![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Hello, you guys might want to keep an eye on the Claymore pages (chapters, episodes and main). A user named Jamieclaymore has edited it a lot lately and this might not always be improvements on the pages. 86.87.73.104 ( talk) 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I split the Berserk (manga) page in two a few pages. The manga page had turned into an article about the series, rather than the manga. I created:
They need work, images and a lot. Feel free to give input. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4
To mark the second anniversary of this useful tool (I began it in January 2010), I have added in approximately 700 new domains to the white and blacklists while cleaning up most past queries.
While I'm at it, I've decided to make my work still more publicly available: the exported black/whitelist of my CSE is available at http://www.gwern.net/docs/gwern-google-cse.xml and I plan to sync it every 3 months.
Many happy searches. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:40 9 February 2012 (GMT)
I discussed about this before in this talk page. I was thinking whether or not Terminology sections, like the ones at Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica violate any Wikipedia policy, such as WP:FICT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:INUNIVERSE. While spinning them off from the Setting section allows the Setting section to not be too long, most of the terminology may only be of interest to fans of the series. While terminology sections can be useful for people who are fans, they may not be of interest to most people, and may even be considered as trivia (but I don't consider them as such, especially if the terms are integral to the plot). Instead, what could be done is move important content to the Setting section, or make the Terminology section a sub-heading of the Setting section. While I am generally leaning towards their removal, I do believe that their inclusion may hurt those who want to learn about the subject (although they can always look at the series' respective wikis). In a sense, these sections are similar to trivia sections: they should be avoided, any information could be integrated into the main text, and if they exist, they should only be temporary, but there is a difference: trivia sections here should be sourced, while terminology sections usually aren't. So should they be kept or not? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I feel like no one wants to find a way to write a plot without it. And I highly doubt terminology sections inclusion will help any article reach up to at least B-class. Alot of series have dozens of terms, and yet theyre not that common. Does bleach make termilogy section to explain soul reapers or Hollows? Are these terms "necesary" to understand the "basic" plot? How about this, how about we "prove" how necesarry they are. Can we honestly say the inclusion of these said terms wont affect an article affecting its GA or FA status? So if i add a terminoloogy section to said GA/FA and give it a GAR/FAR, can we still say the story wont be affected? This is about fiction itself, the usage of terminology section also expands to novels or tv shows. A GA-class TV series with alot of terms deserves a terminology section, do we all believe if i included terminology section, and give it a review, it will still stay as GA-class? I really want to hear your answer. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please also note that I do not know any featured article or good article that has terminology sections. Even InuYasha and Bleach do not have terminology sections. Anime does, but it is more of an etymology section, it is in prose form, and is sourced and not written in a fan-crufty way, which cannot be said of most terminology sections, which is why I would rather have them incorporated into the Setting section's text. Besides, shouldn't terminology sections, should they be kept, be written from a real-world perspective? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The recent mediation case on Sailor Moon (English adaptations) has been closed and Lucia Black ( talk · contribs) has opened up an important discussion about whether we should merging it into the main article Sailor Moon. There is a strong consensus on the mediation that it should be merged with the main article itself. As such, we are planning to clean up and remove unreliable sources from the article. Input and suggestions from project members would be very much appreciated. The discussion can be found at Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation.... Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, This is the first time I post here and hope I did it right. Anyway, I wanted to ask about the Filler arcs of Bleach. Recently I edited the page List of Bleach episodes (season 9). When I first see the page, it's says "The ninth season of the Bleach anime series, based on the manga series with the same name by Tite Kubo", which is wrong, this season is not based on manga. So I edited the page, deleted the "based on the manga.." part and added "This season is a filler arc, which are not direct adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo.". But User:Tintor2 undid my revision. After I explain it's wrong and edited again, this time he look away the line I wrote. Hokaru ( talk) 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you please comment about the Japanese title of Dinosaucers at its talk page?-- Mujaki ( talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The January 30th issue of Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha (issue 1) has an interview with Naruto author Masashi Kishimoto involving not only the series but the author's personal life. The official site has the first page and I managed to find a script confirming everything that is said in interview. However, I can't find an author of the interview or the page. As far as I could complete it, the citation would be:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Is there anyone who has access to the issue and has other parameters to add? Thanks. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have some questions related to potential Tokyopop edits. With the company only being active in Germany, should manga that have been previously published by them keep Tokyopop in the Infobox? Also, should they keep the Tokyopop Categories link? ( Esw01407 ( talk) 19:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
I am hoping that someone can help cleanup the romanizations at List of Ranma ½ chapters. If you know the correct readings of the kanji or have the tankobon/shinshobon please make any needed corrections. Once this is done (or before) the crufty external links can be removed. It should be noted that the {{ Nihongo}} template is not used because of the template limits and that current consensus is that the page should not be split for now. – Allen4 names 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an important discussion regarding whether if the film Arrietty should be moved to the official US title The Secret World of Arrietty. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Arrietty#Why Is The Article Under Disney's Title? and the requested move discussion is just below this discussion. Input and comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The List of female action heroes includes a lot of anime and manga characters in it. Some entries are in dispute such as Mikoto Misaka from Toaru Majutsu no Index. Is this person obviously an action hero, based on the genre of this series defined as "action" and the fact that she runs around fighting people in action sequences shooting psychic lightning at them and what, etc.? Is it common knowledge or original research if we don't find a source that specifically calls her an action hero? Is anyone familiar with this series of other anime series listed? And are there list on any reliable sources out there that show the greatest action heroes for anime and manga or anything else relevant to this article? Dream Focus 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a new request to move discussion that been created here. Sarujo ( talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking to verify and complement some citations appearing in Pegasus Seiya. The existing reference points to an interview with Masami Kurumada published in Japanese in "Kappa Magazine, number 80. 1999". I'm coming to suspect that this interview is actually from the italian magazine, but I can't be sure of anything. Any help finding more information about this would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cyn starchaser (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So as I mentioned in a previous discussion here, I am somewhat of a big fan of Shakugan no Shana. One of the manifestations of this is my enjoyment of the music of Mami Kawada, my personal favorite being the song "triangle", the 2nd ED of Shana II. However, it disappoints me to see her article in a state of mess, but this is understandable, as she's as not as famous as singers like Yoko Takahashi, Maaya Sakamoto, Aya Hirano or Nana Mizuki (whom I share a birthday with), or even fellow I've singer KOTOKO. Since I am more used to new-page patrolling, and contributing to articles is a new experience for me, can someone please help me what parts of the article need to be improved, and how I can improve them. I have already fixed it a little, such as stopping the excessive use of the words "tie-up" or "tie-in" and replacing them with something else, but I do not know how I can improve it any further. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming you wanted to fix the article Mami Kawada. I'll post some things I noticed from my quick skim, even though I never worked on biographies.
