Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Question about "licensing"

In the video infobox, we have a licensor field for when a series is acquired by an English company who plans on releasing it in a native format, such as Region 1 for North America. Crunchyroll has been officially streaming anime for a while, and I've seen Crunchyroll being added to the licensor field in the box, but is this okay? It's not like Crunchyroll intend on releasing the format on an external, DVD format, and oftentimes (all the time?) the license is only temporary until the anime gets pulled from Crunchyroll's website. Would Crunchyroll still be listed as the "licensor" in these cases? And what about if Funimation Entertainment are streaming an anime on their website, but have no intent on releasing it on DVD. Did they still "license" the series?--十八 23:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't most licenses temporary? Short licenses, long licenses, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, TV, streaming, ... I don't see much of a difference. Personally, I'd remove licensees from the infoboxes altogether. Infoboxes should only contain the most central facts about the article's subject. Who is selling it in what part of the world hardly qualifies. Goodraise 02:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove the licensor field, the same would apply to the English publisher field in the book infoboxes. The reason the licensor field was added was precisely because the book infoboxes had an English publisher field. The rationale being the reader should be able to quickly glance at an article to determine whether it's available in English or not. As for licenses being temporary, yeah, I guess most of them are, but that doesn't mean the DVDs don't still exist. If it got released in some form in English, then it should be mentioned. My main question is just what exactly constitutes a license? There are also some series that got licensed, but then were never released in English.--十八 06:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favor of removing the English language information from the infobox, leaving only the original or Japanese publisher, networks, magazines, etc. It would help eliminate the undue weight towards English release information while we prohibit release information from other countries in the infobox do to brevity. It also eliminates our flag icon problem at the same time. —Farix (t | c) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And what about the argument that, as the English Wikipedia, it's more than just a little relevant which series are available in English, and therefore useful for inclusion in an infobox.--十八 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i favor removing it from the infobox and be mentioned in it's own section.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would such a section essentially just be a list of licensors, or would we include other details? If there isn't much text beyond the names of the companies, then perhaps some sort of table format—whether set up individually for each article, or through a standard template—would work better?

(Another possibility would be to move the licensing information to a collapsible template that could be placed either under the infobox or elsewhere in the article. It's the sort of detail that the average reader probably won't care too deeply about, so having it inside a collapsed block would save space and avoid having lengthy tables breaking up the article.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing doesn't need its own section; it's already dealt with in prose in the appropriate media sections in articles, which for the most part is difficult to spot at first glance, without having to read much of the sections.--十八 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just how many people reading an article are actually looking for the licensing information? It doesn't seem like the first piece of information that someone would be looking for. And if they were, would Wikipedia really be the first place they look? —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not as "licensing" information per se, but I suspect that "is this published in English?" is probably a common question that someone reading an article would ask. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This creates a systemic bias, which we are suppose to be avoiding. We shouldn't be treating English language licensing and releases any differently than licensing and releases in other languages. However, listing every one of these in the infobox is simply not feasible, and using collapsible boxes creates userability and compatibility issues, which is why they were removed from the infoboxes in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there actually still a problem with the {{navbox}}-type collapse implementation? I was under the impression that the JS/CSS classes used to implement it wouldn't propagate to browsers not capable of supporting them, and that the collapsed blocks would simply render in their uncollapsed form in those cases. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it, Farix, that the English publisher fields were kept when the other publishers were nixed? There was obviously some dispute over whether to remove the English fields or not, and that's not likely to change. I think calling it a systemic bias is going a bit far, since it should be the duty of the English Wikipedia to inform readers if a series is available in English, since as Kirill said (and I implied), I believe it'd be a fairly common question. And you ask "would Wikipedia really be the first place they look?" and I say, if they don't, then where would they look? If they type in a series name into Google, one of the first hits is Wikipedia, and we should obviously make it our duty to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information, or am I somehow missing the point of this project?--十八 00:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is, I suppose; but for a series that's widely licensed, the relevant section tends to become an almost unreadable list of licensors and dates. For something that repetitive, a list or table format actually works better than pure prose, in my opinion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. We have plenty enough issues with editors in animanga articles that never heard of something like written prose and more tables won't help. Table is lazzy Copy-paste, modify 2 words and you are done (don't give a fuck to verifiability along the way). I'm ready for trenches warfare in that point alone and make a stand.

Per my position on the previous discussion on that subject: Strict interpretation of WP:V not sourced not in the article in any form. That's de-facto make +95% of the licensors information removable. --KrebMarkt (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is for essential information. I would say for a English Wikipedian article on anime and manga knowing whether its been translated to English would be considered "essential" information to the average reader because by its nature all anime and manga (as our project and how its been historically meant) is produced in Japan (excepting outsourcing for stuff to Korean animators for inbetweens and the like). With that in mind a relevant question then to the average reader is "is this translated into English" because a majority of people reading said article speak English as either their native or second language (and Japanese is usually not their first). Other languages wouldn't be essential because most Wikipedians reading an article wouldn't ask that; the one exception to that rule is if it wasn't translated into English they may ask "has it been translated at all?"

However, one of the problems and why we removed the other languages from the infoboxes is because ips like to add plenty of foreign language releases without citing and its nigh impossible to cite them. They do not generally do so for the prose. This actually acts as a weighted burden to getting GA and especially FA status.陣内_Jinnai 05:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because this is the English Wikipedia does not mean we can legitimately give more wait to English language releases and licensing compared to releases and licensing in other non-Japanese languages. In fact, that is a systemic bias by giving undue weight to the English language releases. If English language releases is "essential"—which I don't think it is—then so are all other releases in other non-Japanese languages. If releases in other non-Japanese languages are not "essential", than neither is the English release information. Of course, if we include all release information in the infobox, it creates a lot of cruft that makes the infobox very unsightly. So it's better to just have the original Japanese release information and leave the releases in other languages in it's own section. —Farix (t | c) 15:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When you read an enclyclopedia page you would expect to know the original release of an item (in this case it will be Japanese, unless its a concurrent release (unheard of yet, but theoretically possible), the first translation if it can be verified (which has historically been English, but there are a few exceptions here) and the language you are reading it in, in this case English. I would expect a German one to note the German release and a French one to note the French release, etc. I would not expect the German one to note the Mandarin release unless maybe it was the first nor would I expect the French to note the English one if the English translation was after the French.

That there is a translation is essential info and that it is in the language of the article is essential information that the average reader would expect to see.

I would like to put the other translations back, but those are just prone to abuse by ip addresses continually re-adding unverifiable listings to the infobox. This has been an issue in keeping our GA articles from moving up to FA (i know this from dealing with it directly).陣内_Jinnai 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If translations is "essential information"—which I don't agree with—than all translations are essential information, not just the English language translation. Anything less is undue weight and perpetuating a systemic bias, which we are suppose to take care to avoid in articles. I personally like to keep only the original Japanese release information in the infobox. However, all other release information, including the English release information, should only been mentioned in the prose and not in the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 16:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not all translations are not essential information. It is also a matter of perspective. If their are 25 different translations they are not all essential. Rhus accordingly with WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes): "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." If an item is translated into English, that is a key fact for the English Wikipedia because most people coming to read an anime or manga article on this en.wikipiedia.org will care about the English translation of such, if one exists.陣内_Jinnai 01:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That sort of thinking creates an English language bias and causes undue weight. We work with primarily Japanese language material, so releases in other languages are unimportant. I don't consider English release information any more important than any other release information. Just because this is an English language Wikipeida doesn't mean we can rightfully give preferential treatment towards English language information, especially in the infobox. Giving that kind of preferential treatment towards English language release would be violation of WP:NPOV. The only relevance that being an English language Wikipeida means to article content is that the articles are written in English. It does not mean that are articles favor an English language point of view. Nothing more, nothing less. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd sooner see all languages other than Japanese returned to infoboxes as an option - depreciating them from infoboxes was a bad move, as it made it harder for people to realise that they needed to add this kind of information, and it made it harder to see the information and to reference it. Practically speaking, if a manga series that hasn't won awards is licensed outside of Japan, it is far less likely to be deleted. Returning languages other than English and Japanese to the infobox would preserve appropriate content (much of it was lost in the AWB removals) and would make it easier to prove notability. --Malkinann (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the satus quo because re-adding them just creates problems when they are brought up for assement because IP addresses continually add them. In fact while they were still there I had to place an IP range block on School Rumble because an IP range continually added the same unverifiable listings to the article when I was trying to bring it up at FAC and posting notices on the talk page (the only way to contact someone who changes IPs) wasn't working.陣内_Jinnai 03:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So School Rumble wasn't licensed in those particular countries at all? If it was, an alternative could have been to look for reliable sources for the countries in question and add them. Knowing about licenses in other countries helps from the perspective of the bare bones of notability, which School Rumble had achieved by virtue of it being adapted into anime and having reviews (most from the licenses in countries other than Japan...) --Malkinann (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did the best I could do without taking a trip to that country and learning their language natively. At the point it was at, knowing 1 more country in the long list didn't add much info. It was already broadcast in several dozen countries and languages, including the language of country that was being added. There comes a point where it undue weight to list every translation, just as it becomes undue to list every release.陣内_Jinnai 18:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Scifi Weekly review archive

Found an online archive of anime reviews from the Syfy channel magazine SciFi Weekly here. Could be of some use if its deemed reliable. ~ Hibana (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a reliable source. I didn't always agree with them, but that can be said of most review sites. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria - AfD

Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria, a Light novel series from 2009 (and still ongoing) is up for AfD, because of a lack of notability (no review whatsoever, unknown authors).Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hajime No Ippo vs Fighting Spirit

It seems like we went over this before, but Gune (talk · contribs) is insisting that Fighting Spirit (manga) be named Hajime No Ippo (manga) even though the anime series was released in English as Fighting Spirit. I've reverted the move twice, but he/she keeps moving it back under the reasoning that because the manga series was not licensed in English, there is no "official" English title. —Farix (t | c) 02:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite a predicament. If the manga is most commmonly known as Fighting Spirit, and the article is mainly about the manga, then i suggest to keep it as is.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i meant to change it to fighting spirit.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Although Gune's reasoning is incorrect, per WP:UCN, what truly matter is not the official name or the name with which the series was released in English but the most commonly used one in English sources. See the example of Mazinger Z / Tranzor Z. What is the most commonly used title by sources in English for that series? A quick search in Google does show that "Hajime No Ippo" is more commonly used than "Fighting Spirit" in English web pages by around 300,000 results. But Google searches are not definitive tests and that is not a significant number since it's below a million and could be that many of those results are fansites. Does anyone know how is the series referred as in reliable publications?

While this is established, the page should remain where it was, "Fighting Spirit (manga)". Jfgslo (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It also depends on the reliable source i would say. If more legit sites use a certain name, then we should keep it. though, keeping it Fighting Spirit simply because google test are not absolute doesn't really sound reassuring. That and the anime barely has any coverage on the anime. SO i suggest keep it as is, until more sources refer to the manga as fighting spirit considering only the anime series is called fighting spirit.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But the article touches the anime as in-deep as the manga. In fact, I'd say that the manga probably wouldn't be mentioned had it not been notable enough to generate the anime. I suspect that the only reason the article has the "(manga)" part is because that term is also used for other topics and the original work is the manga. This is related to, for example, the problem with names in Dragon Ball. The series is originally a manga but his notoriety in English sources came more from the anime, which means that we use the names most commonly used without taking into account if a publication is talking about the manga or the anime. Even if the manga was not published in English, we would probably use the anime names because it's the anime that makes the series notable for English sources and they would most likely use the names from the anime, not the manga. And it doesn't really matter how more legit a single publication is over others, but how the majority of them refer to the series, as long as they are not reliable enough (essentially no fan publications.) Jfgslo (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's only speculation. We don't know that. and even if that were true, it wouldn't change a thing. The manga specifically is commonly known by it's original japanese name. PLus a third piece of media is actually is a mix of both. first video game is named "victorious Boxers:Fighting spirit" with the main title being a subtitle, while the sequel will be called by it's original. So it's still a mix. I still suggest the manga specifically being left alone considering, if wew ere to change it now, it would be original research.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article were exclusively about the manga, I would agree. However, the article is about the manga and the anime series, and the anime series are very well known in the English world. It doesn't really matter if the manga is more commonly known as "Hajime No Ippo" because the article is not about the manga only. If the anime is more commonly known than the manga in English sources and said sources use "Fighting Spirit" more prominently than "Hajime no Ippo", the article title should be "Fighting Spirit" because the article is not about the manga solely but about all the media generated about a series known in English as "Fighting Spirit". If there are more sources in English that talk about the manga and, in consequence, use the term "Hajime No Ippo", then that should be used, but if there are more English sources that talk about the anime and therefore use "Fighting Spirit", then "Fighting Spirit" should be used as the article title. But until one term is proven to be more common in English sources than the other, the article should be restored back to "Fighting Spirit (manga)" because the move was done without consensus and the one that did the move has not proven that "Hajime no Ippo" is the most commonly used term in English sources. Jfgslo (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

but they only refer to it to the anime and the other game. Still, the manga is the main feature in that article. the anime has barely and refs and the games also have minimal coverage. i sugggest to keep it as is. For all we know, there might not be an english name for the franchise. Also the anime doesn't justify the manga. For example, the Oh My Goddess! and Ah! My Goddess anime. It's officially and commonly known as oh my goddess, but the anime is more commonly known as ah, my goddess!.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! But, did you notice that most sources in English in the article refer to the series as "Fighting Spirit", "The first step" or the name of the games, and that only two sources about the manga are reliable? And one of said sources uses the name "Fighting Spirit", not "Hajime no Ippo", while the other uses "The first step"? Do note that the one source in English about the manga that uses "Hajime no Ippo" is from a website called fanboy.com. I do not know if said website is actually in the accepted reliable sources of this project, but it also uses ”The First Step” to refer to the manga series. And there is also a minor detail that the person that originally moved the article did not take into account. None of the English sources use "Hajimete No Ippo" but "Hajimete no Ippo". Also, pay no attention to the lead section to determine if the article is more about the manga. That section is tagged for not adequately summarizing the contents of the article.

