Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime and manga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nohansen (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 29 January 2008 (→‎Exclusion of non-English/non-Japanese information: question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Anime and manga
Anime
Manga
Demographic groups
Genres
People
Fandom
General
icon Anime and manga portal
Shortcuts

Start of drafting character guideline

Draft of an outline of chracter article guideline, came up with while lying in bed. The names of the sections are wrong -- I suck at titles:

  • Lead: Summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who they were created by, what works they are from, and why they are notable. The usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material. This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary.
  • Infobox: (Info about {{Infobox animanga character}} to come.)
  • Appearence & personality, History: The in-universe information. This would normally be two sections, but they can be combined if encyclopedic treatment suggests this would be better; attributes/abilities would normally go in the first, but can be separate section if warranted. For these sections, citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
  • Development/production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS. Differences between adaptations would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here.
  • Voice Actors or Actors/Actresses (optional): Voice acting roles of English and Japanese. Some series have Live Action versions. Actors or Actress can be included here. Character songs can appear here as a subsection.
  • Reception/influence: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS. Pop culture references, parodies of, crossover appearences, merchandizing, poll results, sales figures, etc. are all valid topics here, as are reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis. Per WP:FICT, you should have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability.
  • References: The preferred method for sources for information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. For instructions, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. In rare cases it might be advisable to include a "See also" or "Further reading".
  • External links: This section should be the last, containing links to official sites relating directly to the subject (both the Japanese- and English-language sites are acceptable). Other notable and useful sites may be added, but please follow Wikipedia:External Links.

Hack at 'em. —Quasirandom 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That looks very good. Comprehensive, yet simple. KyuuA4 07:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note should be added about {{Infobox animanga character}} and its usage if possible.--十八 07:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a placeholder above for you to expound upon it. (Plus some other edits.) —Quasirandom 14:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question: where should material like voice actors and character songs go? —Quasirandom 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, those two sections should be adjacent, as plenty of voice actors also participate in music. Whether the character songs should be a separate section or a subsection within voice actors. Not every series has character songs, the Haruhi series is the first set of character songs I've heard of. As a first call, I'm opting character songs as a subsection - but not certain of that. KyuuA4 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want voice actors from all languages? I thought, from discussions elsewhere, it was decided to limit them to Japanese and English, leaving other languages to be covered by their respective Wikipedias. —Quasirandom 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Just checked the discussion on that above, so I make a correction. Also, a specific section on voice acting can be optional as they can also be briefly mentioned into the introduction. I cite Sailor Moon (character) as an example of handling voice acting, or acting, sections. KyuuA4 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Currently, in the GA-class character articles (which I believe are all Sailor Moon characters...) information on "production" is interspersed through primarily the first section of the character profile. I believe this encourages good prose, ie. "Ami is a genius because Takeuchi intended her to be a cyborg, but Takeuchi's editor objected.[reference]" If these articles were to be refactored to have a "Development" section, it would be small. Encouraging out of universe prose and references is a good thing, but I'm not sure it should have its own specific section. I'm also a bit leery of the "Reception/influence" section, as "Pop culture references, parodies of, crossover appearences, merchandizing" tends almost to trivia, and could, for iconic characters such as Usagi Tsukino or Rei Ayanami, be as long as the rest of the page. Not a lot of characters have academic resources that could be used in a reception/impact section. -Malkinann 00:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, how do you suggest editing the above then? —Quasirandom 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article should encourage out of universe prose. I don't think there should be an "in-universe section". "In-universe" would be Duncan MacLeod was born in 1592 in the highlands of Scotland, when the appropriate form should be Duncan MacLeod is a fictional character from Gregory Widen's Highlander series.
A "Reception" section is needed. It establishes the character's notability outside the series' fictional universe and fanbase. However, pop culture references would be problematic. We would have users pointing out every blue-haired pale-skinned girl as a reference to Rei Ayanami. Merchandise, popularity polls, appearances in other media and the like are what make the section.
I'll be back later with some ideas of my own (if I can think of any).--Nohansen 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The in-universe information" was a shorthand on my part. I meant not that, these sections are all in-universe (and nothing else) so much as all the in-universe information goes here (and nowhere else). Ways to say that clearly appreciated. —Quasirandom 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Information revealed about the character through the storyline goes here - it should maintain out of universe prose, and should not be mistakeable for a biography." ??? In WP:SM, we call our "character history" section the "Profile". Perhaps there should be something about not listing every single named attack of a character, in fighting shows? Surely that's a large enough subgenre to warrant a mention. -Malkinann 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of calling it Profile. In fact, I'd even suggest that Appearence & personality, History, Attributes/Abilities, et cet. should be subsections of this, if encyclopedic treatment suggests that they be dealt with separately. —Quasirandom 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←The following should be considered for the guideline:

  • Lead: Mention that the Japanese text should be added into the lead, but not the infobox.
  • Adding a synopsis of the role of the character in the fictional work
  • Production: Mention that translation/dub notes can be added here
  • The guideline should also require that the scope of the character's role (e.g. the media (types) in which the character appears) is given (And I do not mean a list of episodes in which the character appears – that could be left to the editors' judgment)

Regards, G.A.S 20:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Draft

Round two, incorporating (I hope) the above. Again, I suck at names, so titles are especially fuzzy. Juhachi: Anyplace I can snag guidelines for the infobox? Or can you edit something in?