Hi all, I have started a discussion on toonzone on reliable source notice board, i would like to get as many editors involved as possible soa consensus on the site various parts can be have resolution and eventually archived consensus decisions that all user will be able to look over in the future. Here is the link to the thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Toonzone please i really encourage all editors to participator as this is used as source for main article son wikipedia and there is always arguments over it, i have tried to collect the different areas of the site as there is many and post my opinions on each part so lease join in-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The latest February 27, 2012 of the Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha has an interview with Bleach's author Tite Kubo and might be useful for the wikipedia articles. I managed to find the scripts, but I have no access to the actual magazine to find its pages numbers or author from the interview. Apparently the magazine is conducting interviews with various authors who have their series published by the time since last time I found an interview with Naruto's author Masashi Kishimoto, so I guess One Piece's Eichiro Oda would be the following. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A new manga article, author: Kenjiro Kawatsu, publisher: Hakusensha. Recently proposed for deletion. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there some consensus or guideline that I'm not aware of that dictates that all Lupin the 3rd articles must be titled Lupin III, regardless of how they are titled in both in English and Japanese romanization? Sarujo ( talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
User Elena.movileanu has just added the site http://mangakaotaku.com/ to the external links section of a number of articles. As near as I can tell it is a manga-themed affiliate site with a lot of automatically generated content - their Ken Akamatsu page is basically the wikipedia article fed through a mangle ("In his teens, Akamatsu applied himself to Film Study..." to "As part of his teenagers, Akamatsu utilized him self in order to Motion picture Research" for example). Shiroi Hane ( talk) 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is spamming. I gave the user a stronger warning. If they do it again, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They will then block that user. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Some manga demographic categories got renamed after being listed on WP:CFDS, and I've started a discussion at WP:CFD to move them back. I listed the discussion on the deletion sorting page, but it isn't really a deletion discussion, so I thought I should mention it here too. There also was a related ANI discussion in case anyone is interested. Calathan ( talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's an archived citation I just made listing sales for FMA, Black Butler, Soul Eater, and Bamboo Blade among other titles published by SE. I don't know how WP:ANIME normally incorporates sales info, so I'll just leave it here for anyone who knows better than I. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.square-enix.com/eng/group/index.html#comic2 |title=Businesses - Square Enix Holdings |date=2011-03-31 |accessdate=2012-03-25 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/66QfthNsj |archivedate=2012-03-25}}</ref> Axem Titanium ( talk) 15:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to create a Special:Random function to work in this portal? So, the random page function would retrieve only anime and manga related articles. It might be useful to people curious about anime and are casual readers looking for something interesting to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepe263 ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm currently working on the article
"Odex", it's a Singapore-based company that deals with anime licensing in South East Asia region. The article is tagged as an article in WikiProject Anime and Manga, is it suitable? Or should I just removed the tag and stick it to WikiProject Singapore instead?
I'm still new in editing Wikipedia, so please let me know if you have any feedback, thank you. --
Vaktug (
talk)
08:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
List of Captain Tsubasa volumes has a considerable amount of citations in the body, but none of them are visible within the references section. I have been taking a look, but I cannot find the reason for this. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The website Akitashoten.co.jp has made a significant change to its style, changing the urls from all of their manga volumes. For example while Hungry Heart volume 6 could be obtained here earlier, now it is dead link and can be located in this url. Just wanted to give the news since several lists will need to be updated or be given archives. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Last month, I started a discussion on whether or not terminology sections, such as the ones at Shakugan no Shana, Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Strike Witches (whose terminology section currently has an OR tag and an In-universe tag), should be kept or not, but the discussion died without any form of consensus. Now, I'm reviving the topic, but instead of asking if they should be kept or not, I'm asking what the people here actually think of such sections. This discussion aims to answer the following questions:
This discussion is not intended to be a proposal to remove them, but to see which particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines can apply to them, or how they should be written if there is sufficient support to keep them (such as if they have to be written from a real-world perspective, or if the section needs sources). This way, consensus on some guideline on them can be reached. Such sections are fairly rare anyway, so if they are removed, it probably won't be much of a loss, but still. Hopefully, consensus can be reached this time. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries can be used as a starting point. I would leave the section titles as "Terminology" unless there is consensus to change it to "Glossary". – Allen4 names 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed something strange. Look at the terminology sections of Strike Witches and Toaru Majutsu no Index (why do these Mami Kawada/ Rie Kugimiya shows seem to always have terminology sections?). In both of them, they have {{OR}} tags in them (strangely, Madoka and Shana don't seem to have any such tags). Does that mean that terminology sections are inherently synthesis?. I know plot sections can have no sources whatsoever and can still not be considered OR, but what about terminology sections? Can they be considered OR or not, and why? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
As for my two cents, terminology sections would be good if: A. the terms are essential for understanding a basic description of the plot or say a description of a famous instance of the media (although, it may be better to write this information into the plot description, or some background section). B. if the terms have a standalone significance but not enough independence/writing about it to justify a separate page. Jztinfinity ( talk) 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Why can't there be vital terms in the plot, but also have a terminology section? I think if you are trying to quickly reference terminology there should be a page for that. Thepoodlechef ( talk) 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why we're including merchandise sections in character lists? Where action figures and the like are an important part of a franchise, they should be discussed in the main article. Where it's just milking some additional money out of a character's popularity, we're just turning ourselves into a free advertisement. I think we should get rid of them. Thoughts? Good raise 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
AnimeCons.com is presently listed at WP:A&M/ORS. What makes it reliable? Good raise 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the situational classification, I've run into several situations where the information is not always accurate or incomplete, but it's a good starting point. I would also agree with it not establishing notability. Where my concerns are, if AnimeCons.com wasn't used at all, is aside from the vast cleanup required (in some cases might be good for articles that need updating), would be the potential loss of convention articles (for the good or bad I do not know). Esw01407 ( talk) 00:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a request over at Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan for a drawing made of her for another wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. More eyes would be appreciated over at Kaori Yuki. 206.221.154.218 ( talk · contribs) has been adding poorly sourced / nonsourced biographical material, and I think she/he could use some help in distinguishing between high-quality RS and not reliable ones. I'm also concerned about the level of hostility in her/his edit summaries. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kaguya-chan ( talk) 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoever is an expert at it, could they look at Tsj52's edits and redirect them? DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone has been adding a character named "Bluebell" to the character list at Happy Happy Clover. I've seen the anime, and that character is not in it, but I've not read the manga. Since the person adding the character lists a voice actor for her (which can't be right, since I've seen the anime and she isn't in it), and since I can't find any evidence that there was such a character in the manga, I've been reverting the additions. However, if anyone here has actually read the manga and can confirm that there isn't such a character in the manga, that would be helpful. Calathan ( talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The article has been stuck in a state of mess for many years now. The "Game" section looks more like a game guide, it lacks a "Development" section and "Gameplay" section, and the adaptations have their own sections instead of being under an "Adaptations" section. I tried cleaning it up using previews, but it proved too difficult. It's quite a shame, since I rather liked the Rumbling Hearts anime when it aired on HERO TV a few years back. The article's quality should at least match our articles on other visual novels such as Kanon, Little Busters!, Kud Wafter and School Days, considering it and its anime adaptation were somewhat popular. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently thinking of creating stubs for these two I've utahime (singers):
I can't seem to find any reliable sources for either, so I'm not sure if they are notable (the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have pages for them either - there were but they were deleted recently). If sources cannot be found, then can a redirect to I've Sound be alright? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone improve this article a little bit? Thanks in advance. -- Hydao ( talk) 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm having some thoughts at the terminology section of Madoka right now. Does it really need that section at all? It's much shorter than the one that Shana used to have, but I feel that its contents are better suited for the Plot section, or for a separate Setting section. I could suggest this at the article's talk page, but Madoka is little-watched and I would want some wider hearing so that some consensus could be reached, as well as having some ideas on exactly how the section's contents could be merged elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Osamu Tezuka has been vandalized by an IP hopping vandal redirecting it to Osama bin Laden. I will try to correct any redircts that have been editted by bots but I may miss some so please check any that you know about. – Allen4 names 06:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Bit of an explanation here. A new user has been on an anime forum I moderate, talking about how a number of anime series are co-produced with Germany. He then links to their respective Wikipedia articles, were Germany appears as one of the countries of origin. He keeps saying he's finding more and more anime that are "actually German". After a quick bit of investigation, user Johnryanz has been adding Germany as country of origin to a number of anime series. His "contributions" are Here. All of his changes have been made between April 29 and May 5, 2012, the same dates that the poster on the forum has been active. I figure he's just trying to troll some weeaboos by doing this. I'll be removing his country of origin additions momentarily, but I wanted to alert active Wikipedia contributors to this. He's also been making these same additions over at IMDB, but I'm afraid I can't dig up history logs for page changes there.
On his Wikipedia account he has indicated that he is around St.Paul Minnisota in a previous contribution, which matches the location of the IP address for his account on the forum.