Incidentally, note that the official English title of the manga given by the author is "The fighting!" And, about "Oh My Goddess!", that article has multiple issues. Strictly speaking "Ah! My Goddess" is the most commonly used term for the series, much more than "Fighting Spirit" over "Hajime no Ippo", so the lead title shouldn't be "Oh My Goddess!" But, since the series was well known before the anime arrived in English and the official title in English by the author was also the same, I don't think anyone ever contended that. And I don't think anyone will try to change that one. After all how to call the series was also a problem for the translators of the series. But even Kodansha translated the manga as "Ah! My Goddess". So, that isn't a good example for comparison with "Fighting Spirit" / "Hajime no Ippo" / "The first step" / "The fighting!" Jfgslo (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You only used one source for each example, try a google search. and the title had little difference.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I did that only to show that not all reliable sources in English support using "Hajime no Ippo", because Gune insists on calling the manga "Hajime no Ippo" despite that the English sources cited in the article don't use that term and he/she isn't adding new reliable sources in English to show that "Hajime no Ippo" is used. He/she was also arguing that the official title was "Hajime no Ippo" and I already pointed out that the official English title given by the author is "The fighting!".

These are the results using Google Advanced Search, setting results in English because those are the only results that interests us, and adding the words "manga" and "anime" to avoid confusing "Fighting Spirit" with other terms. Please verify the searches if there are doubts:

1. manga anime "Fighting Spirit" 621,000 results

2. manga anime "Hajime no Ippo" 395,000 results

3. manga anime "The First Step" 308,000 results

4. manga anime "The fighting!" 109,000 results

Since the difference between results is below a million, I don't consider them a definitive test. Per WP:SET, they don't guarantee that the results are reliable or "true". Also changing the words "manga" and "Anime" for other things does tip off the results badly, another reason no to trust completely in the results. For example, removing "anime" gives 65,700 results for "Fighting Spirit" and 2,920,000 results for "Hajime no Ippo", searching for them without "manga" and "anime" gives 1,200,000 results for "Fighting Spirit" and 660,000 results for "Hajime no Ippo" and, finally, adding "Morikawa", in reference to the author, gives 9,650 results for "Fighting Spirit" and 21,900 results for "Hajime no Ippo", both dwarfed by "The First Step" with 83,300 results. As you can see, Goggle searches do not help much in this case.

I'm not saying that we cannot use Google searches to determine the most commonly used term in reliable sources, but we have to establish a procedure to make the searches as reliable as possible and avoid using fansites as part of the results (see how many scanlations websites appear when searching only for manga) because, as shown by the example above, reliable sources in English do use other names for "Hajime no Ippo". If the article were only about the manga, we could safely ignore doing the search with "anime". But the anime are treated in the article and, much like with Dragon Ball, they're more well known than the manga, therefore they need to be taken into consideration unless it's decided to create separate articles for the manga and the anime. Jfgslo (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Try searching it without anime. we already know the anime is called fighting spirit. just put in manga or franchise next to it in. the whole point was to know what the manga is called not the anime, so putting anime next to it, mixes in the anime along with manga. And they only use them for one game and anime, the other game is by a different title, it would really be inconsistent. As for now, the anime is obviously well known, but that doesn't justify that the series is well known with the same name. and you havne't given evidence that it is. If it is, then yes move it, if not then leave it as is. But still, it's obvious the manga isn't known by "fighting spirit" so even if we do move, we have to keep the manga section by it's original name.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, the article does not deal exclusively with the manga. The whole point was not how the manga was called but how the series is known in English sources. Once again from the discussion about Dragon Ball, it was put in discussion whether the manga was the primary work and if the names from the manga should be used over the anime. But since the series is notable for both, not only for the manga, and the sources in English use mainly the names from the anime, not the manga, the names for the anime are to be used in article titles. In "Fighting Spirit" case, the same basic concept applies, because the article talks about all the series, including the manga, the anime and the video games. This not like Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Last Airbender, where both media have their own article and there is no problem. If most English sources refer to the series by one name or the other, that's the name that should be used for the article title, without regard if the sources refer to the manga, the anime or the video games. What term is used within the article it's a different matter and that is covered by MOS:AM and WP:EN, particularly WP:EN#Divided_usage. Also, using "franchise" instead of "manga" in the search, gives 19,200 results for "Fighting Spirit" and 4,830 results for "Hajime no Ippo". I don't like using "manga" and "Hajime no Ippo" because the first 20 pages of results or so point out mainly to manga scanlations or web sites to download the series, not reliable sources, like the ones used in the article. And the reliable sources in English that I consulted about the manga do not use "Hajime no Ippo" exclusively.

In other words, I don't think that these searches in Google show a significant difference between the usage of one term over the other because the difference in results is not high enough, most results come from unreliable sources and the differences quickly turn around when adding a term or another. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that, like with Dragon Ball, a search in exclusively reliable sources should be conducted and once the results are shown, we then determine what should be the article title. Until then, "Fighting Spirit (manga)" should remain where it is, unless the manga and the rest of the franchise are separated in different articles.

But this is Wikipedia, and this should be decided by consensus. What do other editors think about this dispute? This shouldn't be decided by a discussion between Bread Ninja and me. We need more points of view. Jfgslo (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But the google search you did was inacurate due to adding not adding "series" or "manga", and i know gogle searches aren't 100% trustworthy, but when it comes to commonname, it's practically the only thing we got, unless the realiable sources in the article. help. And Hajime no Ippo doesn't need to be used exclusively, but if they use it more than the other, than i suppose it could work. You said it yourself, there are other names the series is considered other than "fighting Spirit".

And at the moment, this is all hypothetical thinking. you have to bring results onto the table. Please show us enough sources that they consider the sereis "fighting spirit". though in my opinion hajime no Ippo would be the most consistent title in the series in general instead of english for a series. each installation for the franchise has had a different name. There is a manga series, an anime series, and a video game series, and they all go by different names. the video games released in english use "Victorious Boxer" the anime released in english uses "Fighting Spirit", the manga that has yet to be released in englsih is "Hajime no Ippo" or it's translated version "The First Step".

Fighting Spirit is most commonly known to the anime series. and when they refer to series, they could be referring to the anime, instead of the entire franchise, so we need to look carefully on what the sources say. Hakime no Ippo is the mos common and consistent name that the franchise has. A good example is SaGa (series). Originally started with english titles like Final Fantasy Legend but has other subseries that aren't consistent. So the original name is good.

And again, even if we do change the name of the article, we should still keep the name of the manga as is.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In Saga, however, note that Final Fantasy Legend remains called like that because it's how that game is more commonly know in sources in English. The rest of the series is Saga thanks to the fact to further games were released by the company under that brand in English. In this case, it's the contrary. The original manga was called "Hajime no Ippo" (technically it was called the "The fighting!" in English by it's original author, and "The first step" by English reviews) but in recent years the name has changed to "Fighting Spirit". And Goggle is not the only thing we have to check common names. We can use this project's accepted reliable sources in English and see how the series is called by the reviewers.

About the games, if you actually go to the reviews and give them a quick look, you will see that the writers tend to use "Fighting Spirit" when talking about the manga that inspired the game.

And the one that has to show that "Hajime no Ippo" is the most commonly used form is not me but the person that wants to make the change, Gune. I'm not particularly interested in changing it or keeping it. Actually I would be in favor of using "Hajime no Ippo" without adding "(manga)". But my main interest here is making sure that the reason for changing the article title doesn't go against WP:AT. If you recall, the original argument used by Gune was that the manga had no official release, which is not a valid reason to change the title. The series was released in English even if the manga was not, and the article is not about the manga solely. Even if the manga were officially released in English with "Hajime no Ippo", that still doesn't prove that the official name is the most commonly used, as I exemplified with Tranzor Z or how the discussion went with Dragon Ball. First Gune has to show that "Hajime no Ippo" is more commonly used than "Fighting Spirit" or any of the other variants in reliable sources in English and then he/she can make the change, not the other way around. Jfgslo (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Like isaid even IF it were to be changed, we would still keep the name of the manga the same. AT the moment, the series has various names in english, and not many sources talking about the entire franchise. Hajime noIppo stays consistent within all of them, anime, video games, and manga. Though i'm not siding with Gune on this. i just gave my opinion. But even, so it said "fighting Spirit (manga)" meaning the manga was the main feature. So i could understand how s/he got the idea. But if all the other media has a consistent name, and the manga is the only one out, then yes. It would have to change>Bread Ninja (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Anime and manga WikiProject Navbox is too small.

The recent update has posed a problem the nav box looks too small compared to the rest of the page, is there a way to enlarge it so it looks more neat and can fit the article pages nice? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused: which article pages do you mean? The WikiProject navigation template is only meant to be used on internal subpages of the project, not in article space. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

IM talking about the box at the top of this page that has the two images of WP:Wikipe-tan, it already had to be removed from the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga as it was "breaking the page". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not really caused by the size of the navbox—if anything, a larger navbox tends to make alignment problems worse—but rather by the number of different boxes that were floated on that page. I've cleaned up the formatting so that everything aligns neatly; please let me know if you see any other pages where the navbox is causing layout problems, and I'll be happy to fix those as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Updates in Random House

The Random House official site has been changing various of its urls apparently because something that happened with Del Rey this month. For example this was the url from Tsubasa's first volume and this is the current one. It appears this applies to every manga volume published by Del Rey. I tried using the web.archive.org to search for archives, but the site appears to have some problems right now. I wonder if a bot like this one would help cause this implies lots of updates. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can the urls be replaced/renamed or do they have to be archived? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but considering all the series published by Del Rey, it's a lot.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The something is that there was a merger and RH is finally getting to the point where they can continue publication of those titles. As archiving, I'd say most of them could be simply redirected. The Tsubasa one you give is a linking to their catalog which is what the new one has. The only issues would be if it has a release date and verification that it was originally published by Del Rey which can be gotten elsewhere.

Bottom line is that I would check to see if their are archives, but if not don't sweat it.陣内_Jinnai 05:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Otome Yōkai Zakuro ending themes

Otome Yōkai Zakuro, although only 6 episodes long so far, uses three ending themes. The themes changes per episode (depending on the episode's focus or something like that, I think), but there doesn't seem to be too much of a pattern (yet anyway). So far, it goes:

1. "Hatsukoi wa Zakuro-iro" (eps 1,3)
2. "Junjou Masquerade" (eps 2,5)
3. "Futari Sei" (eps 4,6)

I'm looking for advice on how to present this in prose. Should it simply be noted that the there are three ending themes that change without an obvious pattern or something? ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 05:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Flexusbom

Flexusbom (talk · contribs) has created three articles about little known manga series using mostly copyright vio text from MyAnimeList or illegal scanlation website. I've went through them looking for sources and got one positive hit for notability, one so so, and one negative.

• Imperfect Hero - only reviews from Mania.com found
• Astral Project (manga) - positive hits from Deb Aoki of About::Manga and Johanna Draper Carlson of Comics Worth Reading.
• Fancy Gigolo Peru - no sources found Call for French artillery:1123456

I've already proposed the last one for deletion. If someone can find a source for the first one, then we can lock it down.

Flexusbom is now in the process of creating several poorly formatted biographies without adding any reliable sources. Someone else will need to go through these and either fix them up or propose them for deletion. It appears that this editor is really bad about copying and pasting content around without actually editing the content. —Farix (t | c) 13:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will salvage Fancy Gigolo Peru thanks to a licensing in France. There are coverage from more non-manga specialized comics website and surprise Les Inrockuptibles. I will deprod and work on it after diner :p --KrebMarkt (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: This editor did not make it easy for us :( Guess what i found when i searched for Fancy Gigolo Pelu instead of Peru. Article move to its official English translation naming. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That would explain why I didn't come up with any positive hits. I always put quotes around the search terms to reduce the number of false positives. Now if we can find more sources for the first one. —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

IGN UK review + Mania.com review = Narrow pass ;) --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pelu DYK

Nommed Pelu for DYK. --Malkinann (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And we're in the queue! :D --Malkinann (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anime-based opera

Have any of you seen this CNN article?

• Irvine, Dean. "Can a pop opera bring Japanese animation to life?" CNN. November 12, 2010.

