Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navigation

Discussions to be moved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result were move the following discussions to this page from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force

---

• #Robotech sorting out
• #Astro boy needs sorting
• #Edit War over Robotech
• #Second Robtech Edit war

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dragon Ball merging

In Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters, there is a discussion about merging some characters. Several users ignore several facts such as notability saying that the character is important and that wikipedia has the lamest guideline. Could some guys go to discuss? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the users there may not get what notability's about and be overreacting, but that was still a very poor merge suggestion overall. (About five of them are arguably mergeable, the rest are obvious keeps.) Sure, nobody's gone and added third party references to the pages yet, but arguing that primary DBZ characters are actually non-notable (rather than just have poorly written pages) is silly. --erachima talk 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Goku and some of them can not be merged, but other articleas are very short and pretty over-detailed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They may be "obvious keeps" to some folks, but I'm not seeing the obviousness. Mostly I'm seeing keeps with no explanation, no back up, etc, which are fairly worthless. People really need to "state the obvious" if it is obvious, and provide some evidence to back up the claims. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing the obviousness? The potential for expansion with real-world information is clear, the only hard part will be tracking it down.

Or if you're referring to the more general concept, notability is based on the prominence of the subject, not the presentation of that prominence in the current revision of the article. It's similar to the difference between "verifiable" and "cited": any information that you could find a reference for is verifiable, even if it is not cited in the current version of the page. Yes, even obviously notable subjects should give the evidence why, but to anyone remotely familiar with the medium, the claim that the main DBZ characters are non-notable --that no potential for expansion with third party references and analysis exists-- is pretty much absurd. --erachima talk 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we do is we merge for now - Once we discover additional information, we then split as the article grows. I did this with the Death Note characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of those articles need to be be merged. Which was my reason for wanting to merged the two Trunks articles into one. But I keep getting grief about it from people who apposed it. I merged and rewrote it back on the 17th of August and it was reverted the next day. All people are citing is that they are two separate people with differences too great to be listed or assumptions that a one Trunks article would be "junky". I just don't see either of these. Their not two people their two incarnations of one person. What a person does, how they live, or who their friends are is erealitive, as life has demonstrated that people change over time. Whether it be events, environment, interactions with other people, or simply with age. So who's to say that either incarnation would become more like the other. Although, I do treat them as two, have not attempted to jumble them like everyone assumes will happen. and have divided them into two serparate sections. Although, I know that nobility and real world content are very important. I'm not concerned with that at the moment as I do know of some, but I'll hold out another merge atempt until I can get proper sources to backup my finding, do some more spusing on my master copy of the article, and if can get some some more support from my survey as seen here. Which is looking sketchy right now due to the current situation, and some editors giving off vibes that I don't have a leg to stand on with this matter. Sarujo (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues

The closing of some of these discussions as merge is now being challenged at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Merge (and someone keeps attempting an RfC at the bottom and failing) claiming that the merges are against consensus and demanding they be undone. There are also claims that the project was not made aware of the discussion and the merges are being done in a secretive fashion. Right now, the specific closures being argued against appear to be Tien Shinhan and Cell (Dragon Ball) (none of the keeps, of course). Additional project input would be appreciated.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop

See draft in my userspace. Basically, with the advent of good topics, collaborating to produce a good topic is a much less daunting task than attempting to create a featured topic. In recent days, I've noticed that I've been topic hunting of sorts, and wondered whether a centralized venue for this would be fruitful. As such, I've created a draft for a "topic workshop" that would concentrate on collaboration on good and featured topics, as we don't have that many right now :p In any case, with examples of featured episode, chapter, and character lists, as well as good articles on series and individual characters, we basically have model articles for the vast majority of topics, and I think this is something that is entirely plausible. One person trying to create a topic is an extremely tedious and large task (one that I'm quite aware of), and having a project-wide collaboration is a much easier way to facilitate the production of topics. Furthermore, I see this as being more effective than "collaboration of the week or month" types of things, and sets big long-term goals that can be worked on as time progresses. Well, enough of my sleepy rambling. Discuss. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A very good idea, I like it Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a great idea. It adds to the WikiProject's ability to improve manga and anime articles. It also adds a way to keep track of it all and gives a status for all the topic's articles. Itzjustdrama? 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this could be good. Earlier this year, Collectonian and I were effectively collaborating on the Fruits Basket articles; Featured Topic seemed a bit far away at the time, but a Good Topic is quite possible. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this as approval, and move it into project space. Work away. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, the workshop is meant for anyone to go ahead and just create topics, no matter how impossible you think it is (topics are a very long term prospect). Making these topics more apparent to the project will only help the quality of the articles there. As such, propose away. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Real-life timeline

