![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I have been asked on my talk page why that isn't tagged to articles. I have no clue myself and wondering if I should let the user go ahead and tag articles with it. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
MangaLife expired. So all the links became deadlinks.
However, I found a 2010 archive of most of the reviews: http://web.archive.org/web/20101104165928/http://www.mangalife.com/reviewsarchive.htm
Is there a bot that can replace the deadlinks with the archived links? Extremepro ( talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that because of the promotion of List of Buso Renkin episodes we might need to either update the documentation for {{ Japanese episode list}} to reflect the practice there or add a couple of extra optional parameters. I would like to introduce the optional parameters storyboard and animation director in addition to the already-existing "written by" (which is apparently used for screenplay) and "director" (which seems to be used for episode directors). Storyboarding and the animation director role seem to be common tasks that are switched around from person to person every episode, so are good candidates for having dedicated parameters instead of using auxiliary parameters. - Malkinann ( talk) 08:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't think they're that relevant, yes key parts into making any episode. However, they're not the big ones that initially imagines the episode, they're sort of the end process. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How is dedicating an optional parameter for animation directors and storyboarders any different from using the three auxillary parameters currently provided? If there are dedicated parameters for animation directors and storyboarders, then perhaps more people will be inclined to use them, improving the list's real-world perspective. It would also improve the intuitiveness of doing so, because it's easier to remember what a parameter called "storyboard" is for than aux1, 2 or 3. Perhaps one of these needs to be renamed "storyboard". -- Malkinann ( talk) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually, currently commented out on the documentation page is "commented out because I'm not sure of current practice: , and for original video animations, this should be the date the episode was first released on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, etc". I'm not fond of the idea of simply having three "Aux" slots - it would be difficult to remember, by the time you get down to episode 10 of 24 which aux is for which use. It would be more usable if a dedicated storyboard slot was added. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
From this, I've worked up a possible addition to the MOS about episode lists and real world information - please contribute your thoughts here. -- Malkinann ( talk) 10:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like the project's opinion on this. Malkinann added {{ CWW}} to List of Working!! episodes based on the notion that the history is broken since the episode list was originally split from Working!!. Should this template really be placed on all episode lists that were originally split from their main article? Or is there some sort of alternative that we can place a template like this on the talk page or something?-- 十 八 11:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems some Tetsujin articles have to two corresponding Japanese articles when they should only be one a literal translation of the english article and a second one with a Japanese template of Tetsujin. Tetsujin 28-go (2004 TV Series) and Tetsujin 28 FX are good examples. Dwanyewest ( talk) 14:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Bread Ninja copyedited Outlaw Star, and I feel that her edits changed the meaning of the text and I reverted. As the GA review is underway, I'm concerned that the bold, revert, discussion phase may be taken for instability, as she still feels that the areas that I reverted need more clarity. More opinions would be helpful. -- Malkinann ( talk) 01:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here...asking for more clarity is sucha bad thing? I understand the revert but it seems like no one wants to compromise where it can malkinann. Its either revert and leave it as is and not make a single edit at all or keep the original copyedit. You also seem to realize that the intention was to copyedit. So I don't see why compromising shouldn't take effect. Bread Ninja ( talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To make this perfectly clear: I have absolutely no problem with you asking for more opinions here. I do have a problem with you bringing the GA-review into it. Sometimes an editor shows up to disagree with you while you've got some nomination going and causes it to fail. That's Wikipedia. Deal with it. Good raise 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It was one revert and we are currently discussing it.....there's no edit war and honestly not much happening to potentially derail ga status unless I revert what you did which I haven't. Better not to worry about what ifs and just work on getting this discussion going. This isn't about ga. Bread Ninja ( talk) 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an important discussion regarding if Sailor Moon (English adaptations) should be merged into Editing of anime in American distribution. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?. Input from project members will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
SoDak Con could drastically use a few more eyes to help with making it more wiki-appropriate to avoid article deletion. Wasn't sure if this project group would be able to assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoxtank ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2)#Split regarding the split of the article into its own separate article. I'm still confused about the organization of the seasons, so it might be good if users discuss it. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've also got a split discussion at List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers, splitting off the bulk of the 2009 and 2010 lists, that needs more comments. -- Malkinann ( talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This month this project is on the list. I participated in the video games for September and we were able to fix every link there so I'd like to see if we can do so here too.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you guys make Legend of the Millennium Dragon a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 ( talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Back in my unexperienced days I saw the article List of Hollows in Bleach and changed Angels (Neon Genesis Evangelion) to List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Now that I see my error in this. I suggest we change both to Hollows (Bleach) and back to Angels (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Bread Ninja ( talk) 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
They're really large. A very large set of characters.....we could do what naruto did and make a seperate slidt for antagonists? Bread Ninja ( talk) 09:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That's where content forking starts. For an on going series its incredibly difficult at this point for bleach having a large cast. And it does matter how big articles get. Character listings is part of coontent forking, if the list gets even bigger? Are you familiar with bleach? Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion reminds me of List of Saint Seiya characters, which is a bit of a mess at this point. To reduce article length, another editor decided to split some of the content into List of Saint Seiya anime-only characters, List of Athena's Saints and List of Saint Seiya antagonists. Was this a bad move? Trimming seems difficult and the main article still promises to grow as, among other issues, there are still individual character articles that need to be merged. Cyn starchaser (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I encountered a 403 message when I checked one of the references at The Knockout Makers. Hopefully this is temporary but I thought everybody here should know. Allen4 names 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 21:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As part of rearranging the fit the Japanese's release of the seasons, I created List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), List of Naruto episodes (season 3), List of Naruto episodes (season 4), and List of Naruto episodes (season 5). In the meantime, I redirected the other lists to List of Naruto episodes and managed to reduce the weight from the main list a lot. I'm not sure if I have to directly remove the FL rating from the seasons 1-2 and season 3-4, so I left them start status. I don't know what other fixes they need, but I'll continue working in the lists tomorrow. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I had asked in here whether the OST of solid state society should be merged back to the main film article. Yes, rather small but I'm also looking for help in fixing the article. Please feel free to look. (Btw...this is bread ninja. Had a name change.) Lucia Black ( talk) 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Does the Artvision database count as a reliable source? It contains information from a large number of Japanese voice actors affiliated with it and could be accepted as reference more than an episode owing to its accessibility despite being in Japanese. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Myself and another person have gotten into a disagreement about whether the "pre-airing special" that aired before Birdy the Mighty Decode:02 is the same thing as the episode entitled "Between You and Me". This discussion has taken place solely on Anime News Network's forums (see http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1555353), but has spilled over to Wikipedia, with the other person editing List of Birdy the Mighty: Decode episodes to support their position and me editing it back. My opinion is that the pre-airing special and the original unaired episode are separate things, both of which were included with the Birdy the Mighty Decode: The Cipher DVD. The other person disagrees, and says that they are the same thing. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the pre-airing special had "prologue" written in katakana, while Funimation has labeled the original unaired episode as "Prologue" in their streams, but I think they aren't the same thing. Both myself and the other person say that the official site for Birdy the Might Decode supports our position (see http://www.birdy-tv.com/dvdcd/dvd_cipher.html). My opinion is that the site lists both an unaired episode and a separate pre-airing special, with "prologue" in katakana for the pre-airing special. The other person's opinion is that it lists an original episode and designates that as the same thing as the the pre-airing special with "prologue" in katakana. Any help in sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. Calathan ( talk) 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw this happen to a few yesterday and it seems he's been continuing today. There has been no discussion about the removal of these here as they have been long-standing and it seems to be a concerted effort.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 19:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently, I dealt with WP:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider SD, which has been closed as a redirect to Kamen Rider Series with no prejudice against recreation once sources can be found.