Update: Additionally, his forum name is Cambodia, and he has made several changes to the Powhatan article, saying that the tribe descends from Cambodia. That has been fixed, but should serve as further proof of his vandalism.
129.63.2.67 ( talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So, what's the "policy" regarding copying some text into anime related Wikia, or other Wiki based sites? Would there be a problem at all upon doing this? The advantage is two-fold: (1) copy-text may serve as a back up to the original article(s), and (2) writing styles within Wikia do not necessarily need to conform with Wikipedia:Fiction and other Wikipedia policies, which may impose a limit on related content. This is particularly true for anything related to in-universe writing. In any case, this inquiry is simply wondering about the prospect of copying Wikipedia text elsewhere. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware, List of Fairy Tail characters is up for peer review here. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The article 2D Love is currently a one-line stub, if anyone is interested in adding to it a little. J Milburn ( talk) 22:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
For my two cents, I would support an article on the actual concept of romantic relationships with fictional characters, since that concept has received coverage, but not with this title. My reason is stated at WP:NEO.
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. [or in this case, there is one, but has not been used by enough reliable sources] It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This content can be dumped right into the Moe_(slang) article. No need for a complete separate article for "waifu. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is still interested, I've nominated the article for deletion. Comments can be made here. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, I believe this discussion shows that most of us do maintain a relationship with a waifu or husbando. For that reason, I have created a new userbox template, User:Cloud668/UBX/Waifu. Cheers. -- クラ ウド 668 03:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
While working with Transformers articles in the last week, I've noticed that there are no articles on Transformers manga. I know that manga does exist (see http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Manga), but I'm not sure if any is notable enough for articles or even a general Transformers manga page. If anyone is interested, the topic is wide open. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodraise ( talk · contribs) and AngusWOOF ( talk · contribs) has raised concerns whether we should use the gnn/gnr template in anime/manga articles on my talk page. It has been implemented on List of Naruto characters, a featured list, List of One Piece characters and most recently, List of Fairy Tail characters. I am opening up a discussion here to see if other members can voice their opinions whether we use those for Featured Lists or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Lupin III Part II episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There is an important discussion whether the List of Fairy Tail episodes should be split into individual seasons. The discussion is at Talk:List of Fairy Tail episodes#Possible split?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, The talk page for WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources hasn't had any discussions in a while, so just wanted to bring attention to a new discussion I started there. Please feel free to add your thoughts. -- AutoGyro ( talk) 12:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone has created List of Bleach episodes (season 17), which I conclude is a hoax. I've nominated it for deletion here. This should be concluded quickly. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As per Subject I would like to propose a suitable word, Media to be used in a complex series rather than using a single individual type of media and then tagging adaptions of it. This would make it feel more organized. This doesn't include individual series that has made into only 1 type of media.-- Bumblezellio ( talk) 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Somebody's recreated the Cross Epoch article. I would redirected it but I don't where to redirect it to. Potential AFD discussion maybe? Sarujo ( talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In WP:village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television), I am developing an idea about proposing a new notability guideline about television-related topics, and it cannot limit to only fiction. Nevertheless, there we agreed that amount of episodes does not (obviously) establish notability, especially for animes. Anything on television, especially in general, can be discussed there. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The following are some examples of such listings:
12,610 *1 Kuroko no Basuke [DVD+BD]: 2012/07/27
Collapsable because long. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Even though we are an English encyclopedia, our Manual of Style for anime and manga articles states that Japanese reviews would also be appreciated. Are there any Japanese sties that are the equivalent of site like Anime News Network, Mania.com, THEM Anime Reviews etc.? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Im debating on if I should prod this or not all it has going for it is that single source. Any feedback? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the Viz English Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal Volume 1 and found that it uses the Japanese names (Tetsuo Takeda, Kotori Mizuki, etc.) for the human characters. Do you know if the practice continues/will continue for Volume 2 and beyond?
This differs from the practice of the Viz Yu-Gi-Oh! GX and Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's manga series (both use the dub names for characters who appear in the anime, while characters who don't appear in the anime use their Japanese names). The original Yu-Gi-Oh! manga from Viz does use mostly the Japanese names for the human characters (the exceptions are Pegasus and Croquet).
WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well i dont think its worth mentioning. Most likely due to zexal not having an anime. Lucia Black ( talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlike the other spin offs, the manga came out first for zexal. So most likely the anime got localized first in previous, then the manga followed the said changes in the anime that had been localized. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This anonymous user has recently been making a lot of edits recently to anime casts which all appear to be at least dubious if not completely fictional. Someone else has already reverted a complete ficional cast for the Negima OADs (FUNimation hasn't even announced a license, much less an actual cast), I've reverted some odd changes to the Claymore cast (I just finished watching it) and, well... since when was Loveless dubbed in Texas? There's a lot of stuff to check through unless there's a way of just mass reverting the lot. Shiroi Hane ( talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process of giving our cleanup task force a much needed update, if anyone has the time feel free to browse through stuff that needs a look at and help make our project have cleaner articles =). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I just noticed that links to Oricon's chart database are dead. Apparently, they have been since at least December. Here's an example of what the pages looked like: [7] Various articles use links to the database, including a featured list. Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails out of the website ( http://ranking.oricon.co.jp). Perhaps someone here knows or can figure out whether these pages have just moved to other addresses or are gone for good. Good raise 03:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As previously discussed, Sailor moon (English Adaptation) is a major issue because it is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:POVFORK. So for a more neutral way of fixing it is merging info to it's respected articles (list of manga chapters/episodes, main franchise article) but the issue is the article will be way too long. So I propose splitting the main article into Manga and Anime. In the end it was proposed i would make a sandbox but didn't know how at first because the article has to be broken into multiple articles that already exist. So this is as far as i currently got for the moment and wanted to see if anyone would like to join in. This is my sandbox here. I currently just cut the info and renamed the sections to what section in what article it would go more or less. The only thing is now summarizing the information, fixing some ref problems and of course removing the unreliable ones which are easy to pick out, i might just take care of that. I'm not good with over copy editing to the point where ts well summarized so it would be really great to gets oe views. it doesn't have to be a significant amount, but ti would be a great help either way.
That and this article is one of the most bias articles i have seen. Including Editing of anime in American distribution which i also believe has some WP:SYNTHESIS. Lucia Black ( talk) 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The article concludes that sailor english localization has made itself more notable then the original japanese without proof. Its based on Point of View Fork aswell. Its treating the media as if it was different simply for the reason that it was altered.
Same media, different language. It was said consensus isnt necessary at this point if you understand the issue the article has. The discussion wasnt forgotten it was just ignored and no one (actually it was simply 1 editor) wanted to wait because they all want is one editor to do it all.