  • Lead: Summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who she or he was created by, what works he or she are from, her or his role in these works, and why he or she is notable. The usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material. This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary.
  • Infobox: (Info about {{Infobox animanga character}} to come; include: don't use Japanese name here.)
  • Profile: Information revealed about the character through the storyline goes in these sections—note, however, it should maintain out-of-universe prose (see Writing about fiction for guidance) and should not be mistakeable for a biography. This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted (however, do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight). For this section, citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
  • Development / Production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS. Differences between adaptations, both between media and during translation, would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here. The name is flexible, depending on what better describes the content.
  • Voice Actors or Actors/Actresses (optional): Voice and/or live-action actors for English and Japanese productions. (Other languages should be left to their respective Wikipedias.) This can be included as a subsection of "Production notes", particularly if information about how actors approached the role is available. Character songs can be listed here a subsection.
  • Reception/influence: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS. Appearences in other works, poll results, sales figures, etc. are all valid topics here, as are reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis. Per WP:FICT, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability.
  • References: The preferred method for sourcing information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. For instructions, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. In rare cases it might be advisable to include a "See also" or "Further reading".
  • External links: The last section, containing links to official sites relating directly to the subject (both the Japanese- and English-language sites are acceptable). Other notable and useful sites may be added, but please follow Wikipedia:External Links.

Whack away. —Quasirandom 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the big emphasis on "Reception/influence"? Characters rarely get "sales figures" (how do you "sell" a character?), reviews, critical essays, or anything like this. This is a stupid thing for articles to require. Forcing this issue is bound to lead to forced creation of really bad non-NPOV sections. I can picture it now: "Newtype said in their review of Naruto that Sakura Haruno is 'cute and kicks ass when she needs to.'" It just sounds like it'll create sections with lots of random comments from random sources. I don't see how that helps an article at all. "Appearences in other works" is one of those things that leads to really bad trivia sections ("Doraemon is spoofed in episode x of so-and-so", x20), which generally should be avoided. --SeizureDog 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, true, but it still might be a good idea to get editors to strive for reception information, maybe with examples that show what to avoid. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a good thing to strive for, but it's such a tricky type of section that it's probably best to leave it only be a requirement for FA articles.--SeizureDog 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about not including it is it's essential to meet the requirements of WP:FICT. The wording can (and should) be worked on, but it does have to be there, even pre-GA. Also, there's a similar section in the Series guidelines. —Quasirandom 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying myself: Without information establishing the out-of-universe notability of the character, the article will fail the requirements of WP:FICT. The Reception section is the suggested place to collect that information, since to a large extent that more or less is the character's notability. —Quasirandom 03:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICT confuses me. It says, "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons)." So doesn't that mean that also long as notability is established within the parent article that the character articles don't require it?--SeizureDog 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That clause confuses me too. If I understood the discussion at the time it was inserted, the key is interpretting that "technical reasons" as a code-phrase for "split out for length reasons." —Quasirandom 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it'd be ok to say in Sailor Moon "there were over 5000 items of merchandise for the Sailor Moon series" and then not specifically cover character-themed items in the character pages? (ie. that over 5000 items of merchandise of the series establishes notability for the series, therefore the major characters are sufficiently notable to get their own articles???) I don't know that attempting to list character dolls/singles etc. would really be useful for readers - that, and I don't fancy trying to chase up reliable sources for specific items. -Malkinann 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Items sold by the company would unfortunately be a primary source; and sources regarding the items only speaks to the notability of the items. I believe this would be more of a case where you have a lot of common real world information between characters, that instead of covering it in every character's article individually, you can rather fully cover the real world information in the main article, and still keep the subarticles. G.A.S 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand.. how are you meant to 'sell' a character? You can sell a series in DVDs, but you can't do that for a character. Rei Ayanami sells so much merchandise that she is sometimes called the "Billion Dollar Girl".-Malkinann 04:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, one could sell the concept, or syndicate it, etc. I am unsure whether it actually happens a lot, though. Characters could also provide royalty income for the rights associated to make merchandise, which may be applicable. G.A.S 12:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, buy "sales figures" I meant of the series and of merchendize related to the character. —Quasirandom 15:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a split for technical reasons would mean something like a list article, not an individual character article. -- Ned Scott 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on real world information and secondary sources, of course. G.A.S 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: notability: I believe if secondary sources speaks a lot for the character's development and production, this also speaks for notability (According to WP:NN; and it constitutes real world information as well (WP:FICT)), so this section should not be underestimated. G.A.S 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances: This is a character article guideline, but it seems that we do not speak anywhere to the media the character appears in!? This does constitute real world information as well... G.A.S 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would be lead and profile. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I associate "profile" more with in-universe information, as for the lead, the lead should be a summary of the article, as such I believe that the information in the lead should be expanded on. G.A.S 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can change the title, but the summary describing profile says to make the section out of universe, and even mentions making an appearances sub-section. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Information revealed about the character through the storyline goes in these sections" — see above. Presenting in-universe information from an out of universe viewpoint is completely different from providing out of universe information. By appearances I meant in which works of fiction does the character appear, appearances in other works of fiction (For instance, Homer Simpson being mentioned in Stargate SG-1, should it warrant mentioning), etc. G.A.S 10:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Presenting in-universe information from an out of universe viewpoint is completely different from providing out of universe information." I'd have to disagree on that, I think they go hand-in-hand. And if you want to know what other shows a character has been in, "Reception/influence" would be a good place to go. -- Ned Scott 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example regarding this section might help: Have a look at how Link (The Legend of Zelda) (FA, main page article, also recently reviewed and fixed) is presented. G.A.S 11:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Link. Character history and development, mixing In-universe information with out-of-universe information with a chronological frame. That's one way of handling it. KyuuA4 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that is that even if such oou information is there, it can easily be skipped over by the reader or just blend into the background. Currently there's an experimental reorganisation at Sailor Mercury#Development which may prove interesting to the discussion here. -Malkinann (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sailor Mercury is currently languishing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Assess#Ami_Mizuno, (since June!) so it might be a good test ground to see how character articles could be improved and (re)structured. -Malkinann (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Side note) There is some speculation as to whether Ami Mizuno should even be at GA level what with the almost complete lack of outside information; see WT:ANIME#Sailor Moon good articles.--十八 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development experiment