I wonder if it can be used as a source in some articles... WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

MFD notice for Portal:Dragon Ball

I have listed Portal:Dragon Ball for Miscellany for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dragon Ball. Do not remove the {{mfd}} tag until the consensus may be reached. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 17:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for featured list final check

Not meaning to sound desperate but I'm looking for one final check for the nomination of List of Buso Renkin episodes. Thank you. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New AFD

I have put the game Dragon Ball Z Side Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans up for deletion. Sarujo (talk)

List of hentai companies

I have just populated the list of companies from Category:Hentai companies, I need imput on the talk page though if anyone is willing to give any. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a simple alphabetical list provides the reader anything more than the category already does. Is there additional information we could add to make the list more useful? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than putting the list in prose and maybe talking about each Hentai company with references and listing them in ABC order I cant think of much else. I at least wanted to put some content in though so I started it as what you see it now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of turning it into a table and listing statistics (dates of activity, revenue, major titles, etc.) for each company. Or would that be too much detail? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would help, dates of activity, major titles, and brief info about the company would be nice for those that do not have their own articles (I dont think revenue would apply to defunct hentai companies it could be a throw in though). Anything would help to improve this list to be honest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Kai article creation

A discussion has been created here to try and rally an attempt to get a Dragon Ball Z Kai article created. I'm personally against the idea seeing as other series' do not have articles anymore. Yet I can't think of any guidelines that state why not. Sarujo (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The series is not really a new product, only an edited version of the original. More than a remake, which would merit its own article if covered by reliable sources, this is similar to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope or Blade Runner, both of which were re-released with modifications from the original version but aren't new films like Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is to Superman II. Therefore, there is no really need to create a specific article for Dragon Ball Kai. Incidentally, it is common practice in WP:VG to only add information about further releases from the original game in the original game article, not creating new ones, like Super Mario Bros.. The reasoning is this: If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article. The Wikipedia guideline regarding this is WP:CFORK. But I don't think that moving Kai to its own article would be making Dragon Ball clearer, which would be the only criteria to separate Kai from the Dragon Ball article. Even more, Why should Kai have its won article when Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT do not? There is no logic on that. Jfgslo (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline nominated for articles for deletion

Since the merge discussion didn't reach a consensus and there really isn't even a reliable source that merits to be merged in the Neon Genesis Evangelion article, I nominated Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline for deletion. Please join the discussion here or here and share your thoughts. Jfgslo (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposition to merge New Angel with Angel (manga)

It's been already more than a year since I proposed the merge of New Angel into Angel (manga). I would like to go ahead and merge them, but, since I have never done such a thing, I would like to read your opinions and, if it's okay to merge them, request some help for the merging. Jfgslo (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly simple, and i agree to the merge. The anime only has plot information so you can fit that into the episode list on the main article. BUt i would suggest to trim it excessively until you put it in the episodes list.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Season episode lists

Mhiji (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Aria (manga)

There is a dispute about the genre for the manga. IP added shojo with the reasoning "According to Comic Blade's description, it publishes manga for both boys and girls in the 10 to 18 age range. Considering the content of this series, girls are probably the target audience." - can this first of all be confirmed and if so, how should we deal with it?陣内_Jinnai 06:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim about the target audience comes from the Japanese article of Monthly Comic Blade, doesn't it? That part is referenced in the Japanese article to a Mag Garden financial report of 2003 so it could be verified, theoretically, if someone looks for it. But there is also the fact that the original magazine where Aria was published, Enix's Monthly Stencil, is a girls' magazine. So, Shojo seems to fit better than shonen. I believe that using shojo is correct at least in the part of Monthly Stencil, which shouldn't have shonen there. Jfgslo (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but should it have just shojo or both? If Monthly Comic Blade is indeed marketed toward both gender it could be seen as WP:OR to list only one because of the former because that denomination isn't supported by anything (just because it was originally published in a magazine geared toward young girls doesn't mean another magazine cannot broaden that market).陣内_Jinnai 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In Aqua's case, only shojo since we are only following the sources and Monthly Stencil is a girl's magazine. Unless there is a source that asserts Monthly Stencil as a shonen-shojo magazine, there is no need to add shonen. That is not in conflict with WP:OR. A manga series can change demographics when changing magazines even if the content hasn't, just like Captain Tsubasa became an older audience oriented manga when changing magazines despite essentially having the same content, or Violence Jack which was originally a shonen manga when published by Kodansha.

With Aria, we should first make sure that the magazine is indeed for both demographics. It seems to be the case because Monthly Comic Blade is classified as shonen-seinen by Comipedia which gives us a hint that the publication indeed has a broad target audience. Jfgslo (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with pinning down Monthy Comic Blade's demographics.陣内_Jinnai 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is fellowing the trend started with Square Jump to aim for the broadest audience possible in monthly mangashi. Put Aqua as Shojo, Aria as shonen, drop a line in the manga section that even if the Comics Blade is tagged as shonen the publication aims for both gender audience and one more line in the reception section where some critics explicitly praise Aria to be a great manga for girls or a good shojo. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for participation in a discussion about Yamcha, Tien and Yajirobe being moved to the main/secondary characters list

I invite anyone who is interested in discussing this topic to come and discuss it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Dragon_Ball and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Dragon_Ball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.177.193 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A correction. Don't post your comments on that topic since it's an archived talk page. Share your comments in the current talk page of List of Dragon Ball characters. Jfgslo (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews for Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria ?

Hello ! I've put up for AfD Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria (空ろの箱と零のマリア), a light novel series, and we could use some help to be sure whether notable reviews exist or not. A Google search with the romaji title gave only forums and blogs, could someone help for the search on the japanese title ? Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you'll have a really hard time looking for serious reviews in Japanese on Internet. Otherwise, there would be no problem with adding reception sections in anime and manga articles that have not been released in other languages. I believe that there are serious reviews, but in printed publications like with all the other manga and anime of Japan or like Famitsu's video game reviews. On the Japanese Internet you will most likely only find blogs or reviews with authors using pseudonyms. You will have to judge if any of them is notable enough despite this.

• http://mutukiseal.jugem.cc/?eid=2195
• http://ameblo.jp/ikeko-kun/entry-10684535352.html
• http://silentfeel.jugem.jp/?eid=568
• http://game1ballista.blog66.fc2.com/?mode=m&no=434
• http://www.rupa-rupa-novel.com/a/uturonohako.html
• http://www.raitonoveru.jp/rano/school/ituka.html

These are some of them, although I doubt they'll be of any help to you. Has anyone found a notable review in Japanese for a manga and/or anime series on the Internet? If so, in which website? Or, is there some Japanese equivalent to Comic Book Resources or similar American comic book websites? Jfgslo (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help ! Indeed, all these look like anonymous blogs, and I couldn't find anything showing they would be particularly notable. They really seem unreliable, and their texts about the books are very short anyway. With still not a single reliable review, I think the article should be deleted, if you agree with that, could you comment on the AfD ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary nominated for articles for deletion

I have nominated Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary for deletion. Please join the discussion here and share your comments. Jfgslo (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jfgslo, the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga exists as the place to let interested editors know about anime and manga deletion discussions. You should list new deletion discussions there. Calathan (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for poiting that out. I'll add it now. Jfgslo (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon (manga)

Pokémon (manga) is in dire need of attention. I might be willing to fix it up next month. Is there a template that you use to list manga like List of Pokémon video games? Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Graphic novel list}}. It's a multi-part template so check it out.陣内_Jinnai 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How exactly would that work for listing multiple manga? That template appears to be for listing multiple volumes in one manga. Could you throw together an example of one? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you want something like {{VGtitle}}, but for manga? I don't think we have anything like that, but I suppose we could create one (if someone was willing)?--十八 04:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it would not only be useful for Pokemon, but Mario and Zelda as well. I don't see why this hasn't been made/requested sooner. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think something like this would work? User:Bws2cool/sandbox. Or would a manga version of {{VGtitle}} be better? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We actually do have something similar to this request, {{Serialization list}}; it could probably be adapted for your needs. —Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.86.54 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have been wondering if http://www.ex.org/ was a reliable source. I've seen it being used only in one article excessively, and haven't been able to tell if it was or not.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the FAQ "EX is put together by an all-volunteer staff" which casts some doubt toward their credentials. To their favor, they appear to have been around a while. I don't see anything regarding an editorial policy and who writes for them, so I'd lean towards no, unless they have a few well known writers there. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was originally an online magazine which started in 1996, and continued until around 2002 in website form. You can see the editorial staff in the archived mag issues. Charles McCarter (publisher/editor in chief) is now Chief Producer at Bandai Entertainment, and Keith Rhee (co-publisher) was web-designer at Bandai and is apparently well-known in the Gundam fandom. Among the writers, Eri Izawa presented a paper about Romanticism in anime at the University of Victoria, which was published in 2000, Chad Kime was Marketing Manager at Geneon until recently, Mark Simmons works on Gundam translations at Bandai. Here's what ANN said about Ex.org: "Starting with volume 1, issue 1 in 1996, EX which was founded by Charles McCarter and Keith Rhee, became one of the most respected online sources of Anime news, articles and reviews during its initial four year run." [1]. I guess it's quite reliable ^^ Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Duh... I should've checked our RS list. Thanks for the info! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot how to look into that place. But thanks anyways.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hadouken! - Mecha Love

I noticed that this song was added to the Anime and Manga Project. Is a music video that consists of clips from Appleseed enough to warrant inclusion? Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First I question the notability of the song. The article doesn't show any coverage by third party sources or that it ever ranked on any national chart. And the band doesn't confer any notability to the song. Second, it doesn't actually fit within WP:ANIME#What topics we cover. The only aspect that could cover would be "Major aspects of fandom", but this doesn't appear to fall within that. —Farix (t | c) 00:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion articles

With the recent discussion about Dragon Ball Z Kai, and my recent nomination of Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline for deletion I couldn't help but wonder if Evangelion had other unnecessary articles per the guidelines. And I think there are and a lot.

For starters, is there a particular reason why Neon Genesis Evangelion does not have the anime and manga information and instead that information is split in Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga). Even the Japanese Wikipedia has a single article for the original series, where the manga and the anime are covered. In my opinion, there is no need to have three different articles, only Neon Genesis Evangelion, where the manga and the anime can be covered as it is done with Dragon Ball, One Piece, Sailor Moon and all other anime and manga articles overseen by this project.

I agree that the list of manga chapters and episodes as well as spin-offs of the series can be in their own articles but, why is there a need for a List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media and a Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion?

Also, why is there a Rebuild of Evangelion article and also an article for each of the movies when the movies could covered in Rebuild of Evangelion or vice versa. And regarding the movies, Evangelion: Death and Rebirth is an edited version of the TV series and Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone is mostly a remake with the same content, therefore both could be covered in the main article without the need of having their own article, just like Dragon Ball Z Kai or Final Fantasy IV and its remakes.

And the articles that I have a real big problem with are Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary, Evangelion (mecha) and List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion as well as some character articles that can be perfectly covered in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters since only a handful of them are notable to have their own article per WP:N. I think all of these articles should be deleted because none of them are notable on their own.

And then there is the problem that most of the serious references used in most of these articles are about the franchise not about the minor content branches that are covered by the articles. The other references used in them are as bad as the references used in Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline.

I'm truly surprised that Evangelion has these many non-notable articles and unnecessary content forks when other notable anime and manga series are strictly watched to be kept in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, like Naruto, One Piece, Sailor Moon or Dragon Ball. I truly would like to discuss the need of having these many Evangelion articles because, quite honestly, I think that most of them fail at WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:CFORK, WP:IN-U and all other guidelines I cited with the timeline. So, please, share your thought to know what course of action to take with these articles. Jfgslo (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the manga, but as for the anime, it has too much information and although it could be trimmed down. Unfortunately, they said the manga should be merged because they stated it was notable. For Evangelion: Death and Rebirth, true it may not be notable at the moment, but we could attempt to look for more reviews and see what we can find, it defintely seems to split from the original and has various versions of it. Rebuild of Evangelion is a separate movie series but appears to be a remake, i'm not so sure about that one but Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone is defintely notable, despite having similar storyline to the first one, it did end differently and had various changes from the original. Evangelion (mecha) needs more sources and verification and so doesList of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. The characters i believe aren't notable are Yui Ikari, Ryoji Kaji, Toji Suzuhara and Ritsuko Akagi. Glossary is also the most horrid article out of all of them. I've attemped to summarize the information as best i could.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I also like to point out that NONE of the video games are notable.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the manga, anime and the franchise article, note that the franchise article can easily be covered in the anime article and the content of the manga article can easily be integrated into the anime article. The tax problems section should go in Gainax, not in Evangelion. The legacy section in the franchise article is redundant because it's about the anime. None of these articles is a good article, but Sailor Moon is and it handles both the manga and anime without the need of creating a franchise article, and Sailor Moon has more notable media than Evangelion has. Neither any other of the arguably more notable anime/manga such as Dragon Ball, One Piece, Naruto, Astro Boy or Cowboy Bebop needs to have three different articles. The only exception I could think of is Akira (manga) and Akira (film) but that is not a TV anime and the film was well known in English speaking countries way before the manga. Why does Evangelion deserve such a special treatment when other more notable anime/manga works do not? Even the only two FA-Class anime and manga articles that handle both manga and anime, School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew, do not have a separated structure. The way these three Evangelion articles are handled seems to me to be going against WP:CFORK because each one tries to highlight positive viewpoints of the anime, the manga and the franchise when all of those could be handled in a single article like the featured and good articles of this project. Honestly, there is no real reason for the manga to have its own article when it can easily be put with the anime and the franchise article seems pointless to me. I don't think there is a real need for Evangelion to have special treatment. Evangelion is a popular and notable anime, yes, but so are others, many far more popular and notable than Evangelion, and they don't need three articles for something that can be perfectly covered in one. If Evangelion does so, then, why forbid it for Dragon Ball or One Piece or any other series that has several notable reviews for both the anime and manga even in academic sources? I'm sure that there are more than enough notable reviews of the manga and anime of those series to create individual articles about them. The Evangelion manga has the same story as the anime and any difference can be covered in a specific section, not a particular article. The reception of the manga and the anime can be covered in a single section, like School Rumble does. The Evangelion anime article can be trimmed down by improving all the inspiration section and using better references instead of quoting almost every single one of them and removing non-independent sources. The manga and anime of Sailor Moon are quite different and they would have a stronger argument for having different articles than Evangelion, yet the Sailor Moon article does a great job at summarizing. Same with School Rumble.