The off-universe requirement in WP:MOS-FICT asked us to use real-life timeline, which raised a problem. Many series was licensed long after their Japanese premiere, and I am unsure which date should I use when a date is needed: the date when the incidence first appeared in Japan, or when the same incident was first sold in a licensed, English form?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean for the infobox? Always use the original release there. In the body section about releases, cover both of course. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the following points that is considered in-universe in WP:IN-U:

• Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves.
• Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published.

So, I interpreted that as when referring to things that happen in anime/manga, we should not use whatever date used in the universe but the date that material was known to the us, ie when that chapter of manga was first serialized or that episode of anime was first aired. However, there's always a time difference between when that happened in Japan and the English world-- so which date should I use?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever medium was released first. But why on earth do you need to even use those dates? When addressing fictional events, you can say "In volume X of the series..." and that's fine. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When anime filler originals is involved.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe 'fictional chronology' would mean the order that things happen in universe, even if they are revealed later. Like, for instance, when talking about the animated Sailor Venus, the part where she's in a warehouse explosion is before the part she meets up with the other Senshi, even though we as viewers wouldn't know about it until 10 episodes later. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gintama vs Gin Tama

An older discussion on Talk:Gintama#Revist regarding the naming of the article has been revived and needs to be rediscussed as the guidelines applied in 2007 have since changed. The discussion revolves around whether the article should use "Gintama" (the "correct" romanization) or "Gin Tama" which is the title Viz used. Please offer your comments there (as a a side note, the article could also use some cleaning up - excessive non-free images, little non-plot content, few sources). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography workgroup

Is anyone interested in helping the Biography workgroup? To be honest, many of the anime and manga biographies need to be improved. I realizer many of them might not have that much information. Itzjustdrama? 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think such a workgroup would be useful. There are certainly plenty of seiyū, artists, directors, character designers, etc., which could use some tender loving care. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we need to write better biography pages, as ours tend to inordinately suck, but I don't think a taskforce is a beneficial means of organizing that effort for the same reason that we don't have taskforces on "character articles" or "shonen titles". Basically, there's not a meaningful overlap of experience or interest within such a broad category. Adding onto that, the main reason our bio pages are bad is that we lack English-language references for most of them beyond their career info, and a taskforce is unlikely to be useful in that regard. (I try to help with the sourcing issue by linking to interviews and whatnot whenever I run across them online, but there's really not that much out there, especially for older authors.) --erachima talk 04:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's an existing workgroup -- been around for a while. That was a plee for more help. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused about Robotech character template!!!

I am confused whether a character template should be added to the other main character articles because this Lisa Hayes article seems to have one whilst none of the other Robotech character articles don't have one. Plus I believe many of the Robotech articles need a cleanup I have added references for some of them. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. What Robotech character template? Is there one separate from the main {{Robotech}} template? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Hayes character article seems to have her personal info displayed like the template below should it be that similar information be done for the other Robotech characters? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the infobox. Yeah, the article should have one. Though poking about Category:Robotech_characters, I'm not seeing infoboxes on any of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So should the other Robotech characters have infoboxes too then? That was the point of the original question? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. When you said, in the first comment, that "none of the other Robotech character articles don't have one," were you talking about the infobox? Because I'm not seeing infoboxes in the other character articles. If you meant something else, though, then what? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believed the character inboxes were called templates hence why I referred to them as templates so if I may begin the question from the beginning again should the other Robotech characters articles have character inboxes. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that infobox isn't created by a template. The correct template to use is {{Infobox animanga character}}. However, before adding them to the Robotech character articles, they should first be judge if the character passes the general notability criteria. If not, then it may need to be trimmed down before being merged into a list. --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

These two character articles are good examples where multiple sources have been used to show their notability from the official website.