So i created the sandbox to show you all where each info can be merged to its respected (and should be merged to). I did not edit it in detail because i am not confident in my copyediting skills so i showed you all. It was a copy paste. All it needs is summarizing. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to open an RfC on this matter. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The main issues here are WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Despite a failed request for mediation and numerous attempts to discuss, it ended in a stalemate. Should we merge Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into the main article, Sailor Moon? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I comment as one who hasn't really looked at the article past the ToC. I believe that an article that focuses on the impact of Sailor Moon on the english speaking world can exist. However, I think would be better that such an article be named Impact of Sailor Moon in X, X being whatever is appropriate. I believe that is what Knowledgekid87 is suggesting. The suggestion is to make the article into something akin to Cultural influence of Star Trek, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Those last two examples aren't exactly the best examples for this situation. But then I don't know much about POVFORKs and they go waaaaaay over my head. Although I can't really find an article in the vein of Influence/Impact of X on Y, I believe that such an article can be written in a completely NPOV, non-OR way without making the English adaptation seem more important than the Japanese. The way the article is now (according to the table of contents, at least), there is no reason for it and it should be merged, in my opinion. But if a respectable Cultural influence of Sailor Moon on X, I wouldn't say kill it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we get some eyes on this page? Someone keeps going back and changing the names from the ones used in the official translation to gibberish. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Recently I have seen the category Category:Magical girls incorrectly applied to non-anime articles, such as Hermione Granger and Sabrina Spellman. I think this is the fault of the category itself, which is poorly named, and does not even mention that it is anime-related in its description page. I think the best solution would be to rename this category to something more meaningful, such as Category:Magical girls in anime and manga, but failing that proposal, it would be good to at least place a full description of the category, and an indication of what the category is not, on its front description page. Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request some attention to this discussion in regards to whether the site InsideScanlation.com could be considered a reliable source. AngelFire3423 ( talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite the discussion at the talk page that the Sailor Senshi photo should be removed, Lego3400 ( talk · contribs) has readded the diagram and started a discussion on the talk page. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Edits to this talk page are dropping, indicating reduced activity of this project. They've fallen from 5124 in 2009 to 2968 in 2010 and further to 1932 in 2011. We've lost a lot of high volume editors. That is normal. However, we haven't gotten enough new blood to replace them. One reason for that is, I think, that this project is acting more and more like a gang. I've been watching this for quite some time now. I can't keep quiet any longer.
The most common example of what I mean usually goes as follows:
It usually ends with the editor's talk page being plastered with warnings, the editor blocked and totally fed up with Wikipedia.
You can get around the 3RR rule by calling for backup from other project members, but you're still edit warring, worse, you're gaming the system, using your greater knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's inner workings to get your way. This is not how dispute resolution is supposed to work.
Have a look at WP:BITE, and don't just read the nutshell. We need to be nice to new editors, welcoming them instead of warning them, teaching them how this place works instead of getting them blocked.
I know that WP:DR is a difficult read and seems to expect editors to go to unreasonable length to solve minor content disputes, but that isn't actually true.
Anyway, I'm not just writing this to criticize. I'm offering my help. Please, next time any of you feel the need to call the cavalry, drop me a line on my talk page instead. I'm checking my messages multiple times per day on average. Of course it would be even better if the entire project stopped this behavior at the same time, but I'm not that optimistic. Good raise 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I can literally split editors in this conversation that have had conflicted views from one another. Reasons why potentially GA/Featured class articles are at C class....or articles that are POVFORK exist. Everything ends at a stalemate. No one can be bold for the articles that need bold edits. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be a new guideline that is simple and easy to understand that wikipedia isn't about having all content, but the most relevant content supported by reliable sources. Similar to what Wikipedia is "not" it would be "what wikipedia 'is'". Lucia Black ( talk) 21:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for the project in general, but my own editing was in decline for several months in late 2009 through about mid-2010, at which point AnmaFinotera retired in the face of escalating on- and off-wiki harassment, an indifferent admin staff, and just general burn out, and that was pretty much it for me as well. I still check my talk page for messages and to read the Signpost, and occasionally look at this talk page and other pages, but I've otherwise moved on to other wikis and have no plans to ever return to anything like my former editing levels here. 「 ディノ奴 千?!」 ? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I really wish this project would return to a golden age. In the past, we've had people like AnmaFinotera, Jinnai, TheFarix and Juhachi making lots of contributions, but now only Juhachi remains. I feel quite disappointed since many articles, even those of popular series, are not that good (for instance, Bakemonogatari is only Start-class, which it doesn't deserve since it's quite popular), and there is a lack of reliable sources for lots of seiyuu, even the more prominent ones. Perhaps the problem is the language barrier. It can be quite time-consuming to search for Japanese article on several anime, manga, light novels etc. which don't get a lot of English coverage. Since anime is only a niche interest in many parts of the world, there are likely only to be a few contributors who are willing to contribute their knowledge, and fewer still can understand Japanese. I commend the likes of Juhachi for improving several articles to GA and near-GA status, but I really wish there were more of them. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone tried reaching out the editors who left? Posting on their talk page and @ them, asking them to come back, telling them they are missed and such? It couldn't hurt. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the bot used to generate the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing stopped working in March 2010 and has been down ever since, is there a bot that can be used to replace the old one and keep this auto-updated per month? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I decided to try to remove as much terminology sections as i possibly can however it has become extremely difficult with new series. For example: Guilty Crown. Then there are other series im well familiar with but having trouble such as Pandora Hearts and Eureka Seven which is already influencing Eureka Seven: AO. It would be a great help if anyone here is more damiliar than i to summarize its content. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, there's a BIG problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Basically, we had the same problem before its creation. Little attention was payed to the reliability of sources. Occasionally, there were discussions here on whether certain sources were reliable, but these rarely involved serious scrutiny. Following such discussions, sources were assumed to be reliable and used in articles, which led to failed FACs, FLCs, and the like, effectively wasting editor time and causing frustration. The idea behind this list of sources was to put a stop to that by listing sources, detailing what which source could be used for and rationales for why they could be used in those ways. Needless to say, it didn't work out. Discussions held before adding new sources to the list weren't any more thorough than before and rationales weren't added either. The fact of the matter is that the audience on this talk page, by and large, was never and still isn't qualified to judge the reliability of sources. On top of that, most editors here want to write anime and manga articles and therefore have an interest in anime and manga sources being reliable, which inevitably leads to discussions about such sources being biased in favor of potentially unreliable sources. I thought about going through all of the sources listed, to investigate them and, if possible, write adequate instructions and rationales myself, but considering my lack of knowledge on most of them, that's a task much bigger than I'm willing (or even have the time) to take on alone. I therefore propose that we archive that entire page and start from scratch, demanding that every addition be first discussed at WP:RSN and that those discussions be summarized on the list of sources, explaining how each source can be used and, more importantly, why that is so. This proposal will probably not be too popular, but it's necessary that we do something. In case this proposal isn't rejected, I think we should start with the sources used most often and probably easiest to prove reliable, ANN first of all. Good raise 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Just put certain ones back in the table. Make it easier to find evidence. I dont think the list is doomed though. Previous discussions will most likely bring evidence. It could very well be laziness to not put detail rather than assumption of reliable source. It usually done more stricter when adding a source. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It also depends on the person reviewing the sources over at the reliable sources noticeboard for example the first source listed: Active Anime I tried getting an opinion on, I used Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle as an example when it came t oreception as it is rated as a Good article here is the response I got: "No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless". - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
why can't low quality sources be used in FAs and GAs? Lucia Black ( talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My... That's quite some serious & lengthly discussion happening here...
Looking for a godlike authority pointy at ANN saying this is a reliable source is not foreseeable...Instead it's more realistic to go for clues hunting proving that ANN is acknowledged as "trustworthy, respectable, & weight carrying website" within the field of anime/manga. No, i'm done with argumentation and blues links spamming like i used in the good old time. However for ANN, just point to the list of guest of their podcast to point out that much anyone who matter in anime/manga where guessed and more than once for some of them or to their anime streaming page as no serious anime companies would likely trust any random websites to host official streaming of their anime series. I won't talk about neutrality of ANN because it's another matter altogether. --
KrebMarkt (
talk)
20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Lucia Black: Reliable sources can be used in all articles. However, when there is multiple reliable sources available, WP:WIAFA requires featured articles to use "high-quality" sources rather than "low-quality" sources. Good raise 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Then there isnt really a huge issue....unless we labeled the source to low and high. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Lucia Black: There isn't an issue at all. We don't need to take the featured article criteria into account when examining sources for reliability. Good raise 04:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so now we agree on what we disagree. That's progress I suppose. Sure, threads at RSN don't always attract an immense amount of attention, but at least there's people with clue running around there, like that editor who expertly commented on Active Anime. User:Goodraise/Reviews as sources might be able to help you understand what that editor meant. Good raise 01:23, 18 July 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Hello, you guys might want to keep an eye on the Claymore pages (chapters, episodes and main). A user named Jamieclaymore has edited it a lot lately and this might not always be improvements on the pages. 86.87.73.104 ( talk) 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I split the Berserk (manga) page in two a few pages. The manga page had turned into an article about the series, rather than the manga. I created:
They need work, images and a lot. Feel free to give input. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4
To mark the second anniversary of this useful tool (I began it in January 2010), I have added in approximately 700 new domains to the white and blacklists while cleaning up most past queries.