I agree that the movies could have their own article, like with Akira (film) or the Dragon Ball films. But Rebuild of Evangelion is still irrelevant.

As for the others, I don't think that there will be many sources about Evangelion (mecha) and List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion and both articles seem to me more like fansite material. The non-notable characters should be merged but I suspect people closely working in those articles will immediately shut down any attempt to do so as they tried to change the attention of the timeline into a merge debate. The Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion is unnecessary since the music is already covered in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media but that is just my personal opinion. Quite frankly, I don't see any redeeming point in Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary nor any need to keep it. It's as bad as the timeline.

About the games, I can't say much since that's more in the scope of WP:VG. But notice that School Rumble can handle three minor video games in a single article, not in individual articles. Jfgslo (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes i most certainly agree on the manga and anime merging considering they both have almost the exact same storyline, (but with End of Evangelion alternate ending isntead of the original) For now, the one that needs most trimming is the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). I also have been very annoyed about the excessive usage of quotes for every reference. I also have stated about the list of religious reference where i have been in aheated argument because certain members at the time didn't agree that they are trivial and undue wieght. Major trimming nad section mergin i sould suggest for it, and some information can be split off into other articles like the air subsection. For now i think we should worry about trimming the anime article so we can merge the franchise and manga articles together.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jfgslo, I agree with your proposition, however, we have lots of reviews and academic material about Eva, so we also have to avoid overloading the main article, maybe it won't be possible to merge everything. Concerning the manga, it was initally kept because it fits the notability guideline, however having a manga and its anime counterpart in the same article is a very good way of handling things, and if it's already a standard for other anime franchises, then there's no reason to keep the Eva manga article separate. As the manga plot has mostly minor differences with the anime, I don't think it will take up much space.
The question is a bit more tricky for derivative works, however. Evangelion: Death and Rebirth, despite being mostly a recap, offers 30 minutes of new footage, and even if today, it is regarded more as a "preview" of The End of Evangelion than anything else, I think it received considerable coverage at the time for being the first Eva movie, particulary anticipated by the audience (including critics), and as such, my opinion is that it deserves its own article (whatever we may think of its content) because we probably won't have trouble finding several reliable reviews.
Rebuild of Evangelion could easily be condensed and merged into the main article, but I will absolutely oppose the merging of any of the individual movies. It is not even a matter of plot, had Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone been a 1:1 remake I would have said the same. Rebuild is a huge phenomenon reaching far beyond Japan or the Eva fandom, and even if You are (not) Alone is mostly a remake with only slight differences plot-wise, it received tremendous coverage, was screened during various prestigious festivals, won several animation awards and was even considered for a nomination at the 2009 Academy Awards (yes, I've just discovered that in the article), not mentionning of course the dozens and dozens of international reviews (even in non-anime media)...Notability is rock-solid here.
However, I perfectly agree with you about the glossary (but I already gave my opinion on the AfD page), also about merging some characters. I still don't know what to think about Evangelion (mecha) and List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion, I'd like to wait for more comments.
As for List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media and Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion, what would you propose ? Merging Music into Media, or removing the music part in Media ? I think there is enough notable content in Music, and that it is possible to find more reviews, thus it will complicate the merging into the list of media, given the article is already quite long. But, we'll see.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to overload the article. Just take a look at how School Rumble summarizes the reception without the need of having full quotes in the article or for every single one of the references, and the franchise and manga articles can be trimmed down. In Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, nothing in the legacy section is referenced and everything there refers to the anime, which means that everything there can be merged with the reception section of the anime. The "After the series" section can be handled as a "Media" or "Sequels" section about the anime, which is essentially what it is right now. I already mentioned this, the "Tax problems" section is about Gainax, which is the company that was audited, not Evangelion. "Rebuild of Evangelion series" should also be part of a "Media" or "Sequels" section. Same with "Live-action film" (that section needs some improvement because it has a lot of speculation and it's already handled in the media article.) And the "Development" section mostly repeats what is already in the anime article which could easily be merged in a single "Production" section.

About the movies, it is common practice to handle re-edits, even if they have new material, in the original article, like Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope or Blade Runner, which have critical commentary about their re-releases and that is simply handled in a re-releases section. But there is no specific guideline about this, so I don't have a problem with the movies having their own article. My point is that some of them can also be handled in a single article or inside the original series since they are just the original story with some changes. The exception to this is Rebuild of Evangelion, which I don't see why it has it's own article with since that is just the name a new series of remakes, not really an original product that has coverage by itself and is already covered in the media article.

And yes, if Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion is notable enough to have its own article, there is no reason to divide the information between its article and List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. This is a particular problem that I see in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media, it repeats information already present in the other articles instead of summarizing.

With Evangelion (mecha) and List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion, I think they are not notable enough to have their own article and that there is no need to have two articles about material that doesn't have real world notability. All the material there should be trimmed down, removing all in-universe style of writing, and integrated in one of the existing articles or, alternatively, in a single article. For example, the angels can be be briefly mentioned in the episode list and the Evangelions in the characters list with each of their pilots. Both even have their own section at List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters. This type of material seems to elicit an argumentum ad populum type of response: other articles/projects have these in-universe, unreferenced, non notable, fansite-style pieces of information about notable fictional series, therefore it's okay to have it. I don't doubt that they are relevant for fans of the series, but I have a hard time believing that this type of articles have enough relevance that merits to have two articles with no independent sources and unproven real world notability. But this is why I asked here first. I may be too harsh in my judgment of them and I always appreciate reading different opinions that offer a different point of view.

Anyway, I believe Bread Ninja is right, the one article that needs to be improved a lot first is Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). Once it's trimmed down of all the unnecessary material that it has, then the manga and the franchise article can be integrated in a single article. And after checking some of the character articles, I think they should be deleted since they are already covered at length in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters and are not notable on their own. Jfgslo (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The triple set of articles on the franchise, anime, and manga are there because that is the organization that makes most sense. The manga is notable in its own right (or did you miss my cites for it selling millions of copies?), started before the anime, and freely diverges. Eva is no more a single anime than Gundam is, so it would be absurd to have a single article covering the TV series and the entire franchise. Hence, 3 separate articles. (How the Japanese wikipedia chooses to organize itself is entirely its own business; I've read some of ja through Google Translate and it seems to me that they have done the same thing de has - shot itself in the foot through stupid rules like 'no fair use'.)

2. I don't know why we have a List of Music article, and not articles on each album. It's not as if it would be hard to find 2 reviews for each in the Japanese media (to say nothing of the English releases). But Bread Ninja wanted it that way, and I didn't particularly care. The list of media exists because lists are easier to navigate than categories, and allow inclusion of material that cannot support an entire article on its own against deletionists like you. That's... - that's what pretty much every single list is for! Why do I need to say this? Even your own favorite examples like Sailor Moon do this (eg. List of minor Sailor Moon characters).

3. The Rebuild quartet has its own article because without it, there is no overview of all 4 films, just chunks scattered around the 4 film articles. 1.0 can't be merged into the TV article any more than the 2.0 article could be - it's a separate universe. D&R is not just a edit of the TV series, a comment which reveals that you haven't been reading these articles very closely at all. And what's with your supposed examples? FFIV supports the status quo, not your endless deletions - or did you miss the part where the FFIV article links out to 3 separate articles about remakes?

1. And Evangelion is different from One Piece, Dragon Ball, Astroboy or any other manga/anime because...? The relationship between the manga and the anime in Evangelion is no different that any other manga and anime from Japan. There is a reason why this project has an animanga infobox. Any of the series series that I mentioned has sold far more in their manga incarnation than Evangelion ever did and popularity is not the same as notability, otherwise Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia. Also, each of the series I mentioned have several media, yet they have no need to have an specific franchise article. More importantly, nothing in the franchise article is independent from the original series. I'm glad that you brought up Gundam. That's a perfect example. Mobile Suit Gundam handles the original TV series, manga and films in a single article. Also, Evangelion has a single TV series while Gundam series has 14 TV series, and Evangelion consists, mainly, of the same basic story and characters with some variations instead of new stories and characters like all the Gundam series, so it is not the same type of comparison for franchises. And, stupid rules? Are you sure you know what Wikipedia is not? Are you aware that the English Wikipedia has similar rules to the ones in the Japanese one, even more strict in some points?

2. If you truly believe that the articles about that the individual singles and albums have enough significant independent coverage related to the music industry or are recognized by its music and not by its association to the series (that is, coverage in sources that aren't related to anime and manga, that the coverage in the sources does not have short-term interest and that they are not questionable sources) then create the articles. Bear in mind that you will have to show notability and that notability requires verifiable evidence, otherwise they won't stand alone. Bread Ninja only followed the related guideline. That still leaves the fact that List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media has several unnecessary pieces of information about the music which should be handled by the music article in the first place. I never criticized the use of lists, only the unnecessary coverage to information already existing in other articles, for example, the way in which the theme songs are presented, despite that they are already mentioned in the music article. The lists have a purpose, I never denied that. But, using your example, List of minor Sailor Moon characters is in accordance with MOS:AM#Characters, contrary to Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary and Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline which go against WP:IN-U and several other guidelines. Incidentally note that, per the same guidelines the same guidelines (WP:IN-U and MOS:AM) character articles should not be written in a biographical and in-universe style, like several almost all Evangelion characters are right now.

3. You just mentioned the perfect example with the Gundam series and how they handle the movies. But, I repeat, I have no big problem with the movie articles with the exception of Rebuild of Evangelion. And it's nice that you focused on my example of Final Fantasy IV but forgot to mention Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope or Blade Runner that I also cited and that are also films with ample coverage of their re-editions. And I have read the Evangelion: Death and Rebirth article. That still doesn't change the fact that the setting and characters are mostly the same. Not only that, I did watch it, as well as the series, in the 1990s and I have always had the same opinion of it.

If you think that the nominations for deletion I made are unjustified, show that the concerns I pointed out are unfounded and the articles will not be deleted. But don't try to distract the attention of the issues in the articles like with the merge discussion that you proposed and then ignored with Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline or with the concerns that DragonGuyver raised with Neon Genesis Evangelion and that you simply dismissed saying that he had not made a case without saying why.

My only interest with Evangelion is to help to make Evangelion a featured article instead of a C-class article. If a manga/anime series has the resources to be a FA-class article, it's Evangelion, since it doesn't have the problem of other notable series, which is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources in English. But despite being an article created since 2001 and having been a good article in the past, it now has barely passed from a start-class article, while School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew, which have much less coverage and faced a more difficult research process, have already achieved that status. Evangelion articles appear to have become collections of all possible details instead of summaries of accepted knowledge regarding the series. In other words, more fansite material and less encyclopedic. And it pains me to see such a notable series in this poor state. Jfgslo (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion exist because none of the individual OST didn't meet the general notability guideline, and usually none of the OSTs relating to anime rarely are notable. Thats why it was merged, and just because i wanted it, i would merge them so hastily. There was a special page already in the works. Necrojesta was the oen who made the article himself. ANd honestly, not saying this to be uncivil, but you are acting like a hypocrit. You question why all OSt are merged, yet you know why list articles themselves are created. You're basically asking why NGE OST are merged.

3. I'm not so sure about the Rebuild of Evangelion article too...But we'll see what can be done after the anime article and the franchise article merge. FFIV remake has more sources and coverage than rebuild of evangelione on. The article only has one remake, and one sequel and one compilation.