I've come here because I know that this is notable (four different manga series, one OVA, three video games), but Neelix who has been going after several articles in the subject area lately (another couple of articles on the various Kamen Rider manga were deleted via PROD and I eliminated a few into redirects to just avoid deletion) because these manga, video games, and the anime movie are several decades old and I cannot exactly find reliable sources on my own. I have found the various ISBNs for the manga collections (Mighty Riders: ISBN 978-4257905363, ISBN 978-4257905370; Shippu Densetsu: ISBN 978-4257905127, ISBN 978-4257905134).
Now, can you guys help me find reliable sources concerning the manga releases and the OVA ( ANN entry here) so the article can be restored?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I put a discussion up on here to see if we can add a parameter that translates the kanji if it were ever different from the liscenced english title. it would be a great help if some people put in their thoughts. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
sorry added wrong link. I just fixed it. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
it would be great if more would put their 2 cents.I think this is really important parameter that can affect many episode lists Lucia Black ( talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
RTitle
is the parameter you're looking for.—
Ryulong (
竜龙)
08:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No its not perfectly fine. Its undue weight because it presents itself as an official english title. The Rtitle parameter bolds it and puts it next to it. The more you speak, the more it sounds like you misused the Rtitle and don't want to fix it if the proposal sticks. If not, you should have no problem with a new parameter. It should only be used for english alternative titles because that's what the description in the page asks. I'm sensing a lot of bad faith. Lucia Black ( talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing there that says the text is bolded or you can only use the parameter for secondary dub titles. If you look at the pages where it is bolded, you have to add the bold formatting yourself. I am not opposing a change because I have used RTitle in a specific way that only you say is incorrect. I am opposing a change because we don't need to change it because RTitle is exactly what you want, but it's just on the line above it.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 05:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)An unformatted [emphasis mine] parameter normally used to add a secondary English title, for instance [emphasis mine] if the same episode had more than one official English release under multiple names... It can also be used to insert a reference immediately after
EnglishTitle
.
The template passes it off as a secondary title equal to the official english title. The main problem is that it bolds it aand puts it next to the english title. The parameter I propose is meant to go alongside the kanji and romanji and it makes sense....there's no reason to go against it, if it means causing less confusion. Literal translation would be perfect for it, instead of rtitle which bolds the title alongside the official english. And that's another thing, translation of kanji doesn't mean secondary english title. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently recreated an article, Cell (Dragon Ball). Another user added a large amount of plot summary and excessive details. Now I am aware of WP:OWN and therefore would like to have some input by other users. I do not think these edits are an improvement. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 08:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I contacted the user at his talk page for now (see here). Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 08:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
These articles have caught my attention and am wondering if anyone wants to take it up and fix them.
I'll be checking other "quality" articles as well for the same and will update the list when I'm free. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 11:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a new step at WP:FAR, introduced since the FAR of Serial Experiments Lain:
Raise issues at article Talk:
In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
There are a few talk threads on WT:FAR and the archives of WT:FAR since this step has been introduced, discouraging perfunctory attempts. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have used anime_list.at.infoseeker.co.jp as a source for Japanese anime airdates since infoseeker.co.jp seems reliable. I was wondering if it should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. I have a list of its archives here. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 01:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone told me I shouldn't be quick on submitting FLRCs so I'm giving a heads up as I plan on submitting Soul Eater. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the previous discussion, I believe this should be done. I realize Fortdj33 is prefectly fine as of now removing the tags. My point is though, that these titles are very much linked to the anime and manga subculture moreso than some of the topics under our scope currently IMO. It gets to the point this is often the more logical place to turn to for a broader input in many cases than WP:VG on many questions specifically because of the subculture linkage. However, these are still ultimately video games, and that's why I am proposing this as a joint WP TF.
EDIT: If someone wants to post notices at
WT:VN and
WT:VG it would be appreciated. I will be gone the rest of the night.∞
陣
内
Jinnai
00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Right now the only FAs we have deal with anime/manga with spinoff games of lesser notability and thus they don't need as much coverage. What we are talking about here is cases where they notability may be equal to or greater for the spinoff media which is a visual novel, but where dividing the article into 2 is not the best thing. We need to figure out a way of how to structure that since it could become quite long while also noting that it shouldn't be overly long in cases where the spinoff visual novel(-esque) titles aren't as notable such as School Rumble.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
To the first point, that is not who we are writing the articles, especially the leads for. We are writing them assuming the reader is uninformed. When you take in the 2nd point, that would be absurd to think no one would ever look at the infobox until after they've read the lead's prose. You can't assume they'll read the prose first. They might, like myself, read the infobox first and then go over the prose. That means there will be a disconnect and unnessasary level of confusion to the reader because most release adaptations come out after the thing they are adapted from: that's what common sense tells people because for an adaptation to (normally) exist, there must be something out there to be adapted from. Given that one cannot assume the reader is stepped in the knowledge of Little Busters! publication history. the first infobox entry jars with the opening statement that Little Busters is a VN, not a manga. Without clarifying that early on, we risk further confusing the reader for the remainder of the article. We cannot assume they'll read through the prose and the info about the manga being based on an unreleased visual novel. We need to make things clear immediately so the reader understands why his common sense in seeing the manga first in the infobox, but reading the prose and seeing the article is about the visual novel is wrong. That means we need to be upfront about the adaptations. This isn't some hypothetical situation either; its already happened as earlier comments by others in this discussion have shown.
Now as to what method is best, I am not going to say whether listing all the manga adaptations at once, listing just the first and then later the other 9 or listing a brief mention such as "Little Busters! is a visual novel with a prior manga adaptation released." or something like that and then having the 3rd paragraph talk about the manga adaptations. It's not UNDUE to put a mention up in the lead as the manga is the first official release from the franchise.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it seems there is a consensus for this. I can go ahead and edit the respective pages. The issue with Little Busters! imo is an application of WP:IAR and I might bring this up at WP:LEAD to see if they can clarrify things. As for the specifics on how to word dealing with MOS-AM and VG/GL, that should be discussed at the TF.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 23:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So I happened to be over at the Naruto article and noticed that it's tagged as being merely mid importance. Now this just seemed weird to me, as Naruto has been an easy contender for the most popular anime/manga franchise in the world for the past couple of years. I mean, at its peak, the series was a full tenth of manga sold in America (not to mention the most visited Wikipedia article in our project). Perhaps we are against tagging any series as top class, but surely Naruto is of high importance.