• Lynn Minmay (Robotech)
• Miriya Parina Sterling

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How? They have almost no sources at all and are pure plot. They are showing absolutely no notability whatsoever. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the demonstration of notability requires sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources; the official website (as a first-party source) can be used for referencing, but not for actual demonstration of notability. —Dinoguy1000 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the correct anime inbox surely this is better and I gained the relevant info from the official website.[1]

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is better (but let's not stick infoboxes here, especially containing non-free images: :-P) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added character infoboxes for the following Robotech characters below feel free to alter it, if it is required.

• Lisa Hayes

• Rick Hunter

• Dana Sterling

• Maia Sterling

• Miriya Parina Sterling

• Ariel (Robotech)

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Blazers deserves its own article

The Star Blazers (TV Series) article should be simply renamed Star Blazers. I feel I have supplied enough information to suggest that it is different from its Japanese counterpart Space Battleship Yamato.--Dwanyewest (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. They should be merged into one article. Many other heavily edited series are not separated, and those that once were separated have been or are being merged. I don't see that it is so heavily different as to warrant another article.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The two franchises may have been born together, but they've grown up quite differently over the years; that's why we have two separate articles. The split was made three weeks ago. What Dwanyewest means is that Star Blazers (TV Series) should be moved to Star Blazers (which currently points to Space Battleship Yamato).--Nohansen (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should be separate. There is enough difference to warrant separate articles. While merging is fine in many cases, too much merging is damaging, IMO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note about video game articles for Wikipedia 0.7

As you are probably already aware, the mad dash to get articles ready for Version 0.7 is underway. Though I'm sure this project may already have its hands full with its own articles, there are several that fall under both your project and the VG Project. We would like to inform you of a workshop page we've set up to help monitor and coordinate the preparation of our articles. The page tracks article status, submitted article IDs, and any suggestions to improve articles. As previously mentioned, several Good articles overlap our scopes and are up for inclusion:

• Air (visual novel)
• Clannad (visual novel)
• Fate/stay night
• Higurashi no Naku Koro ni
• Kanon
• Kirby (character)
• Shuffle!
• Strawberry Panic!

We are trying to prepare as many of the higher quality articles as we can, and if some Anime and Manga editors can assist us with these articles it would benefit both projects. If you have any questions, please drop us a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Wikipedia 0.7 workshop. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Anime and manga by year of release

Okay, I got a bot to go through our articles and make a list of articles which are not categorized by year yet. It will take a little fine tuning as this is just the first pass, but we now have a list of over 6300 articles to go through in order to sort them into the appropriate Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Manga by date of first release categories. If you find an article or category which should always be excluded in the future, please add it to the list on this page. Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like the majority of the articles aren't actually about anime or manga series... at least not main articles. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A large, large number of them are people. I'm also seeing visual novels (many with no apparent anime or manga adaptation). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always list them (or a specific category) on the ignore page. This is more fine tuning (see my post below). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And pretty much *all* of the "List of X" articles should be removed as well. I may go through and list a bunch on the ignore page. —Dinoguy1000 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more effective to find out which category all the "List of..." articles are in, then list that category. This can also allow you to make sure the list isn't over categorized or categorized in both a parent and child cat. I found a lot of that when sorting articles into the individual year cats. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:Lists of manga chapters, Category:Lists of anime television series episodes, and Category:Lists of anime and manga characters (all three are subcategories of Category:Anime and manga lists). —Dinoguy1000 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added them to the ignore list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How does the ignore page work? IF (<has project banner> AND <is in category on ignore page>) THEN (<ignore page>)? It doesn't seem to include subcategories, either... —tan³ tx 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's maintained by hand. IMHO, it would have been better for the bot to go through and only look at articles which have an animanga infobox, but... meh... I'm too tired to really think about stuff like that right now. —Dinoguy1000 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You can see the original request here. Yes, there are some articles which shouldn't be included, but that's more an issue of fine tuning the bot results. I'm waiting for a response to see if the ignore list will work. This first list is only a first pass. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with commentary about Narutaru/Shadow Star characters - Japanese speakers needed

Hi! I found here http://www.kids-station.com/minisite/narutaru/seiyu.html that the seiyu are talking about the characters from Shadow Star - but I need help determining what about what the seiyu say about their characters should be added to the List of Shadow Star characters article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving Robotech Articles step by step

I think some sections of the Robotech articles need improving especially the character section I thought should be started on first. I have added character inboxes to the characters below feel free to alter them if you please.