While I'm at it, I've decided to make my work still more publicly available: the exported black/whitelist of my CSE is available at http://www.gwern.net/docs/gwern-google-cse.xml and I plan to sync it every 3 months.
Many happy searches. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:40 9 February 2012 (GMT)
I discussed about this before in this talk page. I was thinking whether or not Terminology sections, like the ones at Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica violate any Wikipedia policy, such as WP:FICT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:INUNIVERSE. While spinning them off from the Setting section allows the Setting section to not be too long, most of the terminology may only be of interest to fans of the series. While terminology sections can be useful for people who are fans, they may not be of interest to most people, and may even be considered as trivia (but I don't consider them as such, especially if the terms are integral to the plot). Instead, what could be done is move important content to the Setting section, or make the Terminology section a sub-heading of the Setting section. While I am generally leaning towards their removal, I do believe that their inclusion may hurt those who want to learn about the subject (although they can always look at the series' respective wikis). In a sense, these sections are similar to trivia sections: they should be avoided, any information could be integrated into the main text, and if they exist, they should only be temporary, but there is a difference: trivia sections here should be sourced, while terminology sections usually aren't. So should they be kept or not? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I feel like no one wants to find a way to write a plot without it. And I highly doubt terminology sections inclusion will help any article reach up to at least B-class. Alot of series have dozens of terms, and yet theyre not that common. Does bleach make termilogy section to explain soul reapers or Hollows? Are these terms "necesary" to understand the "basic" plot? How about this, how about we "prove" how necesarry they are. Can we honestly say the inclusion of these said terms wont affect an article affecting its GA or FA status? So if i add a terminoloogy section to said GA/FA and give it a GAR/FAR, can we still say the story wont be affected? This is about fiction itself, the usage of terminology section also expands to novels or tv shows. A GA-class TV series with alot of terms deserves a terminology section, do we all believe if i included terminology section, and give it a review, it will still stay as GA-class? I really want to hear your answer. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please also note that I do not know any featured article or good article that has terminology sections. Even InuYasha and Bleach do not have terminology sections. Anime does, but it is more of an etymology section, it is in prose form, and is sourced and not written in a fan-crufty way, which cannot be said of most terminology sections, which is why I would rather have them incorporated into the Setting section's text. Besides, shouldn't terminology sections, should they be kept, be written from a real-world perspective? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The recent mediation case on Sailor Moon (English adaptations) has been closed and Lucia Black ( talk · contribs) has opened up an important discussion about whether we should merging it into the main article Sailor Moon. There is a strong consensus on the mediation that it should be merged with the main article itself. As such, we are planning to clean up and remove unreliable sources from the article. Input and suggestions from project members would be very much appreciated. The discussion can be found at Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation.... Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, This is the first time I post here and hope I did it right. Anyway, I wanted to ask about the Filler arcs of Bleach. Recently I edited the page List of Bleach episodes (season 9). When I first see the page, it's says "The ninth season of the Bleach anime series, based on the manga series with the same name by Tite Kubo", which is wrong, this season is not based on manga. So I edited the page, deleted the "based on the manga.." part and added "This season is a filler arc, which are not direct adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo.". But User:Tintor2 undid my revision. After I explain it's wrong and edited again, this time he look away the line I wrote. Hokaru ( talk) 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you please comment about the Japanese title of Dinosaucers at its talk page?-- Mujaki ( talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The January 30th issue of Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha (issue 1) has an interview with Naruto author Masashi Kishimoto involving not only the series but the author's personal life. The official site has the first page and I managed to find a script confirming everything that is said in interview. However, I can't find an author of the interview or the page. As far as I could complete it, the citation would be:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Is there anyone who has access to the issue and has other parameters to add? Thanks. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have some questions related to potential Tokyopop edits. With the company only being active in Germany, should manga that have been previously published by them keep Tokyopop in the Infobox? Also, should they keep the Tokyopop Categories link? ( Esw01407 ( talk) 19:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
I am hoping that someone can help cleanup the romanizations at List of Ranma ½ chapters. If you know the correct readings of the kanji or have the tankobon/shinshobon please make any needed corrections. Once this is done (or before) the crufty external links can be removed. It should be noted that the {{ Nihongo}} template is not used because of the template limits and that current consensus is that the page should not be split for now. – Allen4 names 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an important discussion regarding whether if the film Arrietty should be moved to the official US title The Secret World of Arrietty. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Arrietty#Why Is The Article Under Disney's Title? and the requested move discussion is just below this discussion. Input and comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The List of female action heroes includes a lot of anime and manga characters in it. Some entries are in dispute such as Mikoto Misaka from Toaru Majutsu no Index. Is this person obviously an action hero, based on the genre of this series defined as "action" and the fact that she runs around fighting people in action sequences shooting psychic lightning at them and what, etc.? Is it common knowledge or original research if we don't find a source that specifically calls her an action hero? Is anyone familiar with this series of other anime series listed? And are there list on any reliable sources out there that show the greatest action heroes for anime and manga or anything else relevant to this article? Dream Focus 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a new request to move discussion that been created here. Sarujo ( talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking to verify and complement some citations appearing in Pegasus Seiya. The existing reference points to an interview with Masami Kurumada published in Japanese in "Kappa Magazine, number 80. 1999". I'm coming to suspect that this interview is actually from the italian magazine, but I can't be sure of anything. Any help finding more information about this would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cyn starchaser (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So as I mentioned in a previous discussion here, I am somewhat of a big fan of Shakugan no Shana. One of the manifestations of this is my enjoyment of the music of Mami Kawada, my personal favorite being the song "triangle", the 2nd ED of Shana II. However, it disappoints me to see her article in a state of mess, but this is understandable, as she's as not as famous as singers like Yoko Takahashi, Maaya Sakamoto, Aya Hirano or Nana Mizuki (whom I share a birthday with), or even fellow I've singer KOTOKO. Since I am more used to new-page patrolling, and contributing to articles is a new experience for me, can someone please help me what parts of the article need to be improved, and how I can improve them. I have already fixed it a little, such as stopping the excessive use of the words "tie-up" or "tie-in" and replacing them with something else, but I do not know how I can improve it any further. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming you wanted to fix the article Mami Kawada. I'll post some things I noticed from my quick skim, even though I never worked on biographies.