So then I checked out our importance scale examples, and was shocked to find that Sailor Moon of all series was given as an example of mid importance. We're talking about what is probably the second most important series (after Dragon Ball Z) in relation to why anime even became an international post-90s phenomenon in the first place! And that, somehow, makes it literally the definitive mid importance anime series article.
I'm not really a fan of either series, so this isn't some personal fanquest I'm on, and I know how counterproductive it is to focus on petty importance debates instead of article content, but I'm just saying that our current sense of importance to the project seems to be really off. At least in terms of series.-- Remurmur ( talk) 07:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This could easily been resolved in the Sailor Moon talkpage. I support it being High importance, does anyone else like to oppose or support? Lucia Black ( talk) 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you are intentionally disrupting the discussion. Do it again and ill report it. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Something like that, but with better phrasing. -- Remurmur ( talk) 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Remurmur's scale seems pretty sane to me. I agree with Breadninja here - any rating scale which doesn't put Sailor Moon or Naruto toward the top is a rating scale which is completely broken. And Goodraise, are you serious? Neither Naruto nor Sailor Moon has had a lasting impact? Whatever.
(Of course, I have no respect for the rating scales or GA/FA in the first place, like Ryulong, so don't expect any help from me.) -- Gwern (contribs) 17:44 29 November 2011 (GMT)
Bwah..
As far i can tell, changing importance won't magically improve the article quality, credibility and PoV balance. In fact, if you need a "feel good" and a "small ego boost", you can bump to high importance any subject you are interested in but it won't advance "the cause" of those subjects by any millimeter.
Besides i really think that our importance rating is biased toward :
Given those flaws any discussion on article importance can be quickly reduced into another PoV pushing contest. For Naruto, i would give a bump to high only to the fact it symbolizes the most the Manga as a globalised cultural product but that my very personal POV. For Sailor Moon, i'm moderately favorable being the "successful" cross-over between sentai & Magic girl genres which spanned in turn other series based on the same mold or so. Again it's pure pov pushing from my part. -- KrebMarkt ( talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Lucia Black contends that the diagram which can be seen at Sailor_Senshi#Uniform_and_power-ups is original research. I contend that it is an original image which covers the information more succinctly than prose could. I have asked her repeatedly what about the image is original research, and she has not replied to this. Additional eyes and opinions would be helpful. -- Malkinann ( talk) 05:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Basically, should we get that intricate in one image? Or should we simply mention these things. That's what I think makes this in-universe. I suppose more accurately it would be very guide-like. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you should take things at a much more nuetral perspective. I don't see how the frilliness or girliness of the uniform justifying the diagram in any way. Overall its far too intricate and the sources are based off of opinion and images, they're too stretched, a diagram like that would exist if the creator made one herself and even then it wouldn't be used as a literal guide more as an illustration to the development. The image itself can most definitely be undue weight. Lucia Black ( talk) 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. Malkinann pointed out something not rlevant to the image. A diagram of the notable aspects of naruto's out by opinion and then trying to justify it per something not really related per the diagram. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No because I answered repeatedly. And will not repeat myself again. And I consider using images as original research to justify such a diagram. I really could care less if it was free or non free, technically the wikipedia article can run completely on free media if it wanted to however the line is drawn when the image imposes more than complimentary. The justification of the image is merely because it "can" stay there. Free media shouldn't always get a free pass because its free media and everything that we see on the diagram we already see on the costumes. I stick with my statement of the diagram being fancruft because it seems to help those specifically interested as the other images of the characters in their uniform would be enough. Superfluous because the sources to verify are based on primary, and that is making them stretched, anyone would be able to make a diagram of any outfit of any character as long as someone noted something specific about their out fit and used images. Its superfuous, the diagram is based on two main sources, one is secondary and the other being primary. Unnecessary because we already have an image of their outfits and trivial because its meant to guide the reader, not compliment the prose already given. The image attempts to capitalize the aspects. Putting high importance of those aspects for being noted once. It is most definitely something that can be coonsidered undue weight. Hypothetically, if a reception has mainly positive reviews and only one was negative. An image of the reviewer giving the negative review be added? It would have to prove itself a lot more relevant such as response to the critique and some form of history on it which won't be likely. Saying the diagram is verifiable is like verifying it throug a sailor senshi uniform image from the anime. Its just superfluous. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything? Lucia Black ( talk) 09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This article needs serious work. While it's true that it's a light novel series, it's hard to find any English sources about the light novels because they've never been translated. Reliable sources on the manga and anime are even more scarce, and I'm pretty certain there are no reviews of either from notable third party sources, save maybe a few editors for Anime News Network. Help salvaging this thing would be greatly appreciated. - waywardhorizons ( talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get some help merging characters (and if you want improving the article). The series has a lot of individual articles that fail GNG. However, some of main ones may.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know where some sources about You Are Umasou are? ja:おまえうまそうだな and an article in Korean exist, but aside from an ANN entry, I'm not sure if there was ever an English release WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
According to a citation in Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku, Kōsei Kawase, the producer of Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku states in the comments at http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm9247437 that they "have no money so [they're] borrowing server space" Which comment says that? Where is it? WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
A request has been made to expand the genres list on the above mentioned template from (Harem • Magical girl • Mecha • Yaoi • Yuri) to include many more genres. Further comment is requested in this regard. -- G.A.S talk 15:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about the length in summaries from List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes in Talk:List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes#Episode 11. In order to make the length more consistent, user Ryulong rewrote every summary giving each one about 300 words. Is that length acceptable? I'm having doubts about it, so I think a third opinion would be necessary. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞
陣
内
Jinnai
00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are there terminology sections in some articles? I thought that the Wikipedia articles were supposed to be from a real-life perspective (I think). Note that I am not asking for their removal, nor am I suggesting that these are inappropriate for Wikipedia; in fact, important terminology may be incorporated into the article's text, but wouldn't the terminology sections be considered fancruft (unless sourced), and shouldn't they just be in the subject's wiki or something? Again, I am not asking for their removal, I was just wondering why they exist. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Terminology sections are common on the Japanese version. And there are absolutely no rules or guidelines forbidding their usage on articles, so long as they can be reliably sourced. Although it might be better if we wrote the sections in prose rather than as lists. WP:NOTDIC concerns articles that are just entries on a word and defining it. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not cover terminology sections as far as I can see from its reading. And WP:FANCRUFT is not applicable because it is not a policy or guideline; it is just an open essay discussing issues concerning writing about fiction. So, terminology sections are not forbidden, and probably should not be forbidden anyway.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Wp:indiscriminate #1 says it all. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Im for keeping the Terminology sections in the articles as it helps the reader better understand the plot and does not add to confusion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 05:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