• Henry J. Gloval
• Lisa Hayes
• Rick Hunter
• Miriya Parina Sterling
• Scott Bernard

This is a particular bugbear of mine I feel that there are too many characters without citations to prove what people or saying is true or statements in a neutral fashion such as stating a character is the most skillful without evidence to back it up. I do feel these characters should be merged for the reasons stated below please discuss.

Should be merged to character list

• Emil Lang (fictional character) lack of citations
• Marcus Rush lack of citations
• T. R. Edwards lack of citations
• Jonathan Wolfe (Robotech) only made one appearance in the show
• Lazlo Zand

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Goro Goro Iki

Anyone heard of this show? I can't find anything about it anywhere other than here. There are some related articles which I question as well: Samuel B. Prime, Terracotta Warrior Iki: Mechanized Typhoon Knight. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted link clean out

All links to Onemanga.com, anidb.info, and animenfo.com have finally been blacklisted to keep folks from continuing to readd them! However, there are 61 links to OneManga[2], 26 to AniDB[3], and 270 to AnimeNFO[4] that need to be pulled from various articles. Anyone want to help clean these out. They primarily need to be removed from articles, images, and from article talks that haven't been archived yet. User can remove them from their own user pages if the links are blocked when they go to edit next time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AniDB is done (easy set). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help just as soon as I get home. School comp ;P) I'll take on Onemanga.com if they're still around later. Itzjustdrama? 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but a quick question. Should Mangafox be blacklisted too? It's similar to Onemanga, but it's not really as bad. [5] seven results total. Itzjustdrama? 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say so. For now, I think just removing the links would work since there are only 7. If it gets to be a problem like some of the others, then a request for blacklisting should probably be made. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, and thanks. Itzjustdrama? 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And remove all links unless it's on a user page or archives, right? Itzjustdrama? 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all links should also be removed except from user pages and talk archives. In regular article talk pages, I've been noting [LINK REMOVED] just so folks know something was there, but otherwise just straight removal works.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just finished now. Itzjustdrama? 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently working on animenfo.com list from the bottom up. Itzjustdrama? 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As an update, OneManga and AniDB are done. AnimeNFO is down to 113 links so getting there! Thanks Itzjustdrama for tackling the bulk of those :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

I tagged the My Neighbor Totoro article for having several issues a few days ago. Two editors, however, are demanding the tags be removed. Neither seems to really be disputing the actual tags themselves, but rather both dislike the appearance of the tags and are in the club of editors who thinks articles should never be tagged. I have explained why I added each tag on the article talk page at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro#Tags. As one of the editors is requesting consensus for/against the tags, can some folks from the project take a look and offer your views as to which, if any, of the tags are valid for the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, while tags can be helpful, it's also good to note what is wrong on the talk page explicitly instead of just adding the tags. And even if you do explain why you included the tags on the majority of articles you tag, I believe it's sufficient to note the problems the article has on the talk page, because that is what the talk page is for, instead of also adding the tags. You can put me in the group that "thinks articles should never be tagged" if you like, only because I dislike their generality, not necessarily because they look bad.--十八 09:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is probably an issues that should be brought up to the village pump or maybe ANI if it is getting out of hand. To me, it is a silly reason to get into an edit war, but that is exactly what is happening. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It did get heated thanks to one editor coming from the Dragon Ball merger dispute to make a lovely round of personal attacks, and continuing to remove the tags when others supported and readded them. For now, I've just gone ahead and done a quick and dirty editing of the article to at least get it back to a decent shell. It would be nice if some others from the project could help out in editing it. I know this film has a ton of sources and I can't imagine why it couldn't fairly easily and quickly be brought up from a start class article to a GA or possible FAC. It hasn't been hit by the Assess group yet, but I'd guess this is one of our High or Top importance articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd assess it High, certainly -- a classic, iconic anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Miyazaki - and Satoshi Kon - films I checked were a mess, so I tagged them all as needing attention. These are all the biggest lights anime has, and it's sort of a shame they've been left in such a shabby state. I'd sort of assumed they'd all been made at least B long ago. Doceirias (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At least this one has gotten a nice boost from all the attention. I've taken it off my watchlist after the events on the talk page, but if someone from the project is planning to work on it, Anime Explosion mentions it on quite a few pages, including briefly discussing Westerner audiences mistaken tendency to ascribe impropriety to the scene where the father is bathing with the girls, a discussion of "Sampo" them and other music, how the film reflects a time in Miyazaki's own life when his mother was hospitalized for two years, and it has a two page review/examination in which Drazen notes that it is "arguably the finest children's movie ever made." I can scan any/all in if someone wants to use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be of interest to adding in the article: Totoro Forest Auction Earns an Estimated US$201,236. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Animated films task force