What i really want to focus on, is how to trim down the anime article. here are my suggestions. 1)The information on Airing subsection in Origin and production section could easily be moved to the List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes article and other considering it also has information not related to the airing of the anime. Also removal of Honnêamise sequel section and just have a brief description so that would just leave Evangelion pre-release as a sub-section there. 2)Religion section could be trimmed. I've been really wanting to remove the religious reference considering they are used as a guide (similar to glossary article). 3) Remove the quotesBread Ninja (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they are logical changes and I agree with them. I would also recommend trimming down the "Psychoanalysis", particularly the third paragraph. Jfgslo (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also FFIV is a bad example for status quo. Eventually I'd expect the Anthology one to be spilt and merged into FFIV and Final Fantasy V. Possibily Chronicles too. The Square-Enix wikiproject has been slowly merging those kind of ports.陣内_Jinnai 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to summarising or trimming the Evangelion pages, I note that the editing policy recommends many other ways of fixing the problem rather than deleting content. --Malkinann (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I only agreed to the ones already AfD because they were plot only and written like a fan-site. I'm still skeptical on the angels and the Evas considering they were iconic to the series to have some coverage (i don't know whether there is any online coverage from reliable sources). But there's a difference than "deleting" content and summarizing it. The quotes can definitely be removed without damage to the article. And certain content is more of WP:GUIDE, and WP:PLOT despite being from reliable source (Napier). Though i would assume he is more of a first-party source. Not everything has to be kept in order to understand the point.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know whether there is any coverage from reliable sources (note that this is distinctly different from online coverage from reliable sources, then I believe the editing policy recommends that you need to make a good faith effort to locate such sources before summarising or deleting content. Quotes can be very important for verification of paraphrased material, particularly when they come from offline sources, and they "can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves." BTW, Susan J. Napier, as an academic who analyses Neon Genesis Evangelion, is a secondary source, not a primary source. --Malkinann (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you were listening, i did do a good-faith effort on those articles. I'm sure there is some coverage on the evangelions and on the angels, but I'm not suggesting deletion on those ones just yet(though summarizing them would be good considering they have mostly plot-related information). As for the quotes, i say they do have very important information but i don't believe the information is vital to being in quote format and seems like intricate detail which may hurt it's chances to rank higher than what it is. for NGE there's no "controversial" quotes that need to stay either. Unless you give some examples.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The editing policy suggests that a good faith effort to find sources should be made before deleting content (or summarising). I'm not sure you understand what WP:QUOTE is getting at - that quotes from reliable sources can express ideas less controversially than we can by paraphrasing them, not that the quotes themselves are controversial. --Malkinann (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only information i summarized in the past, was mainly small situations that don't outweigh the importance. Basically trivial facts that had no potential to being sourced. As for the quotes, they disrupt the flow of the article, they're no good, and there's hardly any "ideas" to quote. We just summarize it and get to what he's trying to say. But if there was something that wasn't properly explained that we ourselves couldn't interpret correctly, than yes, a quote would be good. but most of this is straight to the point.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you've made some good edits to Evangelion articles. Which quotes do you find inappropriate? --Malkinann (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All of them. It seems like none of them are controversial enough to stay in block quotes. I've stated the easiest ones for gwern to possibly accept to remove as block quotes. But i personally feel all of them can be removed as quotes and just be explained or partially quote thm such as for reception on the End of Evangelino but without bloc k quoting template.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the "sick" quote is a perfect example of when a quote can explain things better than we can by paraphrasing. --Malkinann (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

1)that quote doesn't justify any the rest. 2) I personally don't see any importance in that quote in general, and not exactly where it came from exactly. since i couldn't check any links in the reference. But still, try to be more specific. such as other quotes you think could work. don't defend them in general, defend certain ones or all of them or none of them if you see anything that can be. the main discussion is in the NGE franchise talk pageBread Ninja (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bread Ninja - the quotes are in the article. The onus is on you to explain why they should be removed or summarised. Where is the main discussion? --Malkinann (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

i already gave my explanation, and Jfsglo agreed on the quotes. the way the quotes are used, are merely to inform us what certain people related to NGE have said. so why have a whole block quote just to get the main idea across? It's written like a fansite, not like an encyclopedia. The sooner we remove the quotes, the better the article will appear, and a step closer to GA. Too many quotes, too many details, that was the main problem with NGE articles, alot of trivia and a lot in-universe. The quotes themselves can be used as stronger references instead. And i already told you, the discussion is in the main NGE franchise discussion page. but i guess i have to give you a link talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Lolicon good article reassessment

I believe that the Lolicon article no longer meets the good article criteria and intend to take it to a group reassessment in the near future. Initially assessed for GA in December 2007, there are {{fact}} tags and a potentially unreliable source used in the article. A large part of the GA version was split, and the lead does not appear to have caught up with this. The article does not mention the recent "nonexistent youths" bill. However, on the plus side, I believe the article is adequately illustrated. Thanks for any help on this. --Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll support a reassessment. At this point, I think the article is too far gone to quickly fix up. It will take time, especially to collect all information on all the new developments. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What tags are you talking about? After seeing the article I only see one fact tag placed. If an article mentions something new, okay put it in the article, this article just needs some cleanup is all really. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I must have conflated the dead link tag with the fact tag in my mind. :P It just needs a bit of cleanup and updating, but at the moment I'm not sure it would survive a GAR, so I thought I'd bring it to the project first. --Malkinann (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There are sources out there that deal with lolicon, it looks like to me the outside of Japan section should be expanded and the nonexistent youth bill be added. I will try and work on the article as much as I can however my thanksgiving break ended today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article could really use a history section.陣内_Jinnai 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot maintaining and centralized visable listing articles needing

So I was thinking that we could possibly put up a bot maintained list at the top the page, possibly attached to the banner, with what articles are currently needing eyes on them. I was thinking of modeling it after Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do, but modified to suit our needs. (FE: FAC & FLC could be combined since we have so few FACs). Since the current listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Requests for external assement isn't being maintained I thought this might be a good time to bring this up.陣内_Jinnai 04:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sound like a very interesting and useful proposition. What would be required to create it? Jfgslo (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the WP:VG list is manually maintained—there's no bot involved (or available). This doesn't mean that we can't set something like that up, of course, but we'll need to devote some effort to keeping it up-to-date.

As far as the work to create it, I would suggest using a shell-based template approach (see, for example, {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}). This separates the details of the template from the actual list, making it easier for non-code-savyy editors to update; it also allows some neat tricks to display the lists in different formats (see, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks and {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}, both of which are automatically generated from the base announcement list). We do have an open task page, so I think it would be a good idea to have the list replicate there as well.

On a related note, there was a bot that used to generate lists of new FACs and so forth for WikiProjects; but it's been down for close to a year now, and there seems to be no sign of it returning. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Anymore opinions? What about incorperating it into our existing banner? For the momement it doesn't need to be bot maintained, that can come later, but it probably should be done.陣内_Jinnai 02:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which banner do you mean? It's not difficult to integrate something into various banners, particularly if we use meta-templates; but, from an attention-getting perspective, a separate display "block" is probably more useful than something tucked away in another template.

I'd suggest creating a new template for this, and putting it at the top of the page together with the fiction notices; we can put together a two-column layout, with the two "announcement" templates in one column, and the archive and navigation boxes in the second. (We'd need to move the WPJ banner down, but that should probably be done regardless; there's no need to have it so prominently displayed.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Titles by Green Bunny

Currently there is an article List of titles by Green Bunny that has 2 of it's 8 titles tagged with notability issues. Now should I AfD the 8 titles (All tagged with notability issues since October 2008)? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the article introduction reads like an article about Green Bunny, it might be better to merge those titles into that article, then move the article to Green Bunny (you'll need an admin to make that move since there's a redirect in place). Then all the info about Green Bunny will be in one place. No sense wasting time at AfD if you don't have to. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about remaking the article Green Bunny, the problem there is notability and sources, there are like only 2 notable titles from Green Bunny does that warrent it's own article? Green bunny was AfD'd here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Bunny (2nd nomination) recently with consenses to merge it into List of Hentai companies but where do the titles go? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if the sub articles are unreferenced, and the company article is being merged, then AfD might be appropriate. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

just an example

Currently i have some free time and i was thinking if you could need some illustrations. If you have any needs, let me know and i will see what i can do for you. Greetings --Niabot (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We currently have none for the genre and demographic articles: shōjo manga, shōnen manga, seinen manga, josei manga, yuri (genre), yaoi, etc. Not sure if such illustrations are needed, wanted, or even feasible, but if we've got one on Lolicon, I don't see why we shouldn't have it on some of the more mainstream articles.--十八 02:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that illustrations would be a good idea we do have one on lolicon so why not the rest as examples of the artstyle/characteristics? You just need to reference the diffrent styles and characteristics of the art is all. On a side note I do like your picture too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the demographic genres are probably going to be difficult to create a good illustration for; I don't know if a single image can really serve to illustrate something like shōjo or shōnen (beyond simply illustrating a particular mangaka's style). The topical genres, on the other hand, seem like easy candidates for creating images; it would probably be reasonable to come up with a "generic" image for something like magical girl or mecha anime. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I need a DVD image of Android Kikaider: The Animation along with an image of most of the cast from Android Kikaider: The Animation and Kikaider 01: The Animation (in the same article).Bread Ninja (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Niabot was offering to draw images for us, not to find existing ones. ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

then i think that defeats the purpose in general. I dont think we would need any illustrations in this particular wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some people make their own images because it doesn't fall under the fair use rules. This is a wonderful opportunity. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Give me an example though. like what type of images, can we request and for what purpose?Bread Ninja (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess to illustrate the style of a certain kind of manga, as they said above, without singling out a certain manga. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we cant use the drawings right away, the commons or wikia are great places to place them for any future reference. I do see some use for them here on wiki per krill. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Niabot's pictures are of very high quality, i.e. File:Anime Girl.png, and I, too, see use for Niabot's images in the "genres" articles (as mentioed by Juhachi). A better representative picture for Template:Anime and manga would also be nice, though some discussion might be needed on that. G.A.S^talk 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to illustrate a given style. manga has always had a large variety of it. it would be easier to do it by finding a manga out there insteadBread Ninja (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are academic studies out there about certain styles of artwork chiefly or only used in shōnen or shōjo manga, such as the use of flower imagery in the latter. So the image could refer back to one of these studies.--十八 22:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that these would be non-fair-use images, meaning we could use more than one per article - Niabot could, therefore, draw multiple images for each article, with different representative styles, instead of worrying about how to find the most representative style for a single image. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you would have to source the demographic genres to extent in order to verify this and add an image.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem. I do have this Online Bibliography of Anime and Manga Research which could be of some help (list of publications).--十八 08:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated then it looks.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Niabot, I have a suggestion, if you feel comfortable/confident with drawing males - please draw two shirtless (or one shirtless, one not) bishonen/biseinen artfully posing next to each other - something ambiguous enough so that it could be used for the articles bishonen (instead of that kid with the oranges - too young, to my eyes!) and yaoi. (I specify shirtless because I feel it's fairly popular). Further reference material can be found in Category:Yaoi, if you decide to take this on - if your strength is drawing females/moe style, it's okay if you don't. --Malkinann (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that my strength is to draw females. But i can give it a try and see what will be coming out of it. I already asked someone in the past to make such a picture, but it was a long time ago and i really don't think he is still on it. Currently i started an other picture already (just happen, as it overcome me), but i will come back to this issue for sure, since i also got this request inside the German version. So, lets see what I'm able to do. PS: I will insist on colors :-) --Niabot (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it, even though it's not your forte. :) The tsundere article could do with a picture, too, and it's closer to your style. --Malkinann (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out too Magical girl could use an image as well, the current one is of sailor moon but another image cant hurt that shows a sterotypical magical girl. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a good list so far:

• yuri (genre)
• yaoi
• bishonen
• Magical girl
• mecha

Others that could use it:

• Bishōjo game - replace Copyrighted images (possibly a few needed here) for non-visual novel interfaces.
• Catgirl - replace Copyrighted image
• Eyecatch
• Fan service - although the article is too narrowly focused atm to warrant it as it focuses on only 1 type of fan service.
• Henshin
• Shotacon
• Super deformed - replace Copyrighted image
• Super robot
• Yonkoma - we could do something better than 4 blank boxes.
• Superflat - replace Copyrighted image

陣内_Jinnai 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We could use an image about Bakunyū. Spongie555 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Anime Tourist reliable ?

Is Anime Tourist a reliable source ? It doesn't seem to be working right now but through the Internet Archive we can see there are various interviews that could be useful in articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to their about page, they don't meet the requirements for a self-published source. It would be hard to justify the claim that only the interviews are reliable, but the rest of the website isn't. —Farix (t | c) 12:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on that last part. If they did such interviews it would be considered reliable for those, but only if they themselves conducted those interviews.陣内_Jinnai 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I found another interview conducted by Glenn Schmall (one of the founders of Anime Tourist) published here: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021209/mccarthy.shtml and this websites appears to be a notable publication [2], which would reinforce the notability of Schmall's interviews during conventions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing film title

Today I redirected Tsubasa the Movie: The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom to its own article after working on its out-of-universe info. However, I came with the issue of what title should be used considering the English DVD cover. Moreover if the part of "Reservoir Chronicle" is used, should it have two ":"? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That specific release has always been worded as "Clamp Double Feature" from what I've seen.陣内_Jinnai 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but such release contains two different titled movies.Tintor2 (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that the sources you use can be used to legitimatly split this movie from the xxxholic release. Those reviews review the release as a whole, not the individual title.陣内_Jinnai 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But they still separate both films in the critic, and only critic the whole in the conclusion. Moreover, the Tsubasa film was also released in DVD box with the TV series split from the xxxHolic film. It almost sounds like there can't be character lists, because the reviews' main focus is the series, and not the characters, or the same with a video game that was only released in North America within a compilation of titles.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Character lists as they fall under WP:SALAT really not WP:GNG. Indivisual characters really do require a kind of indivisual scrutiny of the character that usually most reviews cannot maintain. The same level of detail would need to be used here otherwise it would fail as being the same as trying to evaluative an individual episode using sources that evaluate an entire season. It may still be possible to do here, but that article raises red flags.