Ryulong I find your argument lacking, its not WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP.INUNIVERSE. because it is relevant? There is no terminology section for Ghost in the shell however there is an article on the world which could be challenged to be deleted. And if it does get deleted then the main article will still be understandable. The terminology puts an extra focus on the in universe terms and concepts than the story, setting, and character sections. The problem isnt explaining them but putting them in onto their own section. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some that agree with the terminology sections being an issue so you cant say im the minority. Regardless, thats not much of a perspective to look onto. "Well-written" isnt a valid reason for it being kept. And that was the main point i saw in your previous comment when you initially disagreed about the article World of Ghost in the Shell. The article is mainly made up first party sources, just as any terminology sections can come up. The truth is terminology sections are avoided and for good reason. Ghost in the Shell multimedia series with different interpretations of different writers, meaning it has several interpretations and not subject to just one article, it doesnt completely fall under WP:SPLIT. However, the difference between article and section is that the section is merely one aspect and article is the topic itself. Terminology sections can easily be avoided without the problem of confusion. Lucia Black ( talk) 09:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont know...i have a feeling were going to have to rely on RfC for a while considering the lack of editors holding their ground. Still, i find this more as an uphill struggle just to keep sections that are more of a hindrance and rarely used. First, terminology sections arent used as much and they are sourced through primary sources. Second, they are fictional aspects of both story, setting and character sections can cover. To split it into section from the other two that already covers those aspects would be giving it more focus on the fictional elements. At least if you are defending the use of these sections provide an example on how a good terminology section would look like without downgrading the article then maybe i would consider it. Though honestly this argument seems unnecessarily difficult. No Featured, GA, or even B ranked article has had a terminology section that i know of and adding one to them would most likely affect the article negatively. If this doesnt convine anyone then by all means go to RfC to solve this but i have a feeling the lack of edittors in this project is going to make things difficult to get a strong consensus for anything. Lucia Black ( talk) 13:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
How about first seeing if the plot section of the article is easy to understand without taking into account the setting sections? That would make the setting sections unnecessary for the understanding of the readers. Tintor2 ( talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read the World of Ghost in the Shell article, and that is a pretty decent article. It's not about the terminology but about the setting though. My original problem was most terminology sections were not well-written and should be fixed, but now I am wondering if they should be kept at all. It will probably be on a case-by-case basis, depending on the content. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Excerpt from FA article School Rumble:
I've been starting to wonder if we should have some sort of style guideline concerning the use of the nihongo template. I'm finding myself often running into examples like the one above, where prose suddenly becomes chopped up by large blocks of moonspeak and I'm left searching for where the content resumes. I've found that this is often a problem in media sections where a lot of titles get mentioned with little to say about them, but even the rest of article can be rendered difficult to read if every character and term gets repeated three times.
Having the full translations is nice, but of little use to English-speaking readers. It is supplementary information, which is nice when integrated smoothly, but bad when it hampers readability. Ideally, I think it would be great if the nihongo template somehow collapsed (hid) the Japanese text by default or something, like how the old spoiler template used to work. That might be a contentious change though, especially considering how it's used outside of this project. Otherwise, I think longer translations should be put in a notes section instead of the prose itself. Or perhaps we should just do without nihongo template within the prose (aside from first usage for the title in the lead). Thoughts?-- Remurmur ( talk) 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm specifically looking for interviews which may describe production and conception for the characters Isaac and Miria. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Since Son Goku was changed to Goku, i made a new discussion to change Son Gohan to Gohan here. Hopefully we can get this over with quickly. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well just "Happy new year" from France.
-- KrebMarkt ( talk) 07:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
How come we have an A class listed on WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment but never use it? I think its a neat addition. Also, would it be possible to start an Anime/Manga B or GA drive for the project? What would be needed? Thanks. 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Jonathan Clements recently announced that the Sci Fi Encyclopedia 3rd edition is now public; this is of considerable relevance to us, as he listed just as examples a number of entries falling under our scope ("Since the Encyclopedia focusses on authorship, there are entries on the original creators of Sky Crawlers and Akira, 2001 Nights and Star Blazers. There are details of the Japanese variants of Flowers for Algernon and the translation of Neuromancer, Japanese experts on Jack the Ripper and the big names in yaoi.") Clements wrote a number of them, and he's a very competent guy (you might know him from the Anime Encyclopedia).
I've added the site to the CSE and my archival queue, and already added external links to a few pages, but I'm sure there's much more that could be done. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've been searching for the air date of this anime, in the US (the ADV dub). I can't find it anywhere. Can someone help me? Thanks, Ryōga Hibiki ( talk) 07:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a content dispute concerning the "Abilities and Powers" infobox section in the Sailor Venus article. The relevant discussion can be found here. Input from project members on this discussion are welcome. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The naming of Toki o Kakeru Shōjo is under discussion, please see Talk:Toki o Kakeru Shōjo. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 05:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting out on an article draft of this gem and will put in my userspace for now. I need eyes and ears on the Japanese version of the page and use it to complement the article as well. Thank you. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw these articles and thought they might be useful:
Enjoy! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I just found an interesting source that describes the growth manga in Europe:
This could be useful in articles describing the popularity of manga worldwide. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This source discusses the changing US and Japanese manga markets:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I can do the assessments and award BarnSakuras at the end but I'm not sure if there's enough interest for this. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 05:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
List of Case Closed episodes reached its template limit so I had to remove the OVA section. I'm planning to split the episode list into List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–10), List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 11–20), and List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 21–current) in the future if it isn't a problem. I'm choosing 10 seasons since even at 20, it was a difficult page to load. If there are no objections, I'll be splitting it once it reaches the limit again. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe make a list of case closed seasons rather than individual episodes. A table showing premiere and finale along with number of episodes each one has. Lucia Black ( talk) 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thats different. You propose sublist for sublist. And lets slow down a bit, seems like we dont have a unclear consensus. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
My current plan is to move List of Case Closed episodes to List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1—10) and then making lists like that afterwards. If there are oppositions for this, state why. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As we all know, the article is currently a mess due to the inconsistency of chapter releases. I propose we split the list in two evenly one side having all the names of the chapters and the other side merely mention what number of chapters it has such as "Chapter XX - Chapter XX". This wouldd look much cleaner and easier to read. But then again, im also considering the chapter releases be separated from the english release considering it has their own titles and organized differently. Lucia Black ( talk) 09:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The one you have doesnt have the re release of oh my goddess chapters in its original format under the original japanese ones. The same way the average chapterlist template works only a line going down the middle of the chapter list.
No. | Original release date | Original ISBN | English release date | English ISBN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
00 | XX-XX-20XX | 0000000000000 Parameter error in {{ ISBNT}}: invalid prefix | XX-XX-20XX | 9781000000009 | ||
| ||||||
The story was moved forward and characters were developed. |
Only difference is with the middle line through the middle. Lucia Black ( talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Chapters | Japanese | English (first release) | English (second release) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Volume information | No. | Volume information | No. | Volume information | |
|
1 | September 23, 1989 ISBN 978-4-06-321009-5 Chapters 1–9 |
1 | Wrong Number June 5, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-669-4 Chapters 1–8 |
1 | October 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-9 Chapters 1–9 |
|
2 | Leader of the Pack August 7, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-764-6 Chapters 9–14 | ||||
|
2 | March 23, 1990 ISBN 978-4-06-321013-2 Chapters 10–16 |
2 | December 7, 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-3 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum Chapters 10–16 | ||
|
3 | Final Exam October 2, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-765-3 Chapters 15–20 |
im just going to be bold about it, because im starting to see some bias reasons appear and shouldve catched on earlier. Lucia Black ( talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I have been asked on my talk page why that isn't tagged to articles. I have no clue myself and wondering if I should let the user go ahead and tag articles with it. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
MangaLife expired. So all the links became deadlinks.
