Talk:List of Oh My Goddess! episodes

• Archive: 1

Remove images or lose featured list status

There is a discussion about Fair use images in featured lists at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Fair_Use_images which may result in this list losing its featured list status. - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones

There is a discussion concerning the images on this list at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only contain overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list. If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. TTN 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose such a merger. There is far too much room for improvement in these articles. -- Cat ^chi? 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked over WP:EPISODE? If not, please read over it and address how the episodes can contain the information listed there. TTN 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by TTN (overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes) I'm firmly in favour of the merger for the tagged episodes of this cartoon. ShizuokaSensei 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a cartoon, it is an manga first and then an anime. Big difference.

I consider articles such as You're a Goddess? to contain enough material to disqualify as stubs. I do not consider their coverage as "excess", it is half a page summary of a full 24 minute episode. There are articles such as Broken Bow (Enterprise) that contain plot material on an act by act basis.

Also Wikipedia:Television episodes is merely a guideline not a policy. It should be treated as a guideline not a policy. You ought to have reasons beyond "it is in the guideline".

I also ask you, how is removing content rather than expanding the articles in question giving better coverage to the topic in question? Summarizing a show that lasted over 5 seasons (1 ova, 2 mini episodes, 2 recent anime) and a movie to few broken sentences isn't to the benefit to the encyclopedia.

The merge suggestion is giving over 1100 (18.5 hours) minute portion of the show a lesser coverage than an average movie.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest a read of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Your suggestion of a merge is in conflict with that. -- Cat ^chi? 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon/animation/manga. Define it how you like; I'm not going to get into a dispute over the semantics of moving image classification with a rabid animation fan. The stand-out line from the notability guidelines for television episodes page would be Create pages for outstanding episodes. Aside from the already highlighted problems of overly long plot summaries, trivia, and quotes (not to mention what is overall an unquestionably poor standard of prose), I'm unaware how any of the episodes can be considered oustanding. Remember, we're talking about how the episode is outstanding in an out-of-universe context; ie: it's impact on the real world. Belldandy doing such and such to save the day at the last minute can never be considered outstanding, regardless of how exciting / life changing it may be to you personally. ShizuokaSensei 12:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if independence day or any other fictional work has any outstanding significance with that logic. After all Die Hard is merely an action movie with a hero saving the day in the last minute. Or take Hamlet for example, it is merely a collective killing in the last scene. Like it or not Anime/Manga is an important part of our culture. So the blanket argument you have there is flawed.

I agree that there is a lot of room for work with these articles. The plot summary in most of these articles isn't even that detailed. So fair use isn't an issue. The articles contain not a whole lot of (if any) trivia. I do not recall any of these articles containing quotes. I am uncertain what your rationale is aimed at. "It is in policy" or even "Jimbo said so" is a poor way to construct an argument. Please have an argument more than linking me to a few guidelines.

Have you watched the show in question? Do you realize this particular manga is among the most significant and longest running ones? This particular Manga is the flagship of its genre which started as a gag. Manga normally lasts a few years - often they do not even last a year. This one is ongoing since 1988. It is older than some wikipedians. People keep buying merchandise for it for the past 19.9 ~ 20 years (or else it would be canceled). Thats nearly two decades. So there is no question about the significance of the Manga/Anime in question.