As for the title, I have not seen anyone use the current one. I've just seen most sources refer to it as "The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom".陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And the same level of detail is used. All the reviews are divided in the two films, including their own separate extras. I would add the one from dvd or blu-ray boxes, but that would be repeating similar opinions from other reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As said though, the Tsubasa reference isn't really used by most RSes and therefore would not be the common name. In addition, the image in the infobox needs to be changed because it does not reflect what the article is about - the movie and not the dual release. It can be cropped or better yet see if there is a Japanese release image.陣内_Jinnai 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it actually used in reliable sources like Anime News Network, Production I.G., and reviewers when talking about the two films. Clamp Double Feature is actually the name of the compilation that Funimation released, not an official Japanese film. I'll go and replace the image from the DVD with the Japanese one.Tintor2 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As there is only 1 movie and only 1 title with "The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom" it should be moved to that per WP:TITLE. A lot more RSes use just that than the name on the current page.陣内_Jinnai 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Today I watched the English dub of the film, and its official title used is "Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle The Movie The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom".Tintor2 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that. I am saying it is not the most common name in reliable sources.陣内_Jinnai 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some analyisis. This excludes press releases, official statements and the like:

Tsubasa the Movie: The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom [3][4][5]

The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom [6][7][8]

Tsubasa: The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom [9][10][11]

Since all seem to be about as equal, and the official title isn't even among them, then other aspects of WP:TITLE come into play including consiseness.[ Since there is no other work with the same title, there is no need to mention Tsubasa reference imo, but even if there were, there is no reason for the "the movie". That is the most verbose of the three and defiantly goes against TITLE.陣内_Jinnai 00:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. I guess moving it to that title would be okay.Tintor2 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Quest anime and manga

Well even though the series is more fitting for WP:VG, i think for this its best to ask here

• Anyone have copies of Japanese Weekly Shonen Jump c. 1990? I'm trying to cite which Shonen Jump the series comes from. I have a site to verify it was published in Shonen Jump, just not which one.
• Anyone know whether these DQ titles are manga or light novels? I'm not clear with the kanji what they are manga or light novels with pictures. I ask because other sources say that another title Dragon Quest: Dai no Daibōken is listed as the first manga by a RS, but almost every other site (all unreliable) lists this series as a manga series and it was released at the same time.

The other stuff I think I can figure out or find sources for.陣内_Jinnai 05:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, all of the ones with 小説 by the title are light novels. Al those with CDシアター are CD books; ゲームブック are game books of one sort or another (usually similar to a recording of a gaming session; the rest are other kinds of books. None in the list are manga. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

End of year lists

• GNR 2010
• Publisher Weekly 2010
• American Library Association:2010 long list 2010 Short list
• About.com: 2010 Best new manga Best continuing manga
• AICN 10 years, 10 anime: part 1 part 2

--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I skimmed through them and found reception that would definitely help articles I've been wanting to improve. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Spice and Wolf episodes/archive1

Ello, folks. I'd just like to drop a heads-up that List of Spice and Wolf episodes is up at FLC and is in need of some love. Standing offer from me: review that FLC (none of that blind supporting please) and receive a review from me on anything of your choosing in return, be it a FAC, GAN, PR, or other FLC. That's right, I'm offering a comprehensive review of anything of your choosing, regardless of size or time required. I'll possibly consider copyediting articles as well. Thanks, and have a wonderful day. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Film box office info in Japan

This might be useful: Box Office Mojo: Japan. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1)/archive1

Sending this for featured list removal. If this succeeds, I'm doing the same for the other seasons. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on merge

I'm not sure how much traffic this particular merge discussion would regularly receive, so I've decided to ask here. Would anyone mind adding their opinion at the discussion to merge Ginga Legend Weed and Ginga Densetsu Weed: Orion at Talk:Ginga Legend Weed#GDWO Merge? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation info needed

I was working in List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle characters to try to add more conception info, but I couldn't find too much. A user (who I don't who is) added conception info from the character guidebook from Tsubasa in Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle and I wondered if anybody has the english translation of the book to see if there is some creation information about the characters. Apparently there is, but in my country it is not sold and I could only found Japanese scans. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. The best you could do is get a copy yourself and find a way to translate it. I've had to do that for another series using a OCR software capable of recognizing Japanese which is not cheap nor extremely reliable (I'd say ~60).陣内_Jinnai 05:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I know. But somebody from the project actually added info from the book to the article some time ago, and I don't know who it is.Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Image caption and description

Currently the voting on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ecchi finished. But there are some problems. First is, that the image "should not be displayed on the main page, since it is offending". The other problem seams to be the article ecchi itself. I expanded it a little, but I'm no native English speaker and someone should look over my wording and correct it, if needed. Also as stated in the voting, the image caption inside the article could need a better, more direct wording. Same goes for the image description page. I hope you are able to help me on this issues. --Niabot (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a few weeks, possibly after the holidays and re-nom. It wasn't an outright failure due to its content or nature, but because of external situation.陣内_Jinnai 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the same. Anyway someone should have a look at the article. My English isn't very well and it might a bit ugly for native English readers. --Niabot (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Anime and Manga

I've added an anniversary section ( "On this day..." ) to the portal. Almost all of the dates have at least one entry on them, and I will finish up the rest as I can. You are welcome to help finish up the pages. I have been going through the "Anime of xxxx" categories year by year and adding those which have specific dates to the anniversary pages. I have completed everything from the 1910s through 1990, and I'm most of the way through 1991. If anyone wants to start at 2010 and move backward in time toward me, that would be great. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this new section? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes

Heads up, there is a heated discussion occurring here. Sarujo (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo Youth Development Ordinance

I've started an article on the Tokyo Youth Development Ordinance that's been in the news recently, but I haven't tagged it as being of interest to this project: while the recent revisions are targeted at manga and anime, the law as a whole isn't (and despite the article's stubbiness, it's intended to cover the entire law). Just thought I'd mention it in case the project does consider it in-scope. Simon Brady (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest Studio Ghibli film announced

For anyone who missed the announcement: Kokurikozaka kara. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally finished the Gundam 00 mobile weapon reorganization

The long in progressed reorganization of List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons has finally been completed. Or at least almost finished. The rest will have to be taken care of by those who have read the novels and manga side stories. But after working on that sucker on and off for two years, I'm going to call it quits. —Farix (t | c) 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job. It was so bloated the last time I saw it.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still somewhat bloated in the other media section, particularly the Mobile Suit Gundam 00V. I often wonder about sticking every "variant" on such a list, Gundam fans can be pretty crufty when it comes to details. I've also attempted to rewrite the descriptions to describe the units role in the series instead of them reading like a technical manual, but quit after finishing most of the first season. —Farix (t | c) 03:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the creation and concept sections are blank, i suggest we don't have one for each section, instead make it for all of them. Also is there absolutely no way, the GN canon can't fit in one of the other sections instead of having it's own?Bread Ninja (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in the "unsorted" section by itself because I honestly don't know were the mobile suit was featured in. The Gundam website, which I used to figure what went were, didn't have it listed in any of the series. —Farix (t | c) 10:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Outlaw Star for Peer Review

I've listed Outlaw Star for peer review after making several improvements the past few months and would like a little bit of extra commentary on how to improve it further. The production section needs expansion, possibly from interviews with the creator(s), notes in the back of each manga volume (only available in Japanese, German, and Italian), or information from the guidebook, none of which I have access to. Any extra help is appreciated.

Thanks, ~ Hibana (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated trivia on Calimero

Jotamar (talk · contribs) are repeatedly restored unrelated trivia to Calimero, which appears to be a Italian and Japanese co-production. The trivia he/she keeps adding is about other things called Calimero. —Farix (t | c) 18:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Without having looked at the edits) Potentially there could be a case to create Calimero (disambiguation) with said information. G.A.S^talk 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Horihone Saizō has been relisted at AfD for a third week do to lack of comments. Is there anyone who wishes to comment so that the discussion can close one way or the other. Xpress Train is also in a similar situation as it nears its second week. —Farix (t | c) 01:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Episodes list naming survey

A survey started at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Survey on how to name episode list as "List of" or not. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comipress as an online reliable source

Back when I was heavily editing YuYu Hakusho, I was informed that I shouldn't use the website Comipress because it was not a reliable source, but that it had not been discussed yet. I noticed its neither listed as reliable nor unreliable on the project's online resources library. Featured articles like School Rumble are using it as a source. Now that I've started sprucing up Hunter × Hunter‎, I frequently find this useful article regarding the manga's long hiatuses when searching online for references. Can we establish whether or not this website meets the criteria for ORS and designate it on the library page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibana (talk • contribs)

Well, judging from their about page, it seems to be a fan-run news site. That doesn't necessarily mean that the site can't be considered reliable, but it doesn't exactly help either. Probably the best, perhaps the only, way to establish its reliability would be to look at how other high quality sources use the website. Do sites like Anime News Network or anime magazines cite it as a source of information? Goodraise 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been looking at. As their little history implies, they've been used as a source fairly frequently by ANN; and they seem to be fairly generally cited by sites like AICN or About.com or ActiveAnime or Japanator.

I wouldn't call it a slam-dunk no-brainer case for being an RS, but I do think it's an RS by our usual standards. --Gwern (contribs) 16:44 19 December 2010 (GMT)

Articles needing urgent attention

There are currently 347 articles tagged as needing urgent attention. Many of these articles were likely mistagged or whose issues were fixed, but the tag was never removed from the project banner. Anyone wants to go though these and see which articles actually needs attention, and which could be detagged. And if they need attention, work on them to bring them up to where they no longer need the attention. —Farix (t | c) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't done by mid-january I can get back on AWB and look though. Too much hassle to go through it without and I'm not with my PC or one I can install it on.陣内_Jinnai 01:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Give obsolete XXX_other parameters their own category?

Right now, all of the checks for the obsolete XXX_other parameters are placed in Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete and incorrect infobox parameters. However, because there are still over 1,000 articles using one or more of the XXX_other parameters, it is very difficult to find and fix articles with one of the other parameter checks. Temporary, I've had to use Category:Anime and manga articles with redundant infobox parameters to sort these other checks. But since it may be a very long time, perhaps years, before we can replace all of the XXX_other parameters by moving in the information into the articles, I suggest creating a separate category to sort these errors. Category:Anime and manga articles with obsolete XXX_other parameters as a possible name? —Farix (t | c) 15:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've also created Category:Anime and manga articles with a missing image caption to catch missing image captions in the infobox. It should be fully populated with the next few hours. Please fix as many of them as you can. —Farix (t | c) 19:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Category: Anime by English Dub / Sub

First the team at WikiProject Anime and Manga should be congratulated for a great job - the articles are consistent and very informative. One suggestion is that in the list section it might be helpful to have a listing of anime that has been translated into English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.3.123 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about the title from X (manga)

The current title of the article is "X (manga)", but shouldn't we use "X/1999" as that's the English manga name and moving it to such title will help to avoid disambiguation issues. As far as I've read naming conventions it is better use a title that avoids disambiguation articles.Tintor2 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Anime News Network as a reliable source

This is just to let users of this project know that several users entirely separated from this WikiProject have decided on their own that Anime News Network is not a reliable source. To contribute to this discussion, please see WP:RSN#Anime.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Pita-Ten

User:YayMeLT is going arouind and replacing sourced copywritten images with unsourced English manga titles, images that could be in violation of copywrite, I have reverted one of his/her edits [12] but the user just replaced the image soon afterwards. Is there any imput if anything should be done here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Would revert them as we shouldn't change form Japanese cover to English language covers or visa versa. —Farix (t | c) 23:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of anime and manga

And editor has thrice tagged Glossary of anime and manga with a prod tag, once as and IP[13] and twice with a registered account with almost no edits outside of their userspace.[14][15] The editor claims that the glossary does not belong on Wikipeida, and that "Understanding the anime subculture should not be learned from Wikipedia". Discussion at Talk:Glossary of anime and manga#Deletion. —Farix (t | c) 13:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Need serious input

Ugh. I've been working on Magical DoReMi and List of Magical DoReMi characters for a long time and fighting off disruptive edits but I am at complete loss of what to do, especially regarding naming conventions. To start, Magical DoReMi has five series, but only the first one is localized in English, thus there are some major characters who never appeared in America yet. What names should I call the unlicensed series? Would Magical DoReMi and Ojamajo Doremi # cause confusion? Toei Animation has an English website that refers to the characters by their original names, and also has titles for the rest of the seasons 4Kids Entertainment hasn't dubbed yet. Should I use these English titles when referring to them, or use the original (as they have not been localized)? Should I use the 4Kids dub names and terms, or what Toei Animation's English website says? Thanks, and I hope this makes sense to you. lullabying (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: why is there a page for lolicon and shotacon, but not toddlercon?