However, I found a 2010 archive of most of the reviews: http://web.archive.org/web/20101104165928/http://www.mangalife.com/reviewsarchive.htm
Is there a bot that can replace the deadlinks with the archived links? Extremepro ( talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that because of the promotion of List of Buso Renkin episodes we might need to either update the documentation for {{ Japanese episode list}} to reflect the practice there or add a couple of extra optional parameters. I would like to introduce the optional parameters storyboard and animation director in addition to the already-existing "written by" (which is apparently used for screenplay) and "director" (which seems to be used for episode directors). Storyboarding and the animation director role seem to be common tasks that are switched around from person to person every episode, so are good candidates for having dedicated parameters instead of using auxiliary parameters. - Malkinann ( talk) 08:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't think they're that relevant, yes key parts into making any episode. However, they're not the big ones that initially imagines the episode, they're sort of the end process. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How is dedicating an optional parameter for animation directors and storyboarders any different from using the three auxillary parameters currently provided? If there are dedicated parameters for animation directors and storyboarders, then perhaps more people will be inclined to use them, improving the list's real-world perspective. It would also improve the intuitiveness of doing so, because it's easier to remember what a parameter called "storyboard" is for than aux1, 2 or 3. Perhaps one of these needs to be renamed "storyboard". -- Malkinann ( talk) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) Actually, currently commented out on the documentation page is "commented out because I'm not sure of current practice: , and for original video animations, this should be the date the episode was first released on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, etc". I'm not fond of the idea of simply having three "Aux" slots - it would be difficult to remember, by the time you get down to episode 10 of 24 which aux is for which use. It would be more usable if a dedicated storyboard slot was added. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
From this, I've worked up a possible addition to the MOS about episode lists and real world information - please contribute your thoughts here. -- Malkinann ( talk) 10:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like the project's opinion on this. Malkinann added {{ CWW}} to List of Working!! episodes based on the notion that the history is broken since the episode list was originally split from Working!!. Should this template really be placed on all episode lists that were originally split from their main article? Or is there some sort of alternative that we can place a template like this on the talk page or something?-- 十 八 11:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems some Tetsujin articles have to two corresponding Japanese articles when they should only be one a literal translation of the english article and a second one with a Japanese template of Tetsujin. Tetsujin 28-go (2004 TV Series) and Tetsujin 28 FX are good examples. Dwanyewest ( talk) 14:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Bread Ninja copyedited Outlaw Star, and I feel that her edits changed the meaning of the text and I reverted. As the GA review is underway, I'm concerned that the bold, revert, discussion phase may be taken for instability, as she still feels that the areas that I reverted need more clarity. More opinions would be helpful. -- Malkinann ( talk) 01:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here...asking for more clarity is sucha bad thing? I understand the revert but it seems like no one wants to compromise where it can malkinann. Its either revert and leave it as is and not make a single edit at all or keep the original copyedit. You also seem to realize that the intention was to copyedit. So I don't see why compromising shouldn't take effect. Bread Ninja ( talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To make this perfectly clear: I have absolutely no problem with you asking for more opinions here. I do have a problem with you bringing the GA-review into it. Sometimes an editor shows up to disagree with you while you've got some nomination going and causes it to fail. That's Wikipedia. Deal with it. Good raise 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It was one revert and we are currently discussing it.....there's no edit war and honestly not much happening to potentially derail ga status unless I revert what you did which I haven't. Better not to worry about what ifs and just work on getting this discussion going. This isn't about ga. Bread Ninja ( talk) 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an important discussion regarding if Sailor Moon (English adaptations) should be merged into Editing of anime in American distribution. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?. Input from project members will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
SoDak Con could drastically use a few more eyes to help with making it more wiki-appropriate to avoid article deletion. Wasn't sure if this project group would be able to assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoxtank ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2)#Split regarding the split of the article into its own separate article. I'm still confused about the organization of the seasons, so it might be good if users discuss it. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've also got a split discussion at List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers, splitting off the bulk of the 2009 and 2010 lists, that needs more comments. -- Malkinann ( talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This month this project is on the list. I participated in the video games for September and we were able to fix every link there so I'd like to see if we can do so here too.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you guys make Legend of the Millennium Dragon a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 ( talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Back in my unexperienced days I saw the article List of Hollows in Bleach and changed Angels (Neon Genesis Evangelion) to List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Now that I see my error in this. I suggest we change both to Hollows (Bleach) and back to Angels (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Bread Ninja ( talk) 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
They're really large. A very large set of characters.....we could do what naruto did and make a seperate slidt for antagonists? Bread Ninja ( talk) 09:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That's where content forking starts. For an on going series its incredibly difficult at this point for bleach having a large cast. And it does matter how big articles get. Character listings is part of coontent forking, if the list gets even bigger? Are you familiar with bleach? Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion reminds me of List of Saint Seiya characters, which is a bit of a mess at this point. To reduce article length, another editor decided to split some of the content into List of Saint Seiya anime-only characters, List of Athena's Saints and List of Saint Seiya antagonists. Was this a bad move? Trimming seems difficult and the main article still promises to grow as, among other issues, there are still individual character articles that need to be merged. Cyn starchaser (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I encountered a 403 message when I checked one of the references at The Knockout Makers. Hopefully this is temporary but I thought everybody here should know. Allen4 names 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 21:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
As part of rearranging the fit the Japanese's release of the seasons, I created List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), List of Naruto episodes (season 3), List of Naruto episodes (season 4), and List of Naruto episodes (season 5). In the meantime, I redirected the other lists to List of Naruto episodes and managed to reduce the weight from the main list a lot. I'm not sure if I have to directly remove the FL rating from the seasons 1-2 and season 3-4, so I left them start status. I don't know what other fixes they need, but I'll continue working in the lists tomorrow. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I had asked in here whether the OST of solid state society should be merged back to the main film article. Yes, rather small but I'm also looking for help in fixing the article. Please feel free to look. (Btw...this is bread ninja. Had a name change.) Lucia Black ( talk) 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Does the Artvision database count as a reliable source? It contains information from a large number of Japanese voice actors affiliated with it and could be accepted as reference more than an episode owing to its accessibility despite being in Japanese. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Myself and another person have gotten into a disagreement about whether the "pre-airing special" that aired before Birdy the Mighty Decode:02 is the same thing as the episode entitled "Between You and Me". This discussion has taken place solely on Anime News Network's forums (see http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1555353), but has spilled over to Wikipedia, with the other person editing List of Birdy the Mighty: Decode episodes to support their position and me editing it back. My opinion is that the pre-airing special and the original unaired episode are separate things, both of which were included with the Birdy the Mighty Decode: The Cipher DVD. The other person disagrees, and says that they are the same thing. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the pre-airing special had "prologue" written in katakana, while Funimation has labeled the original unaired episode as "Prologue" in their streams, but I think they aren't the same thing. Both myself and the other person say that the official site for Birdy the Might Decode supports our position (see http://www.birdy-tv.com/dvdcd/dvd_cipher.html). My opinion is that the site lists both an unaired episode and a separate pre-airing special, with "prologue" in katakana for the pre-airing special. The other person's opinion is that it lists an original episode and designates that as the same thing as the the pre-airing special with "prologue" in katakana. Any help in sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. Calathan ( talk) 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw this happen to a few yesterday and it seems he's been continuing today. There has been no discussion about the removal of these here as they have been long-standing and it seems to be a concerted effort.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 19:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently, I dealt with WP:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider SD, which has been closed as a redirect to Kamen Rider Series with no prejudice against recreation once sources can be found.