Currently there's an experimental reorganisation at Sailor Mercury#Development which may prove interesting to the discussion here. -Malkinann (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good idea. The section lays out the origins of the character and certain aspects that went into her creation. I think we could do this for the other characters, though the only barrier would be finding sources...--十八 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the development information is already in the articles, like Sailor Mars being a miko because of the author's experience as a miko, or Sailor Jupiter being originally concieved as the leader of a girl gang. It's just not in a dedicated section. -Malkinann (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant in all of the other character articles from all of the other anime out there.--十八 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also a bit worried that the discussion of star sign choice and blood type choice would be looked down upon here - the author specifically chose them for the characters and so I feel they are valid subjects in the development section. -Malkinann (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not for all series, but in an astronomical-themed show like Sailor Moon, the star signs had better be pretty important, if the writer's any good. Which, as we know from the success, she is. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third draft

I think I've addressed all the above concerns, insofar as I could work out a consensus response. Someone, anyone, PLEASE write something for the infobox -- even if it's just a pointer to another guideline. If you guys leave it to me, you'll get something that looks like it was written by Yotsuba Koiwai.

Note that the heading titles are not set in stone -- adapt them as appropriate for your character and context. This is a guideline for the sorts of information to include and the general order.

  1. Lead: A one-to-three paragraph summary of context, including that this is a fictional character, who she or he was created by, what works he or she appears in, her or his role in these works, and why he or she is notable. The usual WP:SS/WP:LEAD material. This should ideally be able to stand on its own as a potted summary.
  2. Infobox: Although this is not a section, the animanga character infobox is a useful and attractive addition to an article. See the template documentation for instructions.
  3. Profile: Information about the character revealed in the story goes in this section—note, however, it should maintain out-of-universe prose (see Writing about fiction for guidance) and should not be mistakable for a biography. This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; special attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted (however, do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight). Citations to the series as primary sources are appropriate here, though for personality and other aspects that require reader/viewer interpretation, reviewer/critical/academic comments are strongly desired.
  4. Development / Production notes: Out-of-universe information about the creation process, including influences upon the CREATORS. Differences between adaptations, both between media and during translation, and between sequels would also be discussed here. The best sources of information are interviews and critical analysis; be especially careful of original research here. Use a title appropriate for your section's actual contents.
  5. Voice Actors or Actors/Actresses (optional): Voice and/or live-action actors for English and Japanese productions. (Other languages should be left to their respective Wikipedias.) This can be included as a subsection of "Production notes", particularly if information about how actors approached the role is available. Character songs can also be listed here a subsection.
  6. Reception: Out-of-universe information on responses to, popularity of, and influences upon OTHERS. Reviews, critical essays, and academic analysis are good sources; appearances in other works, poll results, merchandise (including, if possible, sales figures), statements by other creators that the character was an influence for them, etc. are also valid topics here. Per the notability guidelines for fictional characters, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability.
  7. References: The preferred method for sourcing information is inline citations with footnotes in this section. For instructions, see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. In rare cases it might be advisable to include a "See also" or "Further reading".
  8. External links: The last section, containing links to official sites relating directly to the subject (both the Japanese- and English-language sites are acceptable). Other notable and useful sites may be added, but please follow Wikipedia:External Links.