Is there a reason? Chance Blacktown (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

*Looks at edit history of OP and notices only one edit* This looks like a troll. But to answer the question anyways, the reason has to do with sources covering the subject. —Farix (t | c) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging New Angel with Angel (manga)

I had already proposed this merge some time ago, but I finally got around moving the summaries from New Angel towards Angel (manga) in a more condensed form. I was planning on making New Angel a redirect for Angel (manga) but Dream Focus removed the merge tag and there was never a wide consensus since few editors are interested in those articles. I want to make the redirect but I'd like to see if there is a consensus in favor of this. I don't want to nominate New Angel for deletion because only a redirect is needed. I would like to read more opinions about what to do with New Angel now that the summaries of the first two episodes, the only relevant material from that article, are already in Angel (manga). Jfgslo (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Before any merge can take place, Angel (manga) needs some serious cleanup. It is in horrible shape with very little organization, overloaded with tables, and very little actual content. As for New Angel, it has enough coverage by reliable sources to stand on its own. It to needs a lot of work to incorporate the release and reception information into the article and trim down the overly detailed plot summary, but I really don't see a pressing need to merge the two. —Farix (t | c) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with English releases in List of X chapters

After making the article List of X chapters, I have come up with confused statements about the time the English volumes of the series were released. While Amazon says the first was in May 2003, it appears to be a second edition as other volumes are noted to have been released years before by Viz Media. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unstable Oricon ranking links

I noticed that Oricon's book rankings go like .../rank/obb/w/2/ for the previous week's rankings. This basically means the reference will go stale within seven days. Does anyone know if there's a stable URL for retrieving Oricon book sales information for a given week? Or should I just archive it and then cite that? Thanks. --生け花 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Anime News Network republishes the Oricon rankings for manga and DVD sells (example 1, example 2) and would actually be a better source as it is in English. They also republish anime Blu-ray rankings from SoundScan Japan as well. (example) —Farix (t | c) 22:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was better to use the real source instead of something like ANN (at least in this case where Oricon is also an RS) that merely republishes something, but I guess I was in the wrong here. Unfortunately, I need rankings on books (light novels) and not manga, which ANN doesn't seem to republish often (except in this 2008 case). --生け花 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:V, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." —Farix (t | c) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll follow this guideline in the future where applicable. --生け花 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also Webcite.陣内_Jinnai 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "archive it and then cite that". --生け花 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Anime and Manga Participation Awards

I have given out the last of the 2010 Anime and Manga Participation Awards. If I skipped over you, it was either because your contributions to anime and manga articles were buried too deep in your contribution history, or you have not declared your participation in the project by add {{User WP Anime}} or [[Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants]] to your user page. To all those I missed, I apologize and I will correct the oversight if you kindly contact me on my talk page and point to your 2010 contributions. Whether I give give the same time of award next year is depending on how stingy we are with awards in the coming year and how badly I want to wade though Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants again. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the awards Farix.Tintor2 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the award and have a happy new year =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it on my page, i like to say thanks on here too.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the award, Farix. Extremepro (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto the above. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... Too many of our usual editors went inactive or retired in 2010 unfortunately. --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks from me too. @KrebMarkt: Right. AnmaFinotera's retirement alone caused a huge drop in project activity. Let's hope next this year will bring less drama and more quality content. Goodraise 16:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably should have thanked you here (didn't see it) XD Ah, but again, thank you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations & thanks to everyone for their contributions during 2010! And happy new 2011 as well! G.A.S^talk 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition, Farix, and thanks to all the other editors who make working here so worthwhile. Simon Brady (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New template

I just created {{Japan current era date}} for use in a few places, and I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone else needs to use it. It can be used a couple different ways, so please read the documentation so you'll be aware of them. Enjoy! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the coolness factor, what exactly is the purpose of the template and what is its intended use? —Farix (t | c) 03:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont' see it as "cool", but a useful tool to show the current era in Japan with the current date. This can be very useful when dealing with source materials which may only list the era date rather than the Gregorian date. You don't have to use it, though. I was just mentioning it here in case someone did have another use for it. I've already used it for what I needed it for. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if we can input a date and have it convert, but that doesn't appear what the template is doing. Instead, it can only covert the current date, which isn't very useful at all. But perhaps I'm missing the the whole point here. *shrug* —Farix (t | c) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be a neat addition. Any ideas on how to implement it? I've looked around on the jawiki and can't seem to find a template which does that (though I did find a few which showed the old lunar calendar). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It would have to capture fields like Start date and then use those data with the formula used in Japan current era date to give a Japanese era type of date as a result. I believe it would require to use several "#if" functions to determine the Japanese era name, but I don't think it would be extremely complicated since you were able to implement it with the current date. Jfgslo (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, after I deal with the ANN Encyclopedia used as references problem, I'll think about ways to tackle this problem. But I would like to seem some ideas about how such a template will be used and why it will benefit the readers. If it depended only on its "coolness factor", then it will be subject to deletion at TfD. But if we can identify an issue that the template can address, then people will be more willing to keep it around. —Farix (t | c) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be useful in older historical and biographical articles in order to show both the traditional Japanese lunar date (the calendar for that uses 6-day week) and the Gregorian date just by entering the Gregorian date. We would have to do some intricate calculations, though, to be able to do that accurately. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it, I kludged together a template that will take a Gregorian date and return a nengō and year. Currently it only works for the most recent four nengō, and it considers all of 1868 to be Meiji 1 instead of starting on October 23 (and then there's the code... it would ultimately be much simpler and more maintainable to use a wrapper/core system), but there it is. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

something inoticed. maybe small

i can't help but notice there are quite a few manga articles out there that show the third volume cover of the manga. Such as List of Rozen Maiden chapters, The World God Only Knows, and Angel (manga). Is there a reason behind this? or it just happens to be a coincidence.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that whoever added the images did so for one or more reasons. If so, the places to look for them are the articles' histories and talk pages/talk page archives. However, it's most likely that the particular editor(s) simply didn't find images of the first volumes' covers. Goodraise 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That or the images for volume one were not free use images, personally I dont think it really matters that there are volume three images there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

just a pattern i saw. it didn't bother me until i started seeing a trend with the third volume specifically.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Anime Festival/New York Comic Con Merger

Seeing that it looks like the two have merged should this con be labled as multi genre and dropped from the list of anime conventions? I have been wondering what to do about this for a few months now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Shingo Kobayashi can you help?

The article on Japanese animator and producer Shingo Kobayashi has been tagged as an unreferenced biography of a living person since January 2009, which is the current focus month of the BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed, to find any reliable sources to support this text. I'm posting here in the hope that someone might be kind enough to take a look and help. If it stays unreferenced much longer, it may be nominated for AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any English online sources; have you considered he's just not notable?

I mean, I tried to turn up some things in my CSE, but even after filtering out a ton of stuff, I am still pulling up mostly science-related stuff. Which is a very bad sign... --Gwern (contribs) 21:45 7 January 2011 (GMT)

Thank you for looking. Non-notability was always a possibility but it is sometimes difficult to tell in an area that one's not familiar with and when at the mercy of Google Translate. AfD it is, then. I have another query about to be posted below and would be grateful for guidance on that one, too.--Plad2 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Viz Media website redesign Notice

"Important editing consequences notice".

Viz Media website has been redesigned. The consequence is that all previous links to Viz Media catalog are now sort of "Error 404" state.

Good editing everyone.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah gotta love the updates the websites make in order to make things Har* I mean "Easier" for everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to write a bot to go through and update the links?--十八 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically if you know what all the original pages were and the new ones would be for most cases it could work.陣内_Jinnai 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yūya Sasagiri

The article on Japanese manga artist Yūya Sasagiri has been tagged as an unreferenced biography of a living person since January 2009, which is the current focus month of the BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed, to find any reliable sources to support this text. On the face of it, he seems to have a claim to notability, being the artist for Little Busters! but I can't find a reliable source to support this. There are very few hits on Google in English and nothing (apart from a press release) on Anime News Network. I'm struggling in the Japanese Google hits. The article at ja.wikipedia is no help. I'm posting here in the hope that someone might be kind enough to take a look and help. If it stays unreferenced much longer, it may be nominated for AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No surprise that this is the third time this week that a BLP article I created years ago is finally going to be deleted. I created quite a lot back between 2006 and 2007, as I was inexperienced back then, and BLP guidelines have become more stringent since then. I now realize that most of those articles should be deleted, as there was no real reason to create them in the first place. If anyone wants to, you can go through the list and tag any and all that deserve deletion (some of which have already been deleted). I'd go through and do it myself, but I'm lazy.--十八 08:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

have you tried looking for information through the manga he's created? possible the development of the mangas he's done intertwine with something more related to him directly.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked as far as I can but without a) specialist knowledge of the area or b) an ability to read Japanese it's a hard, thankless slog. That's why I came here. If the original creator is happy for it to go and no-one else is able to help, it will be nominated for AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That or the trade magazine it was originally published in.陣内_Jinnai 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide the source and add it to the article, that would be helpful.--Plad2 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article now at AfD--Plad2 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FLRC List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2)

I have nominated List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Started special page

Just wanted to say, i started a special page for the Manga Dusk Maiden of Amnesia here. So anyone wants to help me to make this article notable. It would be great.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a good idea to list this article and your sandbox at WP:ANIME/REQUEST. --Malkinann (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i can't yet.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There are only 91 Anime and Manga unreferenced BLP articles remaining! These are often very hard for non-Japanese speakers to reference. I know that last year you had a referencing drive, another one to finish the task off would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. The-Pope (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Noir (anime) episode list merger

Moved to proper venue: Talk:Noir (anime)#Should the episode list be merged in?. Goodraise 04:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New Angel and Angel (manga) merge

Sorry to bug you again guys, but I feel the merge discussion needs more eyes, especially as it's spilling over into Jinnai's user talk page, my user talk page and Bread Ninja's talk page, and I'm beginning to feel like perhaps I'm giving a damn. --Malkinann (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

i dont think listing the talkpages is necessary. it spilling on to my page, for reasons idk. i'm talking on your page, because i can't enter the talk page for internet problems, and asked jinnai for consensus, but i really don't know how things are going on the other side.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to work on the article for Kamichu!?

At the AfD for Saeko Matsuda, and then at the deleting admin's talk page, I listed lots of sources for works that Saeko Matsuda worked on to try to refute the claim that the things he worked on weren't significant works (even though I wasn't sure his article should be kept anyway). I particularly found a lot of coverage for Kamichu!, which I think could improve the article significantly (the reception section for the article is currently only one sentence). I was thinking of adding the sources I found myself, but I have a poor track record of actually getting around to doing things like that (the one Wikipedia article I started is still unsourced over 2 years after I said I would source it). I was hoping someone else might be interested in working on the article so that the work actually gets done. Calathan (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, you could add them to the article talk page, so that anyone drifting through can use them if you don't get around to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I've gone ahead and listed them on the talk page. Also, this has reminded me that I previously listed a bunch of reviews at the talk page for Vanilla Series, which I similarly noticed because of an AfD. I thought I would mention that here in case anyone is interested in working on that article or titles in that series. Calathan (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And I just cleaned up the CSE hits for you, so you have doubly no excuse. --Gwern (contribs) 20:37 18 January 2011 (GMT)

Evangelion

See Talk:Evangelion where it is being discussed whether Neon Genesis Evangelion is ever appropriate to be refered to as Evangelion, and whether the religious term should be primary over the disambiguation page. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yaoi milestone!

With the creation of Ze (manga) by Allen4names, there are now 200 articles in Category:Yaoi! :D Thanks to all the people at WP:ANIME/REQUESTS for helping me to reach this goal! :D --Malkinann (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help: Shingo Kobayashi

The article Shingo Kobayashi was recently kept due to no consensus at AFD. It is a BLP tagged as unreferenced since January 2009. Unreferenced BLPs are a serious concern facing Wikipedia. Any assistance would be appreciated. --Vassyana (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See discussion at top of this page.--Plad2 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for some quick reviews

I'm looking for some quick reviews before doing some of the following things.

