award. That doesn't need a template. For now, at least, I've cut it back down to just the actual winners, rather than the top three. That made it at least a reasonable footprint, though the IP is running around throwing it on every random article he can. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've already trimmed that template down to just the winners before. It seems that the Brazilian IP has some ownership issues. —Farix (t | c) 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There's also one (pretty sure it's our Brazilian friend; he's edited from several different IPs here) who's been making inappropriate edits to Template:Saint Seiya. I reverted him a few times, but he insists that his version is correct (even though the way he's going about it is blatantly contrary to our navbox practices). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
He's back at it again, in spite of my explaining that he needs to get an article renamed before changing the link text in the navbox (and that is hardly the worst of the changes he's making, either; he goes back and forth between explaining the article *should be* named as such and just reverting without an edit summary); would anyone care to file an RFPP for me? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Request filed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thankee. =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fictional character sorting

Rather than having to AFD every single article about a charatcer from a series which is unreferenced, contains only in universe information, and lacks an sources to make it an adequate article can we please discuss the problem without personal attacks please. If there is consensus that a lot of the cruft should be summarised and merged into charatcer lists which I fully support I suggest that we could create a list of articles needing merging and then simply do it, saving time at AFDs. This is a genuine attempt to find a way to avoid conflict with you and in the long run work towards sorting out this big problem. If you respond aggressively to me after this post when I am trying to save conflict and time over opening individual AFDs this is unnecessary. I would genuinely like to help clean up a problem but call upon your epxertise of charatcers and this topic to assess what or what should not be redirected. Please give me a chance. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The project started a good effort towards it awhile back, and at the minimum we still have a good sized list from those discussions that need worked on, and likely many more too. Seems like it would be a good idea to revist the list, add/update entries, and prioritize to get things going again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I should point out that much of the problem has come from your own way of trying to achieve this, and the ignoring of several key points and essentially dumping all the work on us. As long as you actively contribute and don't essentially attack us for something we can't physically cope with at that scale, then you'll get a easier time of it. No one denies the work needs doing, but previous attempts at getting a project wide joint effort going have gone largely to waste, and we don't have the benefit of sheer numbers to throw at it.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note, I am not "demanding" that everybody suddenly works hard to clean them up. Every project has its bad content which needs cleaning up and I am fully aware this takes time, especially if people are busy with other projects and numbers are sparse. In a more relaxed, less conflicting atmosphere I am proposing that a few people, myself if needs be go through Category:Anime and manga characters by series and come up with a full list of proposed mergers of ones that should obviously be merged. This way I do not need to take each one to AFD and waste time but it can be done in a coordinated fashion over time without pressure or conflict. Once there is a consensus then that we have a "hot list" of articles that should definately be merged the active project members reach a consensus and simply redirect into the list article. OK? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I like everyone to note that Himalayan Explorer has been deliberately antagonistic with the deletion nominations of two character articles, especially attacking me with this comment and then declaring a disruption AfD campaign. Even after Collectonian already suggest that character article are merged instead of deleted.[20] All of this is because Himalayan I called him on making demands on other editors in to voice actor AfDs over WP:ENT and the immediate expansions of the articles to non-stubs. —Farix (t | c) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From now on I have no time to answer anything which is less than constructive. If I was trully deliberately antagonistic I would not have posted here and proposed this. Anyway I ask thou for forgiveness and to accept repentance of all my sins. An idea would be to create a special project tag which once the article is tagged it autmatically places it in something like Category:Anime and manga-related articles proposed for merger. This way it limits the time that has to be spent on it and once there is consensus amongst you guys they can gradually be redirected. I;d be happy to create a tag and category to assist in this. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a category here Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I plan on going through the list and pushing the merges that have been proposed and removing the ones that are mearly suggestions on the talk page and/or old merge tags. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The irony is that you are removing the 'suggestions' from talk pages for articles that should probably be merged, just because there is no template on the article page. This creates the false impression that there are only x articles to merge when in reality it's a lot higher. Surely any character article that doesn't demonstrate immediate notability should have the templates added and not being removed from the category? Otherwise it's covering up the problem rather then fixing it. Dandy Sephytalk) 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not touching current merge discussions or articles that look like they need to be merged, and am trying to add tags where I can. The things I am removing are tags that were placed months/years ago with no results. Hey if you want to make a merge, okay add a tag and make a discussion about it, id be happy to help. Someone who suggests a merge and puts a tag on it with months/years going by since doesnt make much sense either. I have found talk pages (marked for merge) that no longer go with the article (article has since been turned into a redirect), as well as pages needed to be tagged for merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of these articles were tagged with |merge=yes during the 2008 tag and assess with the intention being to categorize them for future merging – i.e. for statistical and record purposes, as opposed to starting actual merge discussions (Which require proper mainspace merge tags). Thus, it is OK to remove the tag if the articles were redirected, or if a merge is clearly not appropriate anymore. But other than that, the tags should remain (or even better, the articles should be merged). G.A.Stalk 17:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