I've come here because I know that this is notable (four different manga series, one OVA, three video games), but Neelix who has been going after several articles in the subject area lately (another couple of articles on the various Kamen Rider manga were deleted via PROD and I eliminated a few into redirects to just avoid deletion) because these manga, video games, and the anime movie are several decades old and I cannot exactly find reliable sources on my own. I have found the various ISBNs for the manga collections (Mighty Riders: ISBN 978-4257905363, ISBN 978-4257905370; Shippu Densetsu: ISBN 978-4257905127, ISBN 978-4257905134).
Now, can you guys help me find reliable sources concerning the manga releases and the OVA ( ANN entry here) so the article can be restored?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I put a discussion up on here to see if we can add a parameter that translates the kanji if it were ever different from the liscenced english title. it would be a great help if some people put in their thoughts. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
sorry added wrong link. I just fixed it. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
it would be great if more would put their 2 cents.I think this is really important parameter that can affect many episode lists Lucia Black ( talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
RTitle
is the parameter you're looking for.—
Ryulong (
竜龙)
08:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No its not perfectly fine. Its undue weight because it presents itself as an official english title. The Rtitle parameter bolds it and puts it next to it. The more you speak, the more it sounds like you misused the Rtitle and don't want to fix it if the proposal sticks. If not, you should have no problem with a new parameter. It should only be used for english alternative titles because that's what the description in the page asks. I'm sensing a lot of bad faith. Lucia Black ( talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing there that says the text is bolded or you can only use the parameter for secondary dub titles. If you look at the pages where it is bolded, you have to add the bold formatting yourself. I am not opposing a change because I have used RTitle in a specific way that only you say is incorrect. I am opposing a change because we don't need to change it because RTitle is exactly what you want, but it's just on the line above it.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 05:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)An unformatted [emphasis mine] parameter normally used to add a secondary English title, for instance [emphasis mine] if the same episode had more than one official English release under multiple names... It can also be used to insert a reference immediately after
EnglishTitle
.
The template passes it off as a secondary title equal to the official english title. The main problem is that it bolds it aand puts it next to the english title. The parameter I propose is meant to go alongside the kanji and romanji and it makes sense....there's no reason to go against it, if it means causing less confusion. Literal translation would be perfect for it, instead of rtitle which bolds the title alongside the official english. And that's another thing, translation of kanji doesn't mean secondary english title. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently recreated an article, Cell (Dragon Ball). Another user added a large amount of plot summary and excessive details. Now I am aware of WP:OWN and therefore would like to have some input by other users. I do not think these edits are an improvement. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 08:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I contacted the user at his talk page for now (see here). Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 08:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
These articles have caught my attention and am wondering if anyone wants to take it up and fix them.
I'll be checking other "quality" articles as well for the same and will update the list when I'm free. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 11:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a new step at WP:FAR, introduced since the FAR of Serial Experiments Lain:
Raise issues at article Talk:
In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
There are a few talk threads on WT:FAR and the archives of WT:FAR since this step has been introduced, discouraging perfunctory attempts. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have used anime_list.at.infoseeker.co.jp as a source for Japanese anime airdates since infoseeker.co.jp seems reliable. I was wondering if it should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. I have a list of its archives here. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 01:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone told me I shouldn't be quick on submitting FLRCs so I'm giving a heads up as I plan on submitting Soul Eater. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the previous discussion, I believe this should be done. I realize Fortdj33 is prefectly fine as of now removing the tags. My point is though, that these titles are very much linked to the anime and manga subculture moreso than some of the topics under our scope currently IMO. It gets to the point this is often the more logical place to turn to for a broader input in many cases than WP:VG on many questions specifically because of the subculture linkage. However, these are still ultimately video games, and that's why I am proposing this as a joint WP TF.
EDIT: If someone wants to post notices at
WT:VN and
WT:VG it would be appreciated. I will be gone the rest of the night.∞
陣
内
Jinnai
00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Right now the only FAs we have deal with anime/manga with spinoff games of lesser notability and thus they don't need as much coverage. What we are talking about here is cases where they notability may be equal to or greater for the spinoff media which is a visual novel, but where dividing the article into 2 is not the best thing. We need to figure out a way of how to structure that since it could become quite long while also noting that it shouldn't be overly long in cases where the spinoff visual novel(-esque) titles aren't as notable such as School Rumble.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
To the first point, that is not who we are writing the articles, especially the leads for. We are writing them assuming the reader is uninformed. When you take in the 2nd point, that would be absurd to think no one would ever look at the infobox until after they've read the lead's prose. You can't assume they'll read the prose first. They might, like myself, read the infobox first and then go over the prose. That means there will be a disconnect and unnessasary level of confusion to the reader because most release adaptations come out after the thing they are adapted from: that's what common sense tells people because for an adaptation to (normally) exist, there must be something out there to be adapted from. Given that one cannot assume the reader is stepped in the knowledge of Little Busters! publication history. the first infobox entry jars with the opening statement that Little Busters is a VN, not a manga. Without clarifying that early on, we risk further confusing the reader for the remainder of the article. We cannot assume they'll read through the prose and the info about the manga being based on an unreleased visual novel. We need to make things clear immediately so the reader understands why his common sense in seeing the manga first in the infobox, but reading the prose and seeing the article is about the visual novel is wrong. That means we need to be upfront about the adaptations. This isn't some hypothetical situation either; its already happened as earlier comments by others in this discussion have shown.
Now as to what method is best, I am not going to say whether listing all the manga adaptations at once, listing just the first and then later the other 9 or listing a brief mention such as "Little Busters! is a visual novel with a prior manga adaptation released." or something like that and then having the 3rd paragraph talk about the manga adaptations. It's not UNDUE to put a mention up in the lead as the manga is the first official release from the franchise.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it seems there is a consensus for this. I can go ahead and edit the respective pages. The issue with Little Busters! imo is an application of WP:IAR and I might bring this up at WP:LEAD to see if they can clarrify things. As for the specifics on how to word dealing with MOS-AM and VG/GL, that should be discussed at the TF.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 23:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So I happened to be over at the Naruto article and noticed that it's tagged as being merely mid importance. Now this just seemed weird to me, as Naruto has been an easy contender for the most popular anime/manga franchise in the world for the past couple of years. I mean, at its peak, the series was a full tenth of manga sold in America (not to mention the most visited Wikipedia article in our project). Perhaps we are against tagging any series as top class, but surely Naruto is of high importance.