If this is acceptable, and the gaping hole is filled, I think we have something that can go to the main page. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The header "Reception/influence" looks daggy - I've tested it out at Sailor_Mars#Reception.2Finfluence. Is there some guideline about embedded lists that we could link to when we say that characters with named attacks shouldn't have them all in a big list? I was sure that there was one, but I can't lay my hands on it. -Malkinann (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'd better give it a shave, then. Or a better name, anyway. (Did I mention I suck at titles?) The only embedded list guideline I know about is Wikipedia:Embedded list -- that the one you're thinking of? —Quasirandom (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha - maybe just plain "Reception", then? Currently, WP:FICT is under dispute - will this affect the anime/manga MOS? I read it as treating "sales figures" as separate from merchandise - my concern is that finding a reliable source stating sales figures for character merchandise would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. -Malkinann (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, that guideline was the one I was thinking of. -Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the name -- how's the edit above? Sales figures for merchandising is good if you have it, but if you don't, you don't. As for the disputes over WP:FICT, I'm waiting for the feathers to fall before figuring how it affects us. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently at WP:SM we're using "Reception and influence", but what's in a name? My thought was that the very existance of merchandise for a character may confer some notability, so I asked at WT:FICT. May be worth keeping an eye on. -Malkinann (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. BTW, I was trying to word the guideline to say this is allowable information, not required or even necessarily suggested. If this was unclear, we need to wordsmith this a bit. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, I know that you weren't trying to make that compulsary. Suggest that we reword "sales figures of merchandise," to "merchandise, and if possible, sales figures of said merchandise" - the discussion so far seems to be that, barring toyetic shenanigans (where the toys created the media), the very existance of merchandise can help to support notability. -Malkinann (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the rewording above? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, I warned you what would happen if someone didn't step in with infobox instructions. Ya want something better, replace it. Otherwise, pending any further tweaks, I'm copying this to the main page next week. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the infobox section now. I think it's better to refer people to the documentation there rather than duplicating it here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic

I think we need to have something in the MOS-AM regarding how to determine which demographic should be listed for any given subject of an article. Examples of commonly misattributed demographics include Azumanga Daioh and Yotsuba&!, both of which have been incorrectly called "shōjo" by uninformed publications, groups, or individuals. The unwritten rule in the past has been to go by the magazine in which it was originally published, which means both of these are seinen.

Additionally, I think we should have a list of accepted demographics. Here's a start:

  • Josei: marketed to late teen and older females
  • Kodomo: marketed at young children of both genders
  • Salaryman: marketed at the commuting salaryman (and, more recently, salarywoman)
  • Seinen: marketed at late teen and older males
  • Shōjo: marketed at young females
  • Shōnen: marketed at young males

These are the most common, though there are also manga targeted at housewives, too.

We need to keep in mind that demographic refers only to the target demographic, not to the actual readership as there are always anomalous readers who do not fit into the target demographic. These anomalous readers tend to equal only a small percentage of total readership, though, when compared to the full readership for any given manga.

Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest an additional target for otaku oriented magazines. Quite a number of magazines aren't really sold to the traditional broad age groups, but are specifically geared towards a hard core fanbase. Proving this is the tricky part - I can say that Shonen Ace is not a shonen magazine but an otaku magazine...but without proof, Samurai Champloo is still going to be absurdly stuck with 'shonen' because the manga ran in a magazine with a vestigial 'shonen' in the title. Doceirias (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of which points up that we need to source the demographic of each magazine. If we do that, we can clone out the citation to the demographic listed in the various series that ran in each one. (My prepositions are piling up -- time for more coffee -- but I you can work out what I meant.) I suspect that with that, and a brief mention in the MOS here, that should suffice, without a list of only-these-acceptable demographics. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Actual readership is generally undefined - as once a work is in market - anyone can read the material and are therefore not limited to a projected demographic. Now, as Quasirandom mentioned, sourcing will be the best way to handle demographic categorization, as the "makers" are basically the ones authorized to make such a decision; or at least, some kind of publication can determine "which" category a work belongs to. As for keeping the list limited to just those 6 or so, I'll have to disagree. For example, what about old people? Just an obscure example. Anyways, as I've said in the manga discussion, it's best to handle this kind of categorization loosely, instead of strictly. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never said it should be limited to the six I listed. As it says above, it's just a start. I do think we need to have a list of acceptable demographics that are broad enough and have articles about them. I'm pretty sure all the ones above have articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, I think it's high time that the target demographic rule per magazine be finally implemented, since it's the only verifiable method of classifying a series. Often it's the original anime articles that face the greatest scrutiny, in my opinion we should classify it by the serialization of its manga adaptation unless there's a timeblock specifically targeting a particular demographic, such as Fuji TV's Noitamina. Let's implement this rule soon. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the place to start on this is in the Project Talk page, where more people read and we can organize the effort. At one point I compiled a list of seinen magazine articles without sources for the demographic, as that's the demographic with the most contraversy. Let's see if I can find it. *rummages around* *rustle* *thud* Ah, here it is. Most of those have links to the official pages, in Japanese.
For documenting to how to source it, a mention in here in the Infobox section, or in the infobox template doc, should suffice. Possibly we could even add an argument to the template, demographic_source -- though that may be more rigid about it than we want. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested this before, without generating much enthusiasm, but it's worth mentioning - when we're not sure what the demographic is, why not leave it out? Better than than force an original anime or a light novel adaption into a demographic based on the cash-in manga adaption, which is usually little more than a forgotten footnote. Someone mentioned Noitamina above; the article says most series are shojo or seinen, but Mononoke was an original anime, Moyashimon is seinen, and their Spring series, Library Wars, is based on a light novel. Noitamina's mission statement also specifically points out that their selections are stories that can be enjoyed by everyone. My point is this: demographic is often a very fuzzy concept, and one that seems to be losing relevance as companies discover the benefits of cross-marketing books to multiple demographics. (Ballad of the Shinigami getting a shojo manga adaption, for instance.) I don't see the need to shoehorn a title into a demographic when the people making the show have not done so. Doceirias (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout addition suggestion