An article was just 'processed' with the reasoning there is nowhere to merge it to. Except I already have a target in early sandboxing (I created the article originally, it's long been on my list to merge it to a discography). It should be noted that just because a target page doesn't currently exist, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make one.Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Why havent no merge tags been added then? Anything with a merge tag can be open to more of a discussion rather than a tag now fix later route. As ive said some of these merge tags in talk pages have been added months/years ago, why hasent anyone thought of merge places or target pages since then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I mean no disrespect to any other editors here I just think a new system needs to be put in place here, some of the merge tags in the talk pages are almost 2 years old as GAS pointed out and nothing has been done on some of the articles to suggest pages to merge too since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you have something like this. But I was thinking of something more specific geared to sorting the fictional character article. I've created Template:Merge Anime/Manga. I'd be happy to go through the articles and tag the character seperate articles which seem like they should be merged but it is probably best that somebody more familiar with the subject matter like yourself tags them. But if needs be I am willing to do it. I don't think it is freasible to merge decent, sourced character articles which are well balanced into a list but I think a lot of similar level charatcers to the ones to AFD could be merged... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not every fictional character needs to be merged, ones that have coverage and are notable should stay. I can not tell you how many times I have seen fictional character articles tagged then AfD'ed a day later. WAIT FOR REFERENCES ALREADY! Episodes, and Mangas can be cited as references as well as outside coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am also sure there are unreferenced totally in universe articles about charatcers which are actually notable enough to be improved at some point in the future, filled out with out of universe info and made understandable to the average reader and reliably sourced. Anzu Mazaki for instance has some good sources and might be salvagable as a seperate article but still needs a lot of work. Rather it is the minor characters and condensing of a lot of in universe material that would be redirected. But taggin them is a much more relaxed way to identify what needs to me merged and the outstanding problem and if the article has wrongly been tagged that can be sorted out at a later date when somebody has a moment to sort the article. But I think in the long term this is a good thing, as I know that most of the active members here would want nothing better than to have a good quality article on everything and well balanced/well sourced articles but they seriously lack the time to cleanup the entire project. It isn't fair to throw a truck load of AFDs at any one project at once however bad the article, to a tag and a gradual merger would be the best solution. The only trick part will be how to summarise a huge load of in universe information into a list and what or what not to include. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Joining the discussion) I am not quite sure if the tag is necessary—that is actually the reason {{WikiProject Anime and manga|merge=yes}} (with 998 members!) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force#Articles needing to be merged (with 481 articles listed) exists. Especially the latter, as is also indicates the intended target page. Tags also tend to be removed from articles (the Cleanup task force page does not have this problem). Not to mention that someone will have to sync the category to the Cleanup task force page... G.A.Stalk 14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think a few of us should make a effort to reduce that cleanup page merge listing, it's barely budged for months. Much of the time very little needs to actually be merged and a simple redirect is enough. Once we've made a sizeable dent in it, we can look at what needs to be done next. While I don't expect us to clear our backlogs, the longer we take to tackle the issue the worse it gets. If we run into issues where people don't like the merges, they will have to compromise and help decide what is relevant information to keep - or force them to prove notability within a set time.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I implemented |mergefrom= and |mergeto= parameters in the project banner some time ago, which can be used to specify target pages (e.g. |mergeto=[[List of Series X characters]]). Both of these parameters override |merge= when used, but all three categorize the page to the same category. This functionality is especially useful for poorly-written character and other fictional element articles (especially pure in-universe plot summary stubs without any navboxes, series categories, or helpful links) which can otherwise be particularly problematic - using the more specific parameters thus allows future editors to know at a glance where the article is proposed to be merged to. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • It is suggested an article be merged with another article that no longer even existed. [21] That's on the list of things at Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged. Not a perfect system. Can you make a bot to load the date the merge suggestion was added, to be displayed with the other information as well? Maybe even list the suggested target. Present it in a list format, that easier to get through. Even sort things that are similar into one group, if they are from the same series, since usually when someone tries to merge one character or something else from a series, they attempt to do other things as well at the same time from that series. Dream Focus 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I actully made that merge tag recently, List of Cowboy Bebop Music as the articles dont appear to be doing well as stand alones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a perfect system, but tagging to red links isn't a bad thing. Album/single articles within the project are almost never going to have enough coverage for a proper well developed article that stands alone, so suggesting merging them to as yet uncreated pages is no bad thing. Even if it's just a copy/paste merge with a basic lead, it's better then 100s of articles that don't establish notability (really this is a separate issue that needs working on). IIRC chart positions and such are not enough, it needs to be critical reception. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
As Dandy says, redlink merge targets are no problem, and are actually fairly common amongst our articles. In the particular case of Cowboy Bebop Tank! THE! BEST! (and the other CB album/soundtrack/single articles), they've been needing to be merged to a list for quite awhile (and the rest of the CB articles could also use some love, but that's not directly relevant). I'm not sure about the "List of music" name though, "List of soundtracks" or "List of albums" would probably be better. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
List of soundtracks or list of albums would be more proper. --KrebMarkt 09:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)