So then I checked out our importance scale examples, and was shocked to find that Sailor Moon of all series was given as an example of mid importance. We're talking about what is probably the second most important series (after Dragon Ball Z) in relation to why anime even became an international post-90s phenomenon in the first place! And that, somehow, makes it literally the definitive mid importance anime series article.
I'm not really a fan of either series, so this isn't some personal fanquest I'm on, and I know how counterproductive it is to focus on petty importance debates instead of article content, but I'm just saying that our current sense of importance to the project seems to be really off. At least in terms of series.-- Remurmur ( talk) 07:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This could easily been resolved in the Sailor Moon talkpage. I support it being High importance, does anyone else like to oppose or support? Lucia Black ( talk) 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you are intentionally disrupting the discussion. Do it again and ill report it. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Something like that, but with better phrasing. -- Remurmur ( talk) 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Remurmur's scale seems pretty sane to me. I agree with Breadninja here - any rating scale which doesn't put Sailor Moon or Naruto toward the top is a rating scale which is completely broken. And Goodraise, are you serious? Neither Naruto nor Sailor Moon has had a lasting impact? Whatever.
(Of course, I have no respect for the rating scales or GA/FA in the first place, like Ryulong, so don't expect any help from me.) -- Gwern (contribs) 17:44 29 November 2011 (GMT)
Bwah..
As far i can tell, changing importance won't magically improve the article quality, credibility and PoV balance. In fact, if you need a "feel good" and a "small ego boost", you can bump to high importance any subject you are interested in but it won't advance "the cause" of those subjects by any millimeter.
Besides i really think that our importance rating is biased toward :
Given those flaws any discussion on article importance can be quickly reduced into another PoV pushing contest. For Naruto, i would give a bump to high only to the fact it symbolizes the most the Manga as a globalised cultural product but that my very personal POV. For Sailor Moon, i'm moderately favorable being the "successful" cross-over between sentai & Magic girl genres which spanned in turn other series based on the same mold or so. Again it's pure pov pushing from my part. -- KrebMarkt ( talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Lucia Black contends that the diagram which can be seen at Sailor_Senshi#Uniform_and_power-ups is original research. I contend that it is an original image which covers the information more succinctly than prose could. I have asked her repeatedly what about the image is original research, and she has not replied to this. Additional eyes and opinions would be helpful. -- Malkinann ( talk) 05:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Basically, should we get that intricate in one image? Or should we simply mention these things. That's what I think makes this in-universe. I suppose more accurately it would be very guide-like. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you should take things at a much more nuetral perspective. I don't see how the frilliness or girliness of the uniform justifying the diagram in any way. Overall its far too intricate and the sources are based off of opinion and images, they're too stretched, a diagram like that would exist if the creator made one herself and even then it wouldn't be used as a literal guide more as an illustration to the development. The image itself can most definitely be undue weight. Lucia Black ( talk) 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. Malkinann pointed out something not rlevant to the image. A diagram of the notable aspects of naruto's out by opinion and then trying to justify it per something not really related per the diagram. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No because I answered repeatedly. And will not repeat myself again. And I consider using images as original research to justify such a diagram. I really could care less if it was free or non free, technically the wikipedia article can run completely on free media if it wanted to however the line is drawn when the image imposes more than complimentary. The justification of the image is merely because it "can" stay there. Free media shouldn't always get a free pass because its free media and everything that we see on the diagram we already see on the costumes. I stick with my statement of the diagram being fancruft because it seems to help those specifically interested as the other images of the characters in their uniform would be enough. Superfluous because the sources to verify are based on primary, and that is making them stretched, anyone would be able to make a diagram of any outfit of any character as long as someone noted something specific about their out fit and used images. Its superfuous, the diagram is based on two main sources, one is secondary and the other being primary. Unnecessary because we already have an image of their outfits and trivial because its meant to guide the reader, not compliment the prose already given. The image attempts to capitalize the aspects. Putting high importance of those aspects for being noted once. It is most definitely something that can be coonsidered undue weight. Hypothetically, if a reception has mainly positive reviews and only one was negative. An image of the reviewer giving the negative review be added? It would have to prove itself a lot more relevant such as response to the critique and some form of history on it which won't be likely. Saying the diagram is verifiable is like verifying it throug a sailor senshi uniform image from the anime. Its just superfluous. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything? Lucia Black ( talk) 09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This article needs serious work. While it's true that it's a light novel series, it's hard to find any English sources about the light novels because they've never been translated. Reliable sources on the manga and anime are even more scarce, and I'm pretty certain there are no reviews of either from notable third party sources, save maybe a few editors for Anime News Network. Help salvaging this thing would be greatly appreciated. - waywardhorizons ( talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get some help merging characters (and if you want improving the article). The series has a lot of individual articles that fail GNG. However, some of main ones may.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know where some sources about You Are Umasou are? ja:おまえうまそうだな and an article in Korean exist, but aside from an ANN entry, I'm not sure if there was ever an English release WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
According to a citation in Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku, Kōsei Kawase, the producer of Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku states in the comments at http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm9247437 that they "have no money so [they're] borrowing server space" Which comment says that? Where is it? WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
A request has been made to expand the genres list on the above mentioned template from (Harem • Magical girl • Mecha • Yaoi • Yuri) to include many more genres. Further comment is requested in this regard. -- G.A.S talk 15:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about the length in summaries from List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes in Talk:List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes#Episode 11. In order to make the length more consistent, user Ryulong rewrote every summary giving each one about 300 words. Is that length acceptable? I'm having doubts about it, so I think a third opinion would be necessary. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:VN#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead. ∞
陣
内
Jinnai
00:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are there terminology sections in some articles? I thought that the Wikipedia articles were supposed to be from a real-life perspective (I think). Note that I am not asking for their removal, nor am I suggesting that these are inappropriate for Wikipedia; in fact, important terminology may be incorporated into the article's text, but wouldn't the terminology sections be considered fancruft (unless sourced), and shouldn't they just be in the subject's wiki or something? Again, I am not asking for their removal, I was just wondering why they exist. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Terminology sections are common on the Japanese version. And there are absolutely no rules or guidelines forbidding their usage on articles, so long as they can be reliably sourced. Although it might be better if we wrote the sections in prose rather than as lists. WP:NOTDIC concerns articles that are just entries on a word and defining it. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not cover terminology sections as far as I can see from its reading. And WP:FANCRUFT is not applicable because it is not a policy or guideline; it is just an open essay discussing issues concerning writing about fiction. So, terminology sections are not forbidden, and probably should not be forbidden anyway.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Wp:indiscriminate #1 says it all. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Im for keeping the Terminology sections in the articles as it helps the reader better understand the plot and does not add to confusion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 05:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