Hello, I was wondering if {{anime-links}} could be mentioned in the section 9 of the Layout section, sort of like {{anime voices}} is in the fourth. It appears to be gaining some popularity, after all... --Koveras ☭ 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question the inclusion of AnimNfo.com as a source of reliable information. While there are entries for a large number of anime series, the content leaves very much to be desired. Most entries are a title, a genre, and perhaps when it ran. I've rarely found it a useful site, and would recommend removing all references to the site. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was convinced of its usefulness, when I've found a link to an alternative official Madlax website there which ANN didn't mention. :) My point being: there are some information there that ain't on ANN or IMDb, hence, it can be potentially useful. Noone is forced to add the Annfo link to a particular article, if it doesn't contain any unique info. :) --Koveras ☭ 08:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of non-English/non-Japanese information

I've just become aware of a rule created here that advises editors to exclude most information pertaining to anime and manga releases in languages other than English and the original Japanese. From checking the archive, I see references to previous discussion (and a link would be appreciated) and the explanation that this information was "cluttering" articles and "that's what the other language wikis are for."
To my knowledge, this directly contradicts Wikipedia's normal standards, and it certainly is something with which I strongly disagree. If information is notable, it's notable. Our articles are written for a worldwide audience, and they aren't supposed to be filtered to include only the information that directly relates to people who natively speak particular languages. If someone wants to learn about a subject, he/she should be able to visit Wikipedia in his/her preferred language and view all of the notable facts that people have taken the time to add, not merely the ones that pertain to his/her culture. Different languages of Wikipedia exist to enable communication, not to segregate information along linguistic lines. —David Levy 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information that a release exists is included in the infobox, but details regarding various other language releases is suggested (it's a guideline, after all, and one which most people here agree with) to be put into articles in other language wikis. Including voice actor information and other similar information for every language release of an anime or manga series in the English language article is not effective and causes serious clutter issues. Some of these series have been released in 20+ languages, and including all of that information here is insane (I can't imagine what a character list would look like with information on 20+ voice actors for each character). It's much more effective to have those interested create the articles in the other languages in order to propagate the series information across more language wikis, and include that specific language information there than to seriously bloat the English language articles with information regarding releases not likely of interest to the average English language reader of the article. Most English language article readers are likely only interested in the original language information (Japanese) and the English language information. This was discussed and the overwhelming consensus was that this was a very good idea in order to keep the articles under control. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is someone who only reads English supposed to do if he/she wants to learn information about a production's release in another language? While I don't doubt that many of our readers are interested primarily in the English/Japanese versions, that isn't a valid excuse to prohibit the inclusion of (or remove) notable, encyclopedic information about an article's subject. Furthermore, the guideline's wording ["information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga"] applies to far more than just voice actors (for whom you're discouraging the creation of English-language articles, by the way). It disallows, for example, the inclusion of information about alterations to the actual stories that might have occurred.
You cite space constraints, but Wikipedia is not paper. When an article grows too large, the solution is not to remove notable, encyclopedic information from the site; it's to split it off into a separate article (e.g. List of Dragon Ball Z voice actors).
No offense, but I'm absolutely stunned by this situation. The idea that we should be deciding on our readers' behalf that notable, encyclopedic information isn't of interest to them (because of what languages they read) is quite troubling. —David Levy 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see clarifying the guideline so that it allows for notable information regarding other language releases to be included in the articles (and that's something I would encourage, too), but including everything that might be included in another language article (unless it's the source language article) seems to me to be excessive and unnecessary. Unless there are significant or important differences in another language release, there is absolutely no reason to include anything from languages other than English and Japanese as the other language articles will likely contain the exact same information except for voice actors. If someone wants to know the voice actors from another language, they generally don't need to be able to read the other language to figure out who the voice actors are, even for languages not using Roman characters. The format for presenting a cast is pretty much the same everywhere. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The point that you seem to be missing is that for our purposes, information about an article's subject is either notable or non-notable. The idea that it's non-notable here but notable at another language's Wikipedia contradicts our encyclopedia's standards (as does advising people to remove information from our Wikipedia and add it to others). "English-speaking people probably won't care about this, but French-speaking people will" is not a valid consideration. We're building a comprehensive encyclopedia in the English language, not an encyclopedia for people with English-language interests.
2. You didn't answer my question below. Where is the "overwhelming consensus" to which you referred? When was the community invited to comment? —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, this is the only previous discussion that I've found. Is that the "overwhelming consensus" to which you referred?
"We don't want the English wiki becoming a conglomeration of everything from every language wiki as that defeats the purpose of having separate language wikis." Wow. What on Earth gave you the idea that the purpose of having different languages of Wikipedia was to segregate information? —David Levy 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good chance that the discussion was held in WT:ANIME, as this page used to be on the project page before being split off as a piece of the MOS. Check the archives there. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will look there (though it might take me a while to find), but it seems as though your WikiProject has formed its own consensus contrary to that of the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Project decided to restrain the information to English/Japanese versions because some editors were adding Spanish, German, French, etc voice actors and cluttering the articles. I know of three instances where this was "discussed" before:

Also, looking at what happened to the International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew article, I don't think splitting off information into new articles articles is the answer.--Nohansen (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has precedence in Wikiproject Films as well. They will only list film release dates for when it was originally released and countries where english is magorly spoken. They don't list every country in which it was released. Showers (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's less problematic (because a film's international release dates are relatively trivial), but discriminating on the basis of predominant language is inappropriate. (I would suggest that original release date should be listed by default, with others included only if particularly notable due to other factors.) —David Levy 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a parallel: for a set of information, privileging two pieces -- one for the original creation and one related to the particular encyclopedia's language. (Personally, I suspect that this issue relates to a disjoint in policies and guidelines at a higher level, over which reasonable people can reasonably come to different conclusions.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I believe that the setup in question also is inappropriate. —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. You've pointed me to tiny discussions (one of which I'd already seen) in which a handful of (often the same) people participated. One was nothing more than a single editor telling someone that "we don't" do something (implying broad consensus of which I've seen no evidence). When, if ever, was this issue advertised for discussion by the general community?
2. WikiProjects don't get to overrule the basic standards on which Wikipedia is based, let alone by creating Wikipedia guidelines. If information is notable, it's notable. For our purposes, there is no such thing as non-meta information that is notable in one language and not in another (though it certainly is possible for the various Wikipedias to arrive at different conclusions regarding what is and isn't notable).
3. Clearly, International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew was deeply flawed article. In no way does its deletion establish that legitimate articles of this nature cannot be written. —David Levy 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is saying that notable information can't be included (and as I wrote above, we can certainly clarify the guideline to make that more obvious). What is being said is that unless there actually is something notably different or of note in another language release, the articles will likely be almost identical anyway, with the only difference being the list of voice actors. If someone wants to make a separate "List of voice actors in X", they can feel free to do so, but the article will likely be deleted by some over-zealous editor who doesn't like sub-articles. Limiting the voice actors to only the Japanese and English language releases ensures the list won't become too huge, thereby avoiding all the hassle of creating a separate article only to have it brought up for deletion by the aforementioned over-zealous editor. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Again, notable = notable. If a piece of information isn't notable, that's fine. But advising editors to add it to other Wikipedias' articles is the determination that the information is notable there but not here. That's inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. For our purposes, the information is either notable or non-notable.
2. In noting that the different languages' articles will contain the same information, you seem to imply that this is a problem. It isn't. Ideally, that always would be the case. Again, Wikipedia exists in multiple languages for the purpose of facilitating the the dissemination of information to people who read the various languages, not for the purpose of segregating information based on determinations of what readers of those languages want to know.
3. The "guideline," as currently worded, prohibits the creation of a separate article listing such information about releases in languages other than English and Japanese.
4. I find it odd that you would reference "over-zealous" editors who seek to remove notable information from the encyclopedia (given the fact that this is precisely what you advocate). Pre-emptively prohibiting (or even discouraging) the creation of such articles on the basis that they might be unfairly deleted solves nothing. —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Did you read what I wrote? I clearly stated that notable information is welcome to be added, and if the guideline isn't clear on that point, we can adjust it as needed. What about that did you not understand?
2. Nowhere did I state that it was a problem for various language articles to contain the same information. What I did write was that they would likely be identical save for voice actor information. Again, I don't think you are understanding what I'm writing.
3. Yes, and I very clearly wrote that it can be adjusted as necessary to make it more clear. I don't have any problem with a separate article being created, nor do I have a problem with the guideline being adjusted to make it clear that creating a separate "List of voice actors in X" article if there are enough other languages to make the necessary.
4. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never once said that notable information should be excluded (quite the opposite, in fact). You coming and flinging false accusations around is not helping your case any. Instead, simply state your opinion on the matter without falsely accusing other editors of things that are not the case. If you think creating "List of voice actors in X" articles would be a good idea, why not just come out and say it instead of launching into a huge diatribe? All of us are open to new ideas, and correcting possibly incorrect ones. Guidelines are meant to be adjusted, and given that these guidelines are fairly new compared to many others, it's likely they will need to be adjusted multiple times. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see what information you think should be added. I can't really think of any information not already included in the infobox that would really be notable. Or at least, notable in English. The number of languages a work has been translated into helps establish notability of the work itself, but the details of those translations is rarely notable outside of the language that translation is in. I wouldn't expect the Spanish wikipedia to list information about the English language release either. Doceirias (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By our standards, "Notable in English" is an invalid concept. I don't know what the Spanish Wikipedia does, but your WikiProject appears to be imposing a "guideline" contrary to what the English Wikipedia does. —David Levy 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what definition of those standards you're using. Common sense would suggest that it is very possible something can be notable in one culture and not another. There's no reason on earth all Wikipedias should be identical. You also do not appear to understand the difference between a guideline and a policy. A guideline, by its very nature, is something that can and should be broken when a reasonable exception is found. Again, what exactly are you wanting to add? If it's actually notable, go right ahead. But if you are just adding a list of voice actors for the French dub, then I'm afraid that isn't notable, and would be removed on that basis, regardless of the guideline. The guideline does not exist to prevent the exclusion of notable information, merely to discourage the addition of non-notable information. Doceirias (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The English Wikipedia does not exist for the benefit of a particular "culture." Again, it's intended to serve as a comprehensive encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia containing information deemed particularly interesting to readers of English. If this information is truly non-notable, it shouldn't be added to another Wikipedia. That this is encouraged suggests that it is notable (and I certainly believe that the cited examples are). As I pointed out, such information needn't be included in the main articles; to avoid generating clutter, it can easily be split out into other articles.
2. I'm quite familiar with the nature of our guidelines and policies, but I'm not certain that you are. You're correct that guidelines "can and should be broken when a reasonable exception is found," but this is true of policies as well (albeit less likely to occur). The problem is that what I'm describing is not an "exception." It's how we do things.
Also relevant is the fact that guidelines are backed by community consensus. Again, I request that someone please direct my attention to the discussion in which the community was invited to participate and agreed that this should be a guideline. —David Levy 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I do have to apologize for assuming you were a fanboy with an agenda. I didn't read your user page until after making my last post. But I think the fact that you're an admin is actually more frightening; how do you have so little understanding of the way Wikipedia actually works, and so little knowledge of the ongoing arguments about fiction pages? Keeping my own opinion out of this, there is an ongoing and massive battle between people who want to add all information in as much detail as possible, and people who would prefer to keep each subject down to one concise page, with no sprawl. In the interest of compromise, certain concessions have been made on each side; and this is one of those. Again, it was proposed earlier in the thread that the working of the guideline be adjusted to reflect a legitimate concern, but you seem to have ignored that in favor of trying to get the guideline removed entirely.
2. The English Wikipedia does exist for the benefit of a particular culture - that culture shared by native speakers of English. Something notable in Arabic is not necessarily notable in English, and something notable in English is not necessarily notable in Arabic. Speaking a language carries with it the assumption of a shared culture. This is just how notability works. Doceirias (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. This has nothing to do with a desire to overload articles with information. Again, when this occurs, the solution is to relocate notable information to new articles, not to remove it from the encyclopedia. Certainly, I've encountered plenty of "cruft" (which I don't advocate retaining), but that isn't what we're discussing. Please don't conflate these two separate issues.
2. Again, please point me to the discussion in which the community decided that this is a good idea (thereby establishing its guideline status).
3. "The English Wikipedia does exist for the benefit of a particular culture - that culture shared by native speakers of English." No offense, but I'm afraid that it's you who "lacks understanding of the way Wikipedia actually works." —David Levy 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdentind to start a new thread) Backing up a bit, I suspect this is an issue not only for this but other WikiProjects -- any that deals with creative works that were composed in another laguage, be they comics, film, books, or whatnot. I have a suspicion that since this WikiProject deals exclusively in translated works, the guideline is showing up as codified here, although similar guidelines are more or less followed in practice in other WikiProjects. Poking about at a smattering of foreign language film and book articles, in practice, the original release date and releases in English are mentioned, but unless there is something notable in the layperson's sense of the word about another language release, such as an award or documentable influence of a major work, those pieces of information are usually not mentioned, even in Featured Articles. The other releases may be notable in the technical Wikipedia definition, but they are nonetheless not included. Please note the different meanings of the word "notable," are being used by different people in the above conversation, resulting in confusion and squabbling.