Hi all, I have started a discussion on toonzone on reliable source notice board, i would like to get as many editors involved as possible soa consensus on the site various parts can be have resolution and eventually archived consensus decisions that all user will be able to look over in the future. Here is the link to the thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Toonzone please i really encourage all editors to participator as this is used as source for main article son wikipedia and there is always arguments over it, i have tried to collect the different areas of the site as there is many and post my opinions on each part so lease join in-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The latest February 27, 2012 of the Weekly Shonen Jump Alpha has an interview with Bleach's author Tite Kubo and might be useful for the wikipedia articles. I managed to find the scripts, but I have no access to the actual magazine to find its pages numbers or author from the interview. Apparently the magazine is conducting interviews with various authors who have their series published by the time since last time I found an interview with Naruto's author Masashi Kishimoto, so I guess One Piece's Eichiro Oda would be the following. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
A new manga article, author: Kenjiro Kawatsu, publisher: Hakusensha. Recently proposed for deletion. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there some consensus or guideline that I'm not aware of that dictates that all Lupin the 3rd articles must be titled Lupin III, regardless of how they are titled in both in English and Japanese romanization? Sarujo ( talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
User Elena.movileanu has just added the site http://mangakaotaku.com/ to the external links section of a number of articles. As near as I can tell it is a manga-themed affiliate site with a lot of automatically generated content - their Ken Akamatsu page is basically the wikipedia article fed through a mangle ("In his teens, Akamatsu applied himself to Film Study..." to "As part of his teenagers, Akamatsu utilized him self in order to Motion picture Research" for example). Shiroi Hane ( talk) 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is spamming. I gave the user a stronger warning. If they do it again, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They will then block that user. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Some manga demographic categories got renamed after being listed on WP:CFDS, and I've started a discussion at WP:CFD to move them back. I listed the discussion on the deletion sorting page, but it isn't really a deletion discussion, so I thought I should mention it here too. There also was a related ANI discussion in case anyone is interested. Calathan ( talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's an archived citation I just made listing sales for FMA, Black Butler, Soul Eater, and Bamboo Blade among other titles published by SE. I don't know how WP:ANIME normally incorporates sales info, so I'll just leave it here for anyone who knows better than I. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.square-enix.com/eng/group/index.html#comic2 |title=Businesses - Square Enix Holdings |date=2011-03-31 |accessdate=2012-03-25 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/66QfthNsj |archivedate=2012-03-25}}</ref> Axem Titanium ( talk) 15:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to create a Special:Random function to work in this portal? So, the random page function would retrieve only anime and manga related articles. It might be useful to people curious about anime and are casual readers looking for something interesting to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepe263 ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm currently working on the article
"Odex", it's a Singapore-based company that deals with anime licensing in South East Asia region. The article is tagged as an article in WikiProject Anime and Manga, is it suitable? Or should I just removed the tag and stick it to WikiProject Singapore instead?
I'm still new in editing Wikipedia, so please let me know if you have any feedback, thank you. --
Vaktug (
talk)
08:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
List of Captain Tsubasa volumes has a considerable amount of citations in the body, but none of them are visible within the references section. I have been taking a look, but I cannot find the reason for this. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The website Akitashoten.co.jp has made a significant change to its style, changing the urls from all of their manga volumes. For example while Hungry Heart volume 6 could be obtained here earlier, now it is dead link and can be located in this url. Just wanted to give the news since several lists will need to be updated or be given archives. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Last month, I started a discussion on whether or not terminology sections, such as the ones at Shakugan no Shana, Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Strike Witches (whose terminology section currently has an OR tag and an In-universe tag), should be kept or not, but the discussion died without any form of consensus. Now, I'm reviving the topic, but instead of asking if they should be kept or not, I'm asking what the people here actually think of such sections. This discussion aims to answer the following questions:
This discussion is not intended to be a proposal to remove them, but to see which particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines can apply to them, or how they should be written if there is sufficient support to keep them (such as if they have to be written from a real-world perspective, or if the section needs sources). This way, consensus on some guideline on them can be reached. Such sections are fairly rare anyway, so if they are removed, it probably won't be much of a loss, but still. Hopefully, consensus can be reached this time. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries can be used as a starting point. I would leave the section titles as "Terminology" unless there is consensus to change it to "Glossary". – Allen4 names 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed something strange. Look at the terminology sections of Strike Witches and Toaru Majutsu no Index (why do these Mami Kawada/ Rie Kugimiya shows seem to always have terminology sections?). In both of them, they have {{OR}} tags in them (strangely, Madoka and Shana don't seem to have any such tags). Does that mean that terminology sections are inherently synthesis?. I know plot sections can have no sources whatsoever and can still not be considered OR, but what about terminology sections? Can they be considered OR or not, and why? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
As for my two cents, terminology sections would be good if: A. the terms are essential for understanding a basic description of the plot or say a description of a famous instance of the media (although, it may be better to write this information into the plot description, or some background section). B. if the terms have a standalone significance but not enough independence/writing about it to justify a separate page. Jztinfinity ( talk) 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Why can't there be vital terms in the plot, but also have a terminology section? I think if you are trying to quickly reference terminology there should be a page for that. Thepoodlechef ( talk) 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why we're including merchandise sections in character lists? Where action figures and the like are an important part of a franchise, they should be discussed in the main article. Where it's just milking some additional money out of a character's popularity, we're just turning ourselves into a free advertisement. I think we should get rid of them. Thoughts? Good raise 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
AnimeCons.com is presently listed at WP:A&M/ORS. What makes it reliable? Good raise 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the situational classification, I've run into several situations where the information is not always accurate or incomplete, but it's a good starting point. I would also agree with it not establishing notability. Where my concerns are, if AnimeCons.com wasn't used at all, is aside from the vast cleanup required (in some cases might be good for articles that need updating), would be the potential loss of convention articles (for the good or bad I do not know). Esw01407 ( talk) 00:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a request over at Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan for a drawing made of her for another wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. More eyes would be appreciated over at Kaori Yuki. 206.221.154.218 ( talk · contribs) has been adding poorly sourced / nonsourced biographical material, and I think she/he could use some help in distinguishing between high-quality RS and not reliable ones. I'm also concerned about the level of hostility in her/his edit summaries. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kaguya-chan ( talk) 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoever is an expert at it, could they look at Tsj52's edits and redirect them? DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone has been adding a character named "Bluebell" to the character list at Happy Happy Clover. I've seen the anime, and that character is not in it, but I've not read the manga. Since the person adding the character lists a voice actor for her (which can't be right, since I've seen the anime and she isn't in it), and since I can't find any evidence that there was such a character in the manga, I've been reverting the additions. However, if anyone here has actually read the manga and can confirm that there isn't such a character in the manga, that would be helpful. Calathan ( talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The article has been stuck in a state of mess for many years now. The "Game" section looks more like a game guide, it lacks a "Development" section and "Gameplay" section, and the adaptations have their own sections instead of being under an "Adaptations" section. I tried cleaning it up using previews, but it proved too difficult. It's quite a shame, since I rather liked the Rumbling Hearts anime when it aired on HERO TV a few years back. The article's quality should at least match our articles on other visual novels such as Kanon, Little Busters!, Kud Wafter and School Days, considering it and its anime adaptation were somewhat popular. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently thinking of creating stubs for these two I've utahime (singers):
I can't seem to find any reliable sources for either, so I'm not sure if they are notable (the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have pages for them either - there were but they were deleted recently). If sources cannot be found, then can a redirect to I've Sound be alright? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone improve this article a little bit? Thanks in advance. -- Hydao ( talk) 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm having some thoughts at the terminology section of Madoka right now. Does it really need that section at all? It's much shorter than the one that Shana used to have, but I feel that its contents are better suited for the Plot section, or for a separate Setting section. I could suggest this at the article's talk page, but Madoka is little-watched and I would want some wider hearing so that some consensus could be reached, as well as having some ideas on exactly how the section's contents could be merged elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Osamu Tezuka has been vandalized by an IP hopping vandal redirecting it to Osama bin Laden. I will try to correct any redircts that have been editted by bots but I may miss some so please check any that you know about. – Allen4 names 06:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Bit of an explanation here. A new user has been on an anime forum I moderate, talking about how a number of anime series are co-produced with Germany. He then links to their respective Wikipedia articles, were Germany appears as one of the countries of origin. He keeps saying he's finding more and more anime that are "actually German". After a quick bit of investigation, user Johnryanz has been adding Germany as country of origin to a number of anime series. His "contributions" are Here. All of his changes have been made between April 29 and May 5, 2012, the same dates that the poster on the forum has been active. I figure he's just trying to troll some weeaboos by doing this. I'll be removing his country of origin additions momentarily, but I wanted to alert active Wikipedia contributors to this. He's also been making these same additions over at IMDB, but I'm afraid I can't dig up history logs for page changes there.
On his Wikipedia account he has indicated that he is around St.Paul Minnisota in a previous contribution, which matches the location of the IP address for his account on the forum.