Ryulong I find your argument lacking, its not WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP.INUNIVERSE. because it is relevant? There is no terminology section for Ghost in the shell however there is an article on the world which could be challenged to be deleted. And if it does get deleted then the main article will still be understandable. The terminology puts an extra focus on the in universe terms and concepts than the story, setting, and character sections. The problem isnt explaining them but putting them in onto their own section. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some that agree with the terminology sections being an issue so you cant say im the minority. Regardless, thats not much of a perspective to look onto. "Well-written" isnt a valid reason for it being kept. And that was the main point i saw in your previous comment when you initially disagreed about the article World of Ghost in the Shell. The article is mainly made up first party sources, just as any terminology sections can come up. The truth is terminology sections are avoided and for good reason. Ghost in the Shell multimedia series with different interpretations of different writers, meaning it has several interpretations and not subject to just one article, it doesnt completely fall under WP:SPLIT. However, the difference between article and section is that the section is merely one aspect and article is the topic itself. Terminology sections can easily be avoided without the problem of confusion. Lucia Black ( talk) 09:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont know...i have a feeling were going to have to rely on RfC for a while considering the lack of editors holding their ground. Still, i find this more as an uphill struggle just to keep sections that are more of a hindrance and rarely used. First, terminology sections arent used as much and they are sourced through primary sources. Second, they are fictional aspects of both story, setting and character sections can cover. To split it into section from the other two that already covers those aspects would be giving it more focus on the fictional elements. At least if you are defending the use of these sections provide an example on how a good terminology section would look like without downgrading the article then maybe i would consider it. Though honestly this argument seems unnecessarily difficult. No Featured, GA, or even B ranked article has had a terminology section that i know of and adding one to them would most likely affect the article negatively. If this doesnt convine anyone then by all means go to RfC to solve this but i have a feeling the lack of edittors in this project is going to make things difficult to get a strong consensus for anything. Lucia Black ( talk) 13:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
How about first seeing if the plot section of the article is easy to understand without taking into account the setting sections? That would make the setting sections unnecessary for the understanding of the readers. Tintor2 ( talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read the World of Ghost in the Shell article, and that is a pretty decent article. It's not about the terminology but about the setting though. My original problem was most terminology sections were not well-written and should be fixed, but now I am wondering if they should be kept at all. It will probably be on a case-by-case basis, depending on the content. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Excerpt from FA article School Rumble:
I've been starting to wonder if we should have some sort of style guideline concerning the use of the nihongo template. I'm finding myself often running into examples like the one above, where prose suddenly becomes chopped up by large blocks of moonspeak and I'm left searching for where the content resumes. I've found that this is often a problem in media sections where a lot of titles get mentioned with little to say about them, but even the rest of article can be rendered difficult to read if every character and term gets repeated three times.
Having the full translations is nice, but of little use to English-speaking readers. It is supplementary information, which is nice when integrated smoothly, but bad when it hampers readability. Ideally, I think it would be great if the nihongo template somehow collapsed (hid) the Japanese text by default or something, like how the old spoiler template used to work. That might be a contentious change though, especially considering how it's used outside of this project. Otherwise, I think longer translations should be put in a notes section instead of the prose itself. Or perhaps we should just do without nihongo template within the prose (aside from first usage for the title in the lead). Thoughts?-- Remurmur ( talk) 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm specifically looking for interviews which may describe production and conception for the characters Isaac and Miria. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Since Son Goku was changed to Goku, i made a new discussion to change Son Gohan to Gohan here. Hopefully we can get this over with quickly. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well just "Happy new year" from France.
-- KrebMarkt ( talk) 07:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
How come we have an A class listed on WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment but never use it? I think its a neat addition. Also, would it be possible to start an Anime/Manga B or GA drive for the project? What would be needed? Thanks. 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Jonathan Clements recently announced that the Sci Fi Encyclopedia 3rd edition is now public; this is of considerable relevance to us, as he listed just as examples a number of entries falling under our scope ("Since the Encyclopedia focusses on authorship, there are entries on the original creators of Sky Crawlers and Akira, 2001 Nights and Star Blazers. There are details of the Japanese variants of Flowers for Algernon and the translation of Neuromancer, Japanese experts on Jack the Ripper and the big names in yaoi.") Clements wrote a number of them, and he's a very competent guy (you might know him from the Anime Encyclopedia).
I've added the site to the CSE and my archival queue, and already added external links to a few pages, but I'm sure there's much more that could be done. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've been searching for the air date of this anime, in the US (the ADV dub). I can't find it anywhere. Can someone help me? Thanks, Ryōga Hibiki ( talk) 07:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a content dispute concerning the "Abilities and Powers" infobox section in the Sailor Venus article. The relevant discussion can be found here. Input from project members on this discussion are welcome. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The naming of Toki o Kakeru Shōjo is under discussion, please see Talk:Toki o Kakeru Shōjo. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 05:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting out on an article draft of this gem and will put in my userspace for now. I need eyes and ears on the Japanese version of the page and use it to complement the article as well. Thank you. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw these articles and thought they might be useful:
Enjoy! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I just found an interesting source that describes the growth manga in Europe:
This could be useful in articles describing the popularity of manga worldwide. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This source discusses the changing US and Japanese manga markets:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I can do the assessments and award BarnSakuras at the end but I'm not sure if there's enough interest for this. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 05:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
List of Case Closed episodes reached its template limit so I had to remove the OVA section. I'm planning to split the episode list into List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–10), List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 11–20), and List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 21–current) in the future if it isn't a problem. I'm choosing 10 seasons since even at 20, it was a difficult page to load. If there are no objections, I'll be splitting it once it reaches the limit again. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe make a list of case closed seasons rather than individual episodes. A table showing premiere and finale along with number of episodes each one has. Lucia Black ( talk) 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thats different. You propose sublist for sublist. And lets slow down a bit, seems like we dont have a unclear consensus. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
My current plan is to move List of Case Closed episodes to List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1—10) and then making lists like that afterwards. If there are oppositions for this, state why. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As we all know, the article is currently a mess due to the inconsistency of chapter releases. I propose we split the list in two evenly one side having all the names of the chapters and the other side merely mention what number of chapters it has such as "Chapter XX - Chapter XX". This wouldd look much cleaner and easier to read. But then again, im also considering the chapter releases be separated from the english release considering it has their own titles and organized differently. Lucia Black ( talk) 09:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The one you have doesnt have the re release of oh my goddess chapters in its original format under the original japanese ones. The same way the average chapterlist template works only a line going down the middle of the chapter list.
No. | Original release date | Original ISBN | English release date | English ISBN | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
00 | XX-XX-20XX | 0000000000000 Parameter error in {{ ISBNT}}: invalid prefix | XX-XX-20XX | 9781000000009 | ||
| ||||||
The story was moved forward and characters were developed. |
Only difference is with the middle line through the middle. Lucia Black ( talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Chapters | Japanese | English (first release) | English (second release) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Volume information | No. | Volume information | No. | Volume information | |
|
1 | September 23, 1989 ISBN 978-4-06-321009-5 Chapters 1–9 |
1 | Wrong Number June 5, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-669-4 Chapters 1–8 |
1 | October 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-9 Chapters 1–9 |
|
2 | Leader of the Pack August 7, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-764-6 Chapters 9–14 | ||||
|
2 | March 23, 1990 ISBN 978-4-06-321013-2 Chapters 10–16 |
2 | December 7, 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-3 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum Chapters 10–16 | ||
|
3 | Final Exam October 2, 2002 ISBN 978-1-56971-765-3 Chapters 15–20 |
im just going to be bold about it, because im starting to see some bias reasons appear and shouldve catched on earlier. Lucia Black ( talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)