Also, there is news that something "big" is supposed to happen during the 20'th anniversary of the show (either 25 August or 25 September) so there will be a significant amount of info with that.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the metric for outstanding? -- Cat ^chi? 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point and misunderstood my argument. Noone is suggesting that anime lacks cultural significance, nor are they suggesting that this particular anime is irrelevant. It certainly is relevant, and more than warrents articles for each season/format etc. The point of this discussion is whether individual episodes are notable enough to be considered encyclopedic in an out-of-universe conext and therefore derserve seperate articles. The simple answer would be No, and no amount of detailed plot walk-throughs or discussion of the plot can alter this. Drawing parallels to Die Hard is a patently false analogy. Look at the Die Hard article and you'll see more than half of it focuses on production details and the global reception / influence of the film. Finally, the idea that the encylopedic worth of individual episodes of this TV show are in some way analogous to Hamlet... well I'm not ever sure where to start with that one! Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. What will be will be. ShizuokaSensei 11:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't even prone to a discussion. You ought to check wikipedia policies and guidelines on consensus. A lack of content can be cured by expanding the articles in question, it is not a blanket argument for deletion/mergers. If you desire to "butcher" all episode articles, please come back when you have community consensus to that end. This set of articles are not you test case to play with. -- Cat ^chi? 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indented to save space. Suggesting I'm not willing to discuss the issue is rather confusing. Did you miss where I addressed your points one by one and expressed the reasons behind my opinions (ie: that an article for an individual TV show episode containing little more than a plot walk-through is counter to Wiki guidlines)? It seems you may have, because you have provided no counter arguments and have resorted to accusing of me wanting to "butcher" Wikipedia and to "play with" aritlces. Please try and remain civil. Mud-slinging does nothing to help your credibility. The reason I have no further part to play in this discussion is that you are not providing any convincing counters to the points made by myself and TTN, the editor proposing the condensing of these articles (or the person wanting to play with and butcher these articles as you wish to describe it). ShizuokaSensei 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why I am the target of a civility warning. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this on an episode review page that we have for when more views are needed. TTN 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what is needed here is more time. The show is obviously notable and if other notable shows are looked at, there are individual articles for each episode. What these particular articles need are secondary sources on production, ratings, critical reception, awards etc. From what I've seen these sources exist, but they're in Japanese. Therefore, I feel that if White Cat were to work with a Japanese speaker, perhaps a member of WP:JAPAN then the articles could be sourced effectively. If after this, some articles remained merely as plot summaries, then they could be redirected to the list. After all, these articles are not doing any harm by being here. --Farosdaughter 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not having a deadline is not an excuse to let these articles exist indefinitely. The show itself is notable, but the individual episodes themselves are not. The Simpson episodes are notable; thus they qualify as their own article. Allowing an undefined time for these to be sourced is not a good idea. Any time people claim "Oh it's notable, just give us time! We'll fix it up! You'll see!" And people say "Ok.", more often than not a month later it's still in the sorry state it was originally. If there are sources that assert notability, then after they are merged they can be userfied to fix them. As of now, they do not have the sources. And not paper is the most overused argument in existance, it can be used to qualify anything to be an article. i ^said 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As for plot summaries, they need to be reduced by half (including removal of OR/Fancruft). Just to clarify, Ah! My Goddess: The Movie, which is part of this series, is a film, not just an episode. I agree with TTN that if we don't do the work, they will be redirected soon. If anyone wants to do it, go for it. Also, per Wikiproject Films' style guidelines, please keep the plot about 700 words. Good luck. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I am going to merge most of the episodes, but I need some help in doing so. I've noticed that List of Samurai Champloo episodes 1-12 have detailed plot summaries that are not overly long or excessively detailed. I also need some help on merging and writing summaries for the episodes. That would be very much appreciated. Greg Jones II 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that list and those plot summaries are way too long! The idea is to summarise, not tell the whole story. --Jack Merridew 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for other comments on this issue from Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review. Greg Jones II 02:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I will really need some help merging these episodes as per TTN's reasons for these episodes above. Any thoughts? Greg Jones II 03:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that this page covers more than one show, it might make it a bit tight to merge everything to here. Even so, I'd support some form of merge, getting away from the one article-per-episode mindset. I suspect we have general real world information about OMG, and not a lot of things to say per episode, but I will keep an open mind and see what I can find. Since this is anime, someone might want to contact someone who speaks Japanese and see if they can do a quick search for anything that would help these articles (reviews, published episode guides, DVD commentary) (as in, adds real world information, and not just another published summary). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will contact anyone who speaks Japanese for you, Ned Scott (like Nihonjoe or Ganryuu). Besides, just to clarify, the movie version of AMG is just a movie, not really an episode. Greg Jones II 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now contacted this information to Nihonjoe. Greg Jones II 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you want me to find here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about finding any reviews, published episode guides, DVD commentary and anything (As in real world information and not just another published service) as per Ned Scott's reasons. Greg Jones II 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect per TTN. There is nothing in here that satisfies the Episode guideline. If out-of-universe can be established then any of the redirected articles can be recreated. As it stands, no notability is asserted that warrants having individual articles. Eusebeus 08:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just went through all of the OVA "episodes" and the two seasons of the tv show. None of them is much more than plot summary and a fair number of the season 2 articles have a null plot summary — the ultimate stub. The tbs.co.jp links may well back-up factual claims (to Japanese readers) but are hardly an independent source; the links in English to "Open Your Mind" are largely broken and/or missing and are to nothing more than a fan site. I don't see anyway the individual episode articles can be expanded besides the addition of more plot summary (I did like this bit in one of the season two episodes: Talking vegetables make an appearance!); there is only a bit of trivia and I don't believe any quotes — but they could make an appearance if these articles are not dealt with. The OVA articles fail to rise even to the level of "episode" (they're direct to video for fans). I recommend that the OVA and TV show episodes be redirected to the LOE which have sufficient plot summary. The movie article may be able to be improved; I would suggest that interested editors focus on that article. --Jack Merridew 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is affirmative. Greg Jones II 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a military operation. General remarks are unhelpful. If you see a spesific problem with a spesific article, feel free to correct it. If the complaint is that articles have nothing but plot summaries you are welcome to help expand it. Episode articles are not banned on wikipedia so a general opposition simply because these are episode articles is not a productive approach. I did not have a metric when I started writing these articles and would appreciate a little more consideration. -- Cat ^chi? 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The info above, just to clarify, is not a military operation, nor are they general remarks. It is merely a request. I am going to start removing trivia, reducing plot summaries by half and improving all the articles, including the film, in the next couple of days. Greg Jones II 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I also object to a merger, all these episodes establish notability to me for being episodes of Oh My Goddess! OVA. Matthew 14:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