Update: Additionally, his forum name is Cambodia, and he has made several changes to the Powhatan article, saying that the tribe descends from Cambodia. That has been fixed, but should serve as further proof of his vandalism.
129.63.2.67 ( talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So, what's the "policy" regarding copying some text into anime related Wikia, or other Wiki based sites? Would there be a problem at all upon doing this? The advantage is two-fold: (1) copy-text may serve as a back up to the original article(s), and (2) writing styles within Wikia do not necessarily need to conform with Wikipedia:Fiction and other Wikipedia policies, which may impose a limit on related content. This is particularly true for anything related to in-universe writing. In any case, this inquiry is simply wondering about the prospect of copying Wikipedia text elsewhere. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware, List of Fairy Tail characters is up for peer review here. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The article 2D Love is currently a one-line stub, if anyone is interested in adding to it a little. J Milburn ( talk) 22:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
For my two cents, I would support an article on the actual concept of romantic relationships with fictional characters, since that concept has received coverage, but not with this title. My reason is stated at WP:NEO.
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. [or in this case, there is one, but has not been used by enough reliable sources] It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This content can be dumped right into the Moe_(slang) article. No need for a complete separate article for "waifu. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is still interested, I've nominated the article for deletion. Comments can be made here. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, I believe this discussion shows that most of us do maintain a relationship with a waifu or husbando. For that reason, I have created a new userbox template, User:Cloud668/UBX/Waifu. Cheers. -- クラ ウド 668 03:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
While working with Transformers articles in the last week, I've noticed that there are no articles on Transformers manga. I know that manga does exist (see http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Manga), but I'm not sure if any is notable enough for articles or even a general Transformers manga page. If anyone is interested, the topic is wide open. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodraise ( talk · contribs) and AngusWOOF ( talk · contribs) has raised concerns whether we should use the gnn/gnr template in anime/manga articles on my talk page. It has been implemented on List of Naruto characters, a featured list, List of One Piece characters and most recently, List of Fairy Tail characters. I am opening up a discussion here to see if other members can voice their opinions whether we use those for Featured Lists or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Lupin III Part II episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There is an important discussion whether the List of Fairy Tail episodes should be split into individual seasons. The discussion is at Talk:List of Fairy Tail episodes#Possible split?. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, The talk page for WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources hasn't had any discussions in a while, so just wanted to bring attention to a new discussion I started there. Please feel free to add your thoughts. -- AutoGyro ( talk) 12:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone has created List of Bleach episodes (season 17), which I conclude is a hoax. I've nominated it for deletion here. This should be concluded quickly. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As per Subject I would like to propose a suitable word, Media to be used in a complex series rather than using a single individual type of media and then tagging adaptions of it. This would make it feel more organized. This doesn't include individual series that has made into only 1 type of media.-- Bumblezellio ( talk) 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Somebody's recreated the Cross Epoch article. I would redirected it but I don't where to redirect it to. Potential AFD discussion maybe? Sarujo ( talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In WP:village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television), I am developing an idea about proposing a new notability guideline about television-related topics, and it cannot limit to only fiction. Nevertheless, there we agreed that amount of episodes does not (obviously) establish notability, especially for animes. Anything on television, especially in general, can be discussed there. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The following are some examples of such listings:
12,610 *1 Kuroko no Basuke [DVD+BD]: 2012/07/27
Collapsable because long. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Even though we are an English encyclopedia, our Manual of Style for anime and manga articles states that Japanese reviews would also be appreciated. Are there any Japanese sties that are the equivalent of site like Anime News Network, Mania.com, THEM Anime Reviews etc.? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Im debating on if I should prod this or not all it has going for it is that single source. Any feedback? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the Viz English Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal Volume 1 and found that it uses the Japanese names (Tetsuo Takeda, Kotori Mizuki, etc.) for the human characters. Do you know if the practice continues/will continue for Volume 2 and beyond?
This differs from the practice of the Viz Yu-Gi-Oh! GX and Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's manga series (both use the dub names for characters who appear in the anime, while characters who don't appear in the anime use their Japanese names). The original Yu-Gi-Oh! manga from Viz does use mostly the Japanese names for the human characters (the exceptions are Pegasus and Croquet).
WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well i dont think its worth mentioning. Most likely due to zexal not having an anime. Lucia Black ( talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlike the other spin offs, the manga came out first for zexal. So most likely the anime got localized first in previous, then the manga followed the said changes in the anime that had been localized. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This anonymous user has recently been making a lot of edits recently to anime casts which all appear to be at least dubious if not completely fictional. Someone else has already reverted a complete ficional cast for the Negima OADs (FUNimation hasn't even announced a license, much less an actual cast), I've reverted some odd changes to the Claymore cast (I just finished watching it) and, well... since when was Loveless dubbed in Texas? There's a lot of stuff to check through unless there's a way of just mass reverting the lot. Shiroi Hane ( talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process of giving our cleanup task force a much needed update, if anyone has the time feel free to browse through stuff that needs a look at and help make our project have cleaner articles =). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I just noticed that links to Oricon's chart database are dead. Apparently, they have been since at least December. Here's an example of what the pages looked like: [7] Various articles use links to the database, including a featured list. Unfortunately, I can't make heads or tails out of the website ( http://ranking.oricon.co.jp). Perhaps someone here knows or can figure out whether these pages have just moved to other addresses or are gone for good. Good raise 03:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As previously discussed, Sailor moon (English Adaptation) is a major issue because it is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:POVFORK. So for a more neutral way of fixing it is merging info to it's respected articles (list of manga chapters/episodes, main franchise article) but the issue is the article will be way too long. So I propose splitting the main article into Manga and Anime. In the end it was proposed i would make a sandbox but didn't know how at first because the article has to be broken into multiple articles that already exist. So this is as far as i currently got for the moment and wanted to see if anyone would like to join in. This is my sandbox here. I currently just cut the info and renamed the sections to what section in what article it would go more or less. The only thing is now summarizing the information, fixing some ref problems and of course removing the unreliable ones which are easy to pick out, i might just take care of that. I'm not good with over copy editing to the point where ts well summarized so it would be really great to gets oe views. it doesn't have to be a significant amount, but ti would be a great help either way.
That and this article is one of the most bias articles i have seen. Including Editing of anime in American distribution which i also believe has some WP:SYNTHESIS. Lucia Black ( talk) 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The article concludes that sailor english localization has made itself more notable then the original japanese without proof. Its based on Point of View Fork aswell. Its treating the media as if it was different simply for the reason that it was altered.
Same media, different language. It was said consensus isnt necessary at this point if you understand the issue the article has. The discussion wasnt forgotten it was just ignored and no one (actually it was simply 1 editor) wanted to wait because they all want is one editor to do it all.