A joint task force on animated films has been proposed on WikiProject Films. Interested editors are encouraged to discuss and sign up. If there is enough support, the task force will be created. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anime and Manga Project redirects

I've never heard to the animanga project referred to as the "Anime and Manga Project" for the purpose of documentation, project, portal, category, or template names, etc., and this is reflected in the naming of our project categories for both templates and categories. Would there be any objections to renaming this one, along the same lines, to Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects? —Dinoguy1000 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be Category:Anime and manga redirects after Category:Anime and manga templates. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, without the "WikiProject" in front. That didn't make sense at first, but then I thought about it. BTW, would there be any objections to implementing a "Redirect" class in our banner? it wouldn't require active tagging (especially after the very recent push to remove our banner from all redirect pages), but would be nice to have. —Dinoguy1000 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I would like that - it's convenient for when an article gets merged into another one. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I too would like that, although it did not gain much support in the past. Will we be adding the banner to the existing redirects, or not, and how we will find them? (Not all redirects are listed in the above category, e.g. Alternative spelling, Alternative capitalisation, With/without Macrons, etc. etc. We are likely looking at thousands of redirects.) G.A.S 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said when I suggested it above (and as I also said about implementing similar functionality for images), I'm not recommending active tagging if this is agreed upon and implemented, although if any one person feels up to the task of hunting down and tagging all those redirects (and images, since I'm considering restarting that particular discussion to hopefully establish a clear consensus on whether we want image tagging or not), they would certainly be welcome to, and - also as I said in the previous discussion - I would likely be doing a decent amount of tagging myself, although this might be a nice little side project for a bored AWB user as well (it's certainly the type of work AWB was meant for). —Dinoguy1000 19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would actually oppose adding a redirect class to the template or tagging redirects. I really don't see a purpose in it other then acting as some form of billboard. --Farix (Talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar image

Found this image on Commons. Curious whether we should recognize this (IMO, the BarnSakura is better, but this isn't bad either). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aww, it's cute. And it's very different, so we could maybe come up with different scenarios for using each. --Masamage ♫ 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is cute. Maybe this is the BarnKawaiiko? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... on the one hand, the sakura looks more professional. But on the other hand... awwww, I want one! --erachima talk 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Masamage, deciding different scenarios for using both sounds like a good idea. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnsakura for article contributions, barnloli for project contributions? --erachima talk 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Barnloli...(^o^)...I like the idea of having one for each. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its cute and it would be nice to have some different barnstar options depending on the kind of work. I like erachima's suggestion of one for article work, one for project stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. So BarnSakura for article work, and BarnLoli for project work? (And FYI, this might encourage all of the above —including me— to clear all our backlogs for this thing :p) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think User:G.A.S should get the first one. --erachima talk 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Let's wait until his RfA ends though, so he gets the double drama of having the mass of thankspam on his page plus this awesome barnstar. ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Well deserved award. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Too late... I was worried someone would beat me to it. --erachima talk 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I probably would have spent too much time thinking of an adequate caption in any case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! And thank you very much! Now for the question: Is there a similar ribbon for it? (In the style of the other one?) ;) G.A.S 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to be a bit late in this conversation, but oh well... I definitely like the barnloli (LOL...), and IMHO, the BarnSakura (and cherry blossoms in general) speak to me more of Japan in general than anything specifically anime/manga related (Sakura Haruno aside, of course). That being said, I also like (but not quite as much) the idea of one for article work vs. one for project work, and am now mooning after one myself (but I suppose, if I keep working, I'll get one eventually ^^). (by the way, do all these parenthetical thoughts annoy anyone?) —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the BarnSakura was invented before Wikipe-tan was. (Only slightly.) --erachima talk 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I just presented TheFarix with a BarnLoli for all his hard work updating the transclusions of {{Infobox animanga}} back in June, something that he never got rewarded for (other than maybe a slap on the back and a "job well done"). —Dinoguy1000 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. While getting awards is not my purpose, I do appreciate when I do get them. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On another side note, Collectonian now has one as well, for general overall goodness and such with regard to WP:ANIME. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Project banner