FLRC

• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3)
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4)
• List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
• List of FLCL episodes
• List of Gunslinger Girl episodes
• List of Bleach episodes Up to season 9

GAR

• Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series)

Also looking for some quick criticism for Case Closed, thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 15:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't need reviews for the episode lists. Scratch that. I misunderstood what you meant by "review".陣内_Jinnai 16:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Anime-links

Over a year ago, there was a question about whether {{Anime-links}} was used. The responses then was that it was used only by its creator. Since then, the template still hasn't taken off in favor of {{ann}}—or even {{imdb title}}—and with only the ANN field used in most of the transclusions, it didn't seem particularly useful. So I made the template "subset safe" and subseted the template in place. I'm planning on nominating the template after a few days. —Farix (t | c) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD of Yutaka Hara

Somebody added a PROD to Yutaka Hara due to GNG and WP:AUTHOR

Does anyone know of good Japanese sources that can be used to build the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice the article has been deprodded but no sources have been added, so it still needs help.--Plad2 (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Per usual procedure when a prod's been removed without reason, I'm brought it up for AfD.陣内_Jinnai 16:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think taking this to AFD was hasty, and should not be the "usual procedure" in cases like this. As an author of a best selling series of books which already has a Wikipedia article, there is an obvious target for redirecting. There seems to be no reason why there shouldn't at least be a redirect from his name to the books he created. Also, WP:BEFORE suggests that before taking an article to AFD, redirecting it should be considered. I think in cases like this, the "usual procedure" should always be to try redirecting the article before sending it to AFD. Calathan (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lilpri

I've noticed that there is currently an extremely short article on Lilpri that is proposed for deletion, and that a previous version at Hime Chen! Otogi Chikku Idol Lilpri was speedy deleted as having no context. However, it seems like it is a notable series, and there is a pretty substantial article on the Japanese Wikipedia [16]. As the current article seems like it would nearly qualify for speedy deletion under A1 again, I was wondering if anyone might be interested in translating some of the content from the Japanese article so that the article here isn't so short. I've also notice that both Mania.com [17] and ANN [18] reviewed the first episode, if English sources would be useful. Calathan (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Besides removing the PROD and pinging an interested editor, I also cleaned up the CSE results. --Gwern (contribs) 21:46 2 February 2011 (GMT)

Copyedit request

Normally, I don't often create articles, in part because I don't get the opportunity. But today, I created two articles, Cardfight!! Vanguard and Moshidora which I like other editors to look over and do some copyediting. I was quite surprised that the former didn't have an article given that that the 4th episode just started streaming on Crunchyroll. The latter isn't as surprising, but it was the best selling novel of 2010 with an anime series announced back in July. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And an article on Mai no Mahō to Katei no Hi is in my user space because it's unable to pass WP:OUTCOMES at this point in time. —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added two Japanese refs which should be enough to get it into mainspace. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's now been moved to mainspace. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have, incidentally, cleaned up the CSE hits for all three. (The Cardfight!! results were astonishingly bad. How this can be with 2300 domains on the blacklist and 300 on the whitelist, I have no idea. There are a really astonishing number of download/streaming sites and forums.) --Gwern (contribs) 19:42 5 February 2011 (GMT)

GA reassessment of Lolicon

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following its nomination for reassessment. You are being notified as your project banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lolicon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Manga cover fur boilerplate template

While {{Book cover fur}} has been around for a while and used on some manga covers, it doesn't quite fit manga. So using {{Book cover fur}} as a model, I've been working on a prototype of {{Manga cover fur}}, currently located in one of my sandboxes, that will be more specific to manga covers. It allows for the inclusion of an illustrator and volume number as well has changing the text to use "manga" instead of "book". I've also fixed some of the spacing issues that was present in {{Book cover fur}} and made the "override" fields actually override the boilerplate in every instance with the exception that |Commentary= still displays when |Purpose= is used. —Farix (t | c) 03:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you simply adapt {{Book cover fur}} by adding a switch to do everything you added to the manga fur? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically, yes. But I've made some other changes in how the parameters behave that would be considered "severe", such as with the override fields, and may not be excepted in the original. The spacing fixes are the one things I plan to apply to the original template. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

After seeing how many times a switch statement will need to be used to replace "book" with "manga" (13 times), I consider the switch to be impractical as it will overcomplicated the template for very little gain. —Farix (t | c) 13:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to make sure it had been reviewed as an option. I think the examples on the page you gave are good. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've move the first prototype to {{Manga cover fur}}, leaving the second prototype in my userspace. I made some last minute changes when I copied the code over that aren't reflected in the second prototype. —Farix (t | c) 20:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Now the template can select between {{Non-free use rationale}}, {{Non-free image data}}, and {{Non-free image rationale}} depending on the value of |Format=. This should make it easier for images, such as File:Highschool of the Dead vol01.jpg, that are used in more than one article without having so much repetitive information. —Farix (t | c) 01:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the change as i still wonder how by using "more words", we somehow managed to be less accurate. FURs need basically to answer to Who, When, Where and Why and changes made are just an overdone move to answer the "Why" while ditching the When and Where parts. I know i'm not anymore this much active here but still, i'm permitted to express my opinion and i'm doing so. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Any fields can be overridden. However, when most of the optional fields are set, they should provided more than enough details to describe the material and state where it came from, which is what I gather what you are commenting about. It also fixes a very common mistake in stating who owns the copyright, which is a requirement for NFURs. But whether it is "handwritten" or a template, most of these NFURs tend to be boilerplate in one form or another. Having a template just makes it easier to fill out the NFUR and keep the wording consistent from image to image. And if we tweak the language of the manga cover rationales, it can be instantly updated on all of the image pages. —Farix (t | c) 13:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I know after the RfC on cover images there was some agreement to go about removing these templates due to the over proliferation of covers (mostly in albums), but it could be done here. It's basically one of the few ways they thought could help limit their usage even somewhat. I'm not saying not to do this, but be warned that your efforts might be removed sometime in the near future and then you'd have to go back and redo all those images.陣内_Jinnai 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn mobile weapons

Hello. I think this article needs a lot of decrufting and putting out-of-universe, because it seems lifted from Gundam Wikia. I've started fixing up this morning but more help is welcome. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference check requested for Kamen Tantei

I have created Kamen Tantei in my user space here. Would someone with the September 2006 issue of Newtype USA please check to see if I got the citation right. I do not have the complete issue so I am a little concerned. Any other help that you may provide is also welcome. – Allen4names 02:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I found what I needed here. I will be moving the page into main space soon. – Allen4names 18:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a Heads Up...

Some user has been trying to impersonate me by making claims on talk pages and linking my user name at the end of it. As far as I can tell it is only centered on Talk:List of Black Rock Shooter characters, but if you happen to see strange comments supposedly signed by me on other talk pages, please check the page history or my edit history to see who actually made it and alert the proper channels. I've already reported this incident and it is being taken care of. Fox816 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

LineColor

An editor first suggested to change the default color of |LineColor=, then completely eliminate it citing WP:Deviations. Please contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Episode list#LineColor. —Farix (t | c) 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FLRC for List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3)

I have nominated List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Avatar usage under discussion again

See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2 where it is requested that the move done by 2010 move request be undone, moving the Hindu concept to primary in place of the disambiguation page. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lolicon delisted as GA

Jezhotwells, in his infinite wisdom and lack of knowledge on the topic, has delisted Lolicon as a GA. Just FYI... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification as to how the article still fails the GA criteria. I'd be happier if the MTCG entry was being used as a post-lolicon-boom source, but I think the article has improved a lot. Perhaps a peer review would be a good next step? --Malkinann (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If sources are an issue, I spent some time today cleaning up CSE hits for lolicon. As of the instant I write this, all 15 pages of results are free of porn links. --Gwern (contribs) 02:05 17 February 2011 (GMT)

Endless arguments... why don't people just improve the article, add new material, delete old stuff, and then bring it up again after a few months of concerted effort? Anything else starts to waste time, don't you think? Timothy Perper (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also about the way the editor handled the review since he's done this in the past, ie delisted without giving any help after an initial review and without departing commentary as to why something was delisted.陣内_Jinnai 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! up for deletion

Just a heads up, think of Wikipe-tan and please reply to this AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point its likely to be deleted. Political correctness seems to be the ultimate trumpcard over a bit of humor anymore. I'd suggest userfying.陣内_Jinnai 18:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep everything has to be politically correct now, this goes against WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Personally with everything going on in the world from Miley Cirus bein ga role model for kids and doing drugs to Child porn why people target things liek thsi is beyond me as it does not promoste anything and peopel (not all) find it funny. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot more going on in this discussion of Wikipetan than mere "political correctness." The question is whether or not you want Wikipedia to include "humor" for its own sake, for its own jokey purposes, when that "humor" offends people. It doesn't matter one tiny bit if you think it's hilarious -- some people are offended. Is that the public image you want for Wikipedia? Is that the tone and demeanor you want Wikipedia to put before the public? Do you want Wikipedia to appear to say that no one here cares if YOU, reader or visitor, are offended; WE don't care about YOU, reader or visitor, not one tiny little bit we don't? As my old grandma used to say, "Keep your jokes in the street. Don't bring 'em home." Timothy Perper (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." Wikipedia already doesn't care about offending the reader. Why start now?--十八 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's only work if you manage to define Wikipedia. By Wikipedia do you go by just the editors who share the same opinions than you ? Sure there is a lot of editors would happy to learn that they are not part of Wikipedia. One side of the discussion cannot have the monopoly over the word "Wikipedia". I would not argument using the "we" of Wikipedia in such discussions like this one because there is no consensus before hand within its community on the subject. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is meant for articles that are read by the casual reader looking for an article on wikipedia. Still, it's stupid to even keep it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a major overhaul of the page and took out alot of the offensive stuff people were complaining about. Hey what can you do thats life. I would rather have an article that has something funny to do with wikipe-tan than no article at all though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems inoffensive. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

People who are intrested in our project mascot might want to pay attention to this AfD, a number of editors are asking why wikipe-tan is even on wikipedia and what images of her (If any) should be used where outside our project. I am not going to be the one who makes that topic here just a heads up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this is related somehow, but IvoryMeerkat removed her from the Moe anthropomorphism article ([19]).--十八 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too and left "The image is essentially original work generated for Wikipedia. It was removed as a WP:SELFREF but there are also no reliable sources which identify Wikipe-tan as a moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia" can images be made to help out wikipedia thoug hto give examples? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to images that are made to meet NFCC. It is explicitly stated as such per WP:OI. Feel free to revert any an all attempts to remove them because of OR violations except in very extreme circumstances, ie someone comes out with a new form of artwork that isn't verified.陣内_Jinnai 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

More to comment I also see Tarc attacking people in the AfD. Is there really going to be a battle over a mascot here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In spite calls for there not to be, that's what it appears to be devolving into.陣内_Jinnai 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

IP Editor check

Would someone like to double check the contributions of 114.79.54.210 (talk). After reverting the editor twice at Air Gear for adding dubious information and given that the IP is from Indonesia, I have a nagging feeling that the other edits may also be dubious. —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any edits yet but I would like to add 67.205.251.109 (talk). – Allen4names 04:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Voice actor Mónica Villaseñor

The article on voice actress Mónica Villaseñor is a long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. I have tried, and failed, to find any reliable sources to support the article. There is a list of roles at ANN] but I'm assuming from your guidelines that this does not count as a WP:RS. She does not appear to have an entry at Behind the Voice Actors and es.wikipedia has deleted articles on this actor three times for lack of notability. I know articles on voice actors can be difficult to source so I thought I would post here in the hope that someone with better knowledge of the area might like to take an interest. If it remains unsourced for much longer, it may be nominated for deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Article now at AfD--CharlieDelta (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone here would likely have to have a translation copy of those versions. Maybe the Cowboy Bebop one could be used if someone has the international version. That's the only one I think that might be possible.陣内_Jinnai 22:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Spring 2011 anime premiers

I've started compiling a list of the Spring 2011 anime premiers and my eyes boggle at the shear number. Of the 33 premiers next April that I've so far learned about, 13 currently don't have articles and at least 2 are games that probably need a separate anime article. It seems that we have a lot of work to do in the next month. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A few naming issues:

• Should [C] The Money of Soul and Possibility Control be located at C: The Money of Soul and Possibility Control or (C) The Money of Soul and Possibility Control? Do to technical limitations, the square brackets cannot be included in the title. My preference is the first one.
• Ano Hi Mita Hana no Namae o Bokutachi wa Mada Shiranai. (あの日見た花の名前を僕達はまだ知らない。) included the period? Using Bakuman as an example, I would believe no.
• Should Appleseed XIII have its own article like the rest of the Appleseed series?
• Should Steins;Gate get a separate article from the video game? The game article is already well developed and it wouldn't be a good idea to included a bunch of stuff about the anime adaptation, which will require significant changes.
• Should タイガー＆バニー be located at Tiger and Bunny or Tiger & Bunny. I'm not sure how WP:MOS affects ampersands in official titles.

—Farix (t | c) 00:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Official ampersands should be used, yes. And agree about no period. No opinion on the others. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I still find it funny that we include exclamation and question marks in titles, but refuse to put periods when they're in the original title.--十八 09:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd too. Are periods not equal to exclamation marks? I think there should be a deeper discussion than the one in bakuman for this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it should be a matter of wikipedia standards against the period in general, it's just more english sources won't put the period in unlike exclamation points and question marks that will more effectively change the structure of the sentence. Which is why there was so much dispute with Oh My Goddess! title. so yes, periods aren't as equal to exclamation points or question marks in general because the main usage is being used at the end of the title. Periods have made itself in titles many times but just to place a decimal. I think they can be added if more sources add them in and not at the end of the title.

Anyways, (C) would be problematic as we use "()" to distinguish other articles. And "C:" would have to be verified. I dont think theres too much problem naming the article as it's intended name. I support a split for Steins;Gate and Appleseed XIII. Tiger & Bunny would be the most likely choice, but not so sure if you verified the name in english.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on this list Farix. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but it shows that we are going to be very busy come March/April with almost 40 premiers and growing. —Farix (t | c) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll be editting again since the thorns in my side (IMHO) have decreased by two of late. I'm looking forward to more God Only Knows, Aria the Scarlet Ammo and Lotte.... I'll try to look at some of the older articles too. Hopefully I'll stay away from Israel-Palestine for a while too. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)