So i created the sandbox to show you all where each info can be merged to its respected (and should be merged to). I did not edit it in detail because i am not confident in my copyediting skills so i showed you all. It was a copy paste. All it needs is summarizing. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to open an RfC on this matter. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The main issues here are WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Despite a failed request for mediation and numerous attempts to discuss, it ended in a stalemate. Should we merge Sailor Moon (English adaptations) into the main article, Sailor Moon? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I comment as one who hasn't really looked at the article past the ToC. I believe that an article that focuses on the impact of Sailor Moon on the english speaking world can exist. However, I think would be better that such an article be named Impact of Sailor Moon in X, X being whatever is appropriate. I believe that is what Knowledgekid87 is suggesting. The suggestion is to make the article into something akin to Cultural influence of Star Trek, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Those last two examples aren't exactly the best examples for this situation. But then I don't know much about POVFORKs and they go waaaaaay over my head. Although I can't really find an article in the vein of Influence/Impact of X on Y, I believe that such an article can be written in a completely NPOV, non-OR way without making the English adaptation seem more important than the Japanese. The way the article is now (according to the table of contents, at least), there is no reason for it and it should be merged, in my opinion. But if a respectable Cultural influence of Sailor Moon on X, I wouldn't say kill it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we get some eyes on this page? Someone keeps going back and changing the names from the ones used in the official translation to gibberish. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Recently I have seen the category Category:Magical girls incorrectly applied to non-anime articles, such as Hermione Granger and Sabrina Spellman. I think this is the fault of the category itself, which is poorly named, and does not even mention that it is anime-related in its description page. I think the best solution would be to rename this category to something more meaningful, such as Category:Magical girls in anime and manga, but failing that proposal, it would be good to at least place a full description of the category, and an indication of what the category is not, on its front description page. Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 11:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request some attention to this discussion in regards to whether the site InsideScanlation.com could be considered a reliable source. AngelFire3423 ( talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite the discussion at the talk page that the Sailor Senshi photo should be removed, Lego3400 ( talk · contribs) has readded the diagram and started a discussion on the talk page. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Edits to this talk page are dropping, indicating reduced activity of this project. They've fallen from 5124 in 2009 to 2968 in 2010 and further to 1932 in 2011. We've lost a lot of high volume editors. That is normal. However, we haven't gotten enough new blood to replace them. One reason for that is, I think, that this project is acting more and more like a gang. I've been watching this for quite some time now. I can't keep quiet any longer.
The most common example of what I mean usually goes as follows:
It usually ends with the editor's talk page being plastered with warnings, the editor blocked and totally fed up with Wikipedia.
You can get around the 3RR rule by calling for backup from other project members, but you're still edit warring, worse, you're gaming the system, using your greater knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's inner workings to get your way. This is not how dispute resolution is supposed to work.
Have a look at WP:BITE, and don't just read the nutshell. We need to be nice to new editors, welcoming them instead of warning them, teaching them how this place works instead of getting them blocked.
I know that WP:DR is a difficult read and seems to expect editors to go to unreasonable length to solve minor content disputes, but that isn't actually true.
Anyway, I'm not just writing this to criticize. I'm offering my help. Please, next time any of you feel the need to call the cavalry, drop me a line on my talk page instead. I'm checking my messages multiple times per day on average. Of course it would be even better if the entire project stopped this behavior at the same time, but I'm not that optimistic. Good raise 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I can literally split editors in this conversation that have had conflicted views from one another. Reasons why potentially GA/Featured class articles are at C class....or articles that are POVFORK exist. Everything ends at a stalemate. No one can be bold for the articles that need bold edits. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be a new guideline that is simple and easy to understand that wikipedia isn't about having all content, but the most relevant content supported by reliable sources. Similar to what Wikipedia is "not" it would be "what wikipedia 'is'". Lucia Black ( talk) 21:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for the project in general, but my own editing was in decline for several months in late 2009 through about mid-2010, at which point AnmaFinotera retired in the face of escalating on- and off-wiki harassment, an indifferent admin staff, and just general burn out, and that was pretty much it for me as well. I still check my talk page for messages and to read the Signpost, and occasionally look at this talk page and other pages, but I've otherwise moved on to other wikis and have no plans to ever return to anything like my former editing levels here. 「 ディノ奴 千?!」 ? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I really wish this project would return to a golden age. In the past, we've had people like AnmaFinotera, Jinnai, TheFarix and Juhachi making lots of contributions, but now only Juhachi remains. I feel quite disappointed since many articles, even those of popular series, are not that good (for instance, Bakemonogatari is only Start-class, which it doesn't deserve since it's quite popular), and there is a lack of reliable sources for lots of seiyuu, even the more prominent ones. Perhaps the problem is the language barrier. It can be quite time-consuming to search for Japanese article on several anime, manga, light novels etc. which don't get a lot of English coverage. Since anime is only a niche interest in many parts of the world, there are likely only to be a few contributors who are willing to contribute their knowledge, and fewer still can understand Japanese. I commend the likes of Juhachi for improving several articles to GA and near-GA status, but I really wish there were more of them. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone tried reaching out the editors who left? Posting on their talk page and @ them, asking them to come back, telling them they are missed and such? It couldn't hurt. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the bot used to generate the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing stopped working in March 2010 and has been down ever since, is there a bot that can be used to replace the old one and keep this auto-updated per month? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I decided to try to remove as much terminology sections as i possibly can however it has become extremely difficult with new series. For example: Guilty Crown. Then there are other series im well familiar with but having trouble such as Pandora Hearts and Eureka Seven which is already influencing Eureka Seven: AO. It would be a great help if anyone here is more damiliar than i to summarize its content. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, there's a BIG problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Basically, we had the same problem before its creation. Little attention was payed to the reliability of sources. Occasionally, there were discussions here on whether certain sources were reliable, but these rarely involved serious scrutiny. Following such discussions, sources were assumed to be reliable and used in articles, which led to failed FACs, FLCs, and the like, effectively wasting editor time and causing frustration. The idea behind this list of sources was to put a stop to that by listing sources, detailing what which source could be used for and rationales for why they could be used in those ways. Needless to say, it didn't work out. Discussions held before adding new sources to the list weren't any more thorough than before and rationales weren't added either. The fact of the matter is that the audience on this talk page, by and large, was never and still isn't qualified to judge the reliability of sources. On top of that, most editors here want to write anime and manga articles and therefore have an interest in anime and manga sources being reliable, which inevitably leads to discussions about such sources being biased in favor of potentially unreliable sources. I thought about going through all of the sources listed, to investigate them and, if possible, write adequate instructions and rationales myself, but considering my lack of knowledge on most of them, that's a task much bigger than I'm willing (or even have the time) to take on alone. I therefore propose that we archive that entire page and start from scratch, demanding that every addition be first discussed at WP:RSN and that those discussions be summarized on the list of sources, explaining how each source can be used and, more importantly, why that is so. This proposal will probably not be too popular, but it's necessary that we do something. In case this proposal isn't rejected, I think we should start with the sources used most often and probably easiest to prove reliable, ANN first of all. Good raise 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Just put certain ones back in the table. Make it easier to find evidence. I dont think the list is doomed though. Previous discussions will most likely bring evidence. It could very well be laziness to not put detail rather than assumption of reliable source. It usually done more stricter when adding a source. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It also depends on the person reviewing the sources over at the reliable sources noticeboard for example the first source listed: Active Anime I tried getting an opinion on, I used Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle as an example when it came t oreception as it is rated as a Good article here is the response I got: "No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless". - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
why can't low quality sources be used in FAs and GAs? Lucia Black ( talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My... That's quite some serious & lengthly discussion happening here...
Looking for a godlike authority pointy at ANN saying this is a reliable source is not foreseeable...Instead it's more realistic to go for clues hunting proving that ANN is acknowledged as "trustworthy, respectable, & weight carrying website" within the field of anime/manga. No, i'm done with argumentation and blues links spamming like i used in the good old time. However for ANN, just point to the list of guest of their podcast to point out that much anyone who matter in anime/manga where guessed and more than once for some of them or to their anime streaming page as no serious anime companies would likely trust any random websites to host official streaming of their anime series. I won't talk about neutrality of ANN because it's another matter altogether. --
KrebMarkt (
talk)
20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Lucia Black: Reliable sources can be used in all articles. However, when there is multiple reliable sources available, WP:WIAFA requires featured articles to use "high-quality" sources rather than "low-quality" sources. Good raise 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Then there isnt really a huge issue....unless we labeled the source to low and high. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Lucia Black: There isn't an issue at all. We don't need to take the featured article criteria into account when examining sources for reliability. Good raise 04:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so now we agree on what we disagree. That's progress I suppose. Sure, threads at RSN don't always attract an immense amount of attention, but at least there's people with clue running around there, like that editor who expertly commented on Active Anime. User:Goodraise/Reviews as sources might be able to help you understand what that editor meant. Good raise 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)