On a slightly related note, I recall a discussion a while ago about updating the project banner to show a different Wikipe-tan image for every level of article quality (like we do now with GA/FA). With the assessment department, we've now established the differences between start, C, and B-class, so I think this is pretty viable. Any opposition to asking User:Kasuga for designs for each? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would very much support different images. I find that it is a bit odd that we have an image for GA class, but not A class, which is technically of higher quality. G.A.S 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think A-class is utilized much by our project, so I don't think that's there is a specific need for it. In any case, I'll go ask Kasuga about this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:( I know. I would like to get A class up and running, I have already drafted the instructions on WP:ANIME/ASSESS (commented out), but unless more editors are involved in reviewing for A class, this will not really go anywhere fast. G.A.S 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, we actually had an A-Class article or two a long, long time ago, but it was before I ever got involved with the project (or anime/manga articles in general), and I have no idea what articles those might have been (the only way I even know is because I occasionally like to snoop around in page histories). As GAS said though, there just don't seem to be enough editors interested in A-Class for it to get started up - I guess, after getting an article to GA, most editors either lose interest and move on to other work, or are too focused on achieving FA to worry about A. —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did at one point have two A-class articles. The exact definition of "A-class" has never really been clear though, and frankly I'd prefer that it either be merged, with the GA and FA classifications filling the spot, or else correspond with the featured/good topics classification for "peer reviewed" pages of limited purview. --erachima talk 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess I'm also uninterested in taking advantage of A-class as a ranking, peferring to stick with GA and FA. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to erachima] I copied on of the larger Project's A class definitions, and tweaked it to be useful on our type of articles, (Wikipedia:ANIME/ASSESS#Assessment guidelines), [Reply to Dinoguy] and but I believe WP1.0 currently require 2 or more uninvolved reviewers to agree that an article is A class (Hence I cannot do it alone). [Reply to all] As is the definition on WP:ANIME/ASSESS currently stands, this would be reserved for our top GA's, those which are just out of FA's reach. Maybe upgrading a few of them would give this idea a boost? G.A.S 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we rather go for something like this? G.A.S 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! All right! Let's do this! [/Joe Swanson] —Dinoguy1000 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How to identify the RS parts of Mania.com?

A while ago, AnimeonDVD.com which was considered a RS was bought by Mania.com - whilst working on Haru o Daiteita I came across many Mania.com reviews from the series, (temporarily housed in the External links section) but I'm unsure as to whether they come from the reliable portion of the site, or not. How does one go about telling this? -Malkinann (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

News items should still generally have Chris Beveridge's name as the author, or otherwise be linked to from the main "AoD" entry page. For reviews, the RS/Official ones are still in a similar format as the originals, like this, should have the full reviewer name on it, and should be linked to from the anime/manga review list. I think the user reviews are all in a separate area of the site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems that the reviews I've found are indeed the official ones. ^_^ -Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning from 118.137.x.x range

Word to anyone watching anime articles; keep an eye out for any anon users editing from the 118.137.x.x IP ranges. I've noticed an anon user in the last day or so has been adding incorrect information to various anime-related articles, implying that companies and series are owned and distributed by American companies like Disney and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer when they're clearly not. So far, the address I've seen this vandalism happen on include:

• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.21.140 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.20.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

The articles this user(s) hit can be seen in their contributions. If you see a user in this IP range who's adding that kind of information to anime articles, please revert and report. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 10:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Found another address he's doing it from: 118.137.48.87 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lupin edit war

Lupin III Part II has been getting some edits by an unregistered user. Nothing major, but it was reverted by another editor twice, and then made again. I've reverted it again partly because it's just inaccurate (both the replacement terms were never used on that series officially) and less detailed then the original. However the naming conventions for Lupin aren't exactly straightforward, so input is welcome. MoS dictates we use the english name for the series but then we get a clash with the original series (currently solved with a disambiguation). Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltron needs to be split its become bloated

Looking at the Voltron article I have a few queries if that is ok?