General response to everything above: I see no comments at Talk:You're a Goddess?. I have no metric whatsoever on how a good episode article looks like. Finding the airfield would be much easier if I do not fly blind and have a clue what I am looking for. A general guideline isn't all that helpful. -- Cat ^chi? 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE lists the following as examples of good epiosde articles: "Abyssinia, Henry" (from M*A*S*H), "Pilot (House)" (from House), "Cape Feare" (from The Simpsons) and "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)" (from Lost). All include information about the production of the episode, and its reception by audiences and critics. I don't know much about anime, but I believe that there's a pretty substantial critical apparatus for major anime series like Oh My Goddess. It should be possible to find some production information and reviews from reliable sources. These don't have to be general-audience newspapers; if there's an anime fan magazine which reviews individual episodes, that would do. Of course, it's much easier to find sources for American and British television shows, but someone at the Japanese Wikipedia might be able to help find sources. (It would be interesting to learn whether the Japanese Wikipedia has pages for individual episodes of this anime — since I can't read Japanese, I can't tell, but I don't see Japanese interwiki links on the episode pages that exist.) One of these users may be able to help with the Japanese-language side of things; if you have specific questions about how to improve an episode page so it doesn't get turned into a redirect, I'll try to help if I can. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I think an article improvement drive would a better way to address the problem. -- Cat ^chi? 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, but some editors are just fond of deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually strongly agree with WhiteCat and Josiah Rowe that an article improvement drive would be a better way to address the problem. Greg Jones II 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've watched these articles for over a year now, and I've seen at least one of the series. Given the very nature of the show, and the information available to us, the probability of improvement is very low. Let me ask this, what kind of real-world information might these per-episode articles include? How much of this information do we even know to exist? -- Ned Scott 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Real-world information, for example, would be on professional reviews, official websites (on the Tokyo Broadcasting System's official website), reliable sources, anime conventions, professional film reviews and the OVA DVD commentary. Also, plot summaries should have no Original Research/Fancruft and redundancies must be reduced by half. Greg Jones II 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pages linked from here and here may be useful, as may this. Books like this may have useful content, as may magazines like Anime Insider and Newtype. I'm not into anime, so I'm not qualified to determine which of these sources are reliable and which aren't — but it does look to me as if reliable sources exist to provide real-world context for these episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, you'll find lots of stuff per-series, but little to nothing that is per-episode, or that would justify such a format. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give the editors of these articles a little more time to check for useful sources before we make a final decision. I know that White Cat is interested in improving the articles, but didn't know what resources were available. I know that you know more about anime than I do, Ned; have you looked for sources that might be used in these episode articles? You say that per-series sources exist but per-episode sources don't; is that based on research, or just a gut feeling? (If you have looked into this, and found nothing, then I apologize — I just want to make sure that we give the interested editors a fair chance to improve the articles.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I have been told that ja:Category:漫画雑誌 or ja:漫画評論 would be a good place to start. -- Cat ^chi? 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, White Cat. Greg Jones II 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, take all the time necessary. While I'd prefer merging and redirecting many of these articles, I am not looking to force the issue. As far as what I personally have found, nothing specific to OMG, but from other anime research I've done, it's generally true. There are exceptions, such as "Going Too Far" from Excel Saga, but even then that doesn't always mean there's enough per-episode info for a separate article. Remember, this isn't just about notability and sources, it's also about the amount of information and how we organize it. Sometimes even when you do have something from the real-world that can be said about an episode, sometimes that same information is better said on a character's page, depending on context. Etc, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted something on ja.chatsubo and am waiting for a response. -- Cat ^chi? 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much is moving forward. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate. We need to move forward as soon as possible taking all the time needed. Greg Jones II 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to trim up the plot section on the movie article. Greg Jones II 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

motion to close

There has been little editing of these articles and they all still fail to establish notability or amount to much more than plot summary. The movie could be an exception, but not in its present state. Absent better sources, these will be redirected soon. --Jack Merridew 10:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to edit them ASAP. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 13:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Greg Jones II 13:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the issue on ja.wiki. I am sorry, ja.wikipedians are not men under my command. They will respond at their own pace. To Jack Merridew and Ned Scott: Do NOT rush me. There are 2 million other pages to keep you busy in the meanwhile. -- Cat ^chi? 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)