I suspect, but cannot prove since I wasn't around for the original discussion and frankly I'm too sick to dig for it, that the guideline here was a compromise between two conflicting larger guidelines, the notability guideline, which insists that there is no linguistic boundry for notability, and what Wikipedia is not -- specifically the indescriminate collection of information clause -- which insists that there are cultural boundries for notability. This cultural boundry is one that this Project encounters all the time: fans want detailed information about all aspects of what they (and likeminded folks) are fascinated with, but if you include to much, it's labeled fancruft and trimmed away, by editing or deletion. That, right there, is a cultural boundry of notability in action, seen daily in AfDs all over.

I had more to say, but I'm going to bed. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point I was clumsily trying to make above; hopefully it clarifies the argument for both of us, David. Doceirias (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Has there been an incident where an editor removed notable non-English/non-Japanese information and cited the WP:MOS-AM as the reason? "Notable" as in the Death Note-related murders in Belgium. "Notable" as in countries that banned Kite. "Notable" as in something other than who voiced Shampoo in the French version of Ranma.--Nohansen (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English language guideline adjustment discussion

The guideline currently states the following:

Information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga should generally not be included in the body of articles on the English-language Wikipedia. Instead, this information should be included in the articles on the appropriate language-specific wiki, and an interwiki link should be added to the English Wikipedia article.

Adding country information in the "other_xxxx" sections in infoboxes is acceptable. Only English-language and Japanese-language country information should be included in the associated "xxxx" sections of the infoboxes.

Based on the concerns raised in the section above, how about something like this (changes in red):

Information regarding non-English language releases (other than the original Japanese releases) of anime and manga should generally not be included in the body of articles on the English-language Wikipedia unless that information is in some way notable. Editors who wish to include this information here are strongly encouraged to also include this information in the article on the appropriate language-specific wiki, and an interwiki link should be added to the English Wikipedia article if one does not already exist.

Adding country information in the "other_xxxx" sections in infoboxes is acceptable. Only English-language and Japanese-language country information should be included in the associated "xxxx" sections of the infoboxes.

I'm not sure how to word the encouragement to create a "List of voice actors in X" article in such a way as to make sure it's very clearly sourced and made clear it's a sub-article relying on the main article for a significant amount of notability. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't completely related, but what's the deal with "Lists of voice actors in 'X series'"? If we have a "List of characters" where the voice actors are credited, do we need a "List of voice actors" too? I'm just asking...--Nohansen (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text should be rewritten to remove any suggestion that the information in question is unwelcome in the English Wikipedia. Instead, users should be informed that in the interest of maintaining manageable articles, it is advisable to split out such text when the original article becomes problematically long (and not before). For example, if information pertaining to only one language other than English and Japanese is included, it isn't practical to perform a split yet. This should be addressed on a case-by-case basis (and discussed on the articles' talk pages when disagreement arises).
And yes, it couldn't hurt to note that the usual verifiability and notability criteria apply. —David Levy 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first section of the MOS-AM (other than the Scope) specifically covers notability and verifiability. I don't think it's necessary to keep harping on that point. As for the information in question, it is unwelcome unless it is notable in some manner. The rewritten section specifically covers that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't necessary to address verifiability and notability, but it couldn't hurt to remind users that splitting information out of an article is a means of organizing encyclopedic content, not an excuse to keep content that isn't suitable for the original article (apart from the aforementioned organizational concerns).
Indeed, non-notable information (a subjective determination, of course) should be removed. But again, for our purposes, information about the article's subject cannot be non-notable at the English Wikipedia but notable at another language's Wikipedia (and I'm still waiting for you to cite the community discussion in which "overwhelming" consensus to the contrary was established).
You said that you don't oppose the creation of "List of voice actors in X" articles, but your proposed text precludes this. —David Levy 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the last paragraph I wrote when I created this section. Let me repeat it for your benefit: "I'm not sure how to word the encouragement to create a "List of voice actors in X" article in such a way as to make sure it's very clearly sourced and made clear it's a sub-article relying on the main article for a significant amount of notability. Thoughts?" Exactly how is that excluding it? I specifically asked for input on how to phrase a section about that.
And again, exactly where did I say that notable information should be excluded? If it can be shown to be notable, it SHOULD be included. You've been misinterpreting or ignoring everything else I write, so I want to make sure that's incredibly clear for you. I have never once said there was consensus to exclude notable information. In fact, if I remember the discussions correctly, the discussions indicated that notable information was fine to include and that there would be exceptions to the rule (as there always are with any of the guidelines here). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"First format"

The animanga Manual of Style says "article introductions should be primarily about the first format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work." I understand this is to discourage stuff like "[Naruto, Monster, Genshiken] is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name"... but in cases where a manga or novel (based on the anime) came out before the anime, does this rule still stand?

I bring this up because of Shigofumi: Stories of Last Letter and an article that, being the first one that I got to GA, is very dear to me: The Big O. The Shigofumi anime is considered the original work, despite the novels being produced first. The Big O manga came out three months before the anime premiere to build up interest in the TV series, the manga being based on Sunrise's anime.

Does this mean I will have to rewrite the whole Big O article? Say it isn't so!--Nohansen (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the original work was the anime, it should definitely then be cited first in the introduction. There are several instances of original TV anime series (e.g. Escaflowne) whose manga or light novel adaptations have been released prior to its broadcast date, due to various reasons pertaining to the series' production and promotional hype, etc. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should change that to "original format" instead of "first format." Doceirias (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime_and_manga&oldid=187639071"