1. Is it OK to split some of this article into smaller pieces particularly the character section and popular culture section as I feel its become unwieldy and hard to read.

2. According to the discussion section its rated a C grade article how? Because no reliable references are made about many aspects such as the comics, DVD Releases are not referenced is it OK to make a start article.

3. The third question I believe Voltron: The Third Dimension (TV Series) should be renamed Voltron: The Third Dimension as I feel I have provided enough basic evidence of the shows existance and notablity.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Its bloated because it has too much stuff in it that it doesn't need and it needs a major overhaul to give it a better structure. The entire "References in other media" should go, and the Comic book bios as well. Almost the entire thing is unsourced, which makes me suspect "Changes from the Japanese version" is pure OR. Clean, cull, and redo first, then look at splitting if, after its redone and in good shape, its still too long. I've also lowered the assessment to a C. It is missing to much of the basic sections of a good article while having too much "cruft' to even be C. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created a character section for Voltron List of Voltron characters and I have popular culture references section since there are no reliable sources to confirm them.

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article is confusing, though, since I can't tell for sure if its saying Voltron is an anime that was then dubbed and edited, or that Voltron is a blend of two other anime series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are YouTube clips permissible to use as evidence I used the official World Events Productions clips channel to demonstrate my points as references.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dwanyewest: The Third Dimension's "existance and notablity" have nothing to do with the article's title (you said the same thing in Star Blazers deserves its own article). It is just a matter of requesting Voltron: The Third Dimension's deletion so the article can be moved there.--Nohansen (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, I don't think YouTube links are considered reliable sources, but it depends on what you are sourcing (and if its clearly established that the clips are on an official channel). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that because youtube is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, we shouldn't link to it at all. -Malkinann (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says "there is no blanket ban on linking to [YouTube] as long as the links abide by the guidelines". If the clips are on an official channel, like Collectonian said, I think linking to them would be alright.--Nohansen (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the World Events official Channel [6]

These are the clips [7][8] make up your own minds if its legit

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that profile indicates or supports the claim that it is an official channel, so I agree they should not be used. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltron.com, which bills itself as the official Voltron website, does not link back to the youtube profile. -Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

list of Robotech characters is confusing and unweildly

List of Robotech characters is in need of reform and links formatted because its hard to read as its unweidly and has no consitancy. I added character inboxes to the most notable characters and this is a list of characters I feel should be merged and split

• Sera (Robotech character) minor character
• Corg minor character
• Macross operators minor characters
• Emil Lang (fictional character) lack of citations
• Marcus Rush lack of citations
• T. R. Edwards lack of citations
• Jonathan Wolfe (Robotech) only made one appearance in the show
• Lazlo Zand

These are the articles I think should split to avoid confusion

• Roy Focker should be split to Roy Fokker
• Bruno J. Global should be split to Henry J. Gloval

Dwanyewest (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumbor Barutronica

Here's an odd duck found while working through the urgent attention backlog: An article about a series that lasted 10 chapters in Weekly Shōnen Jump before being cancelled. Sounds like an open-and-shut non-notable subject except there's an extensive ja.wiki article, possibly because it was Hiroyuki Takei's first project after completing Shaman King, and even ANN deigns to notice it. So I'm bringing it here for advice: give the {{notability}} tag a chance to scare up some evidence, or go straight to a proposal to merge to the author's article? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The author is certainly notable, and there is precedent for pages on one volume works by notable authors. Of course, those works have usually been translated...pretty borderline. If someone had gone to the trouble of translating the Japanese article, I'd say let it be, but since it is just a plot summary, it should probably be merged. Doceirias (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)