Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 6

message: Some work needs to be done in getting all of the mangas listed under :Category:Manga over to the more proper :Category:Manga series. Also adding the additional category genres to the articles would be 
nice. --SeizureDog 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki'd links: :Category:Manga & :Category:Manga series (add a colon before Category to link to it and not include) ~Kylu (u|t)  17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Thanks for that tidbit. Wasn't use how to do that.--SeizureDog 23:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category movement 

message: (Related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#PNG versions)
Wiki-tan is cute, isn't she? ♥ You should have her by your side in your web browser!
I modified the picture (just slightly) and whipped up a userChrome.css for use in Firefox so people with that browser can have Wikipedia-tan pop up in their About box! That's right, if you need a fix of Wikipedia-tan, just click Help | About and you're set to go! n.n
Files needed:
:# :User:Kylu/userChrome.css — Contains the code to add Wiki-tan to your browser
:# :Image:Wikipe-tan.chrome.png — Wiki-tan herself!
Instructions on use are included in "userChrome.css". As with any code, please read the code yourself before adding it to your system. It's not "plain English" but it's close enough to be understandable
Ja ne! ~Kylu (u|t)  17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now all we need is a wikifox, ala lolifox :) Shiroi Hane 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea how ready I was to quick-close that link. c.c; ~Kylu (u|t)  01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Wikipe-tan.jpg|Wikipedia-tan]] in your browser 

message: I went ahead and made :Category:Anime OVAs, but after I did I got to wondering if that was a bit of a redundancy. "Anime OVAs" makes it specific, but it's basically saying "Anime Orginal Video Animation". Of course, we could just use "Original Video Animation", but I rarely see the term spelt out so I don't really want to do that. Plus it starts to sound un-animeish spelt out. Oh, and it's pretty clear we do need it to be a seperate category from :Category:Anime series for the simple fact that the two use different infoboxes. Anyways, I thought I'd ask everyones thoughts before I waste time pluging in things to a category that gets changed.--SeizureDog 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anime OVA" makes it exclude any OVAs released elswhere in the world (The Return of Jafar, anyone?), so I think it makes it more clear than it would otherwise be. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the opinion. Wasn't sure if the term OVA would be mixed up with Direct-to-video. Anime OVAs it is then. I'll get to work on filling it.--SeizureDog 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the cat for Anime that are OVA-only like Yukikaze and Karas, or for any Anime title that has OVA releases, like AMG? Does that also include Anime series that have single OVA episodes like Uta Kata and Elfen Lied etc.? Shiroi Hane 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the category is for any page that uses (or should use) the OVA template box. If it is an anime series with additional OVA episodes, then both categories should be used. Animes that are only OVAs though (FLCL) should only use the Anime OVAs cat and not the Animes series cat.--SeizureDog 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well just include the category in the template then. It would save you a lot of work. --Squilibob 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a pretty good idea. Could make that apply for all of the templates. Someone else do it though, I'd just mess it up.--SeizureDog 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know about creating more categories. After all we decided to categorise by genre when we broke up :Category:Anime.. Bleah nevermind, all these categories exist already. I'll try adding the category you created to the OVA part of animanga template. --Squilibob 10:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and also did the category thingy for the anime, manga, and anime film templates. I don't think there are any instances where it'll force it to categorize something incorrectly, but I may be mistaken. Tell me if you see any exceptions.--SeizureDog 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot about live-action films >< removed auto-cag from movie template. So now only OVA, manga, and anime have it. --SeizureDog 07:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just an idea, but I don't suppose there's some weird way to force the  to show up on the talk page from the template is there?--SeizureDog 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could only be done on the software side and we don't have access to the code. --Squilibob 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime OVAs vs. OAVs

message: I'm looking to make Excel Saga into a featured article, and I think the text has improved greatly over the past week. However, I'm hitting a wall in that I'm already citing Anime News Network and a few other, reputable-looking websites that Google puts on top. But I'd like more serious reviews like those at ANN and fewer like this over-the-top one from SciFi. What's worse, is that I've only found one seemingly level-headed and decent review of the manga. Any thoughts on where to get more? --Monocrat 04:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same problem with another of Nabeshin's works.  Someone suggested Newtype or Newtype USA which I don't have access to.  (It also seems that most libraries discard it after a year or 6 mos.) --Kunzite 05:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're quite a ways from a Featured Article by the looks of it. The major problem is how at least 60% of the article is nothing but characters. It'd work on moving all of that to another page. Work on finding information on its production, reaction to the work, its influences, etc. In other words, you need to stock it full of information that you CAN'T know just from watching the series alone. Find some interviews or something. That's a start.--SeizureDog 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, work on getting it to earn a Good Article before you shoot for the Feature.--SeizureDog 10:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood about the characters: about a third of them are going to be moved elsewhere, leaving only the main characters shared by the manga and anime. I've also considered replacing it all with a simple prose summary (ala Red vs Blue), but I think that can come last. Anyway, I understand I need more on critical reaction and interviews, hence my coming here with the question in the first place. :) Any thoughts on what's citable? I've placed several links to seemingly decent reviews on the talk page, and I think I have or am getting close to enough for a full section on the critical reception. And who's to say I'm not going to try for a GA? :) --Monocrat 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up, I've almost completely rewritten the second half of Excel Saga today: the Characters section has been collapsed to two (longish) paragraphs, a critical reception has been added, as have several sources. Looking through it, there are a few typos and other minor things that catch my eyes, but I need to take a break for a little while. --Monocrat 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  List of reviews for Excel Saga --SeizureDog 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Monocrat 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citable anime and manga reviews 

message: I created a stub for the manga You're So Cool based on some previous information that was in the article.  Originally the article was a copyright violation so I had to reduce it ot the basic facts.  I know nothing about the series, so if anyone could lend a hand in expanding it, it'd be much appreciated.  Metros232 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to the Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/to do list. --Squilibob 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that it needs an article first.  I'll do some digging. --Kunzite 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it's always better to give it an infobox before anything else. Then at the very least you've got the basic information and its of at least some use. Plus it doesn't take that long to make. --SeizureDog 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[You're So Cool]] 

message: Since we don't seem to have any formal article rating process yet, would there be any objections to adopting the bot-assisted article assessment scheme for this project? Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is good to have that template do something other than just provide a quick method of getting to the project page and the To do list. --Squilibob 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we leave comments as to the basis of our assessments? --Monocrat 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably only useful for unusual or borderline cases; my experience is that the general level of most articles is quite obvious at a glance. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it if comments were left.  Some of the articles that I've been watching and that have been assessed I have no idea what needs to be done to improve it.  Assessments sometimes are subjective, and as such, what may be evident to the individual assessing the article, is apparently not so evident to me.  One of the articles that I've been watching was classed as Start but the comment appended to it was that it was border-line.  No further comments were made as to what could be done to improve it.  I know it's time consuming, but it would really help out.  Even if it's not border-line, if some indication was provided as to what could be done to improve the article, that would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!  --Miss Ethereal 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it D.N.Angel? I think that if the lead was fixed and the Plot section was just a little better than it would be a Class-B article. --Squilibob 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was it.  :P  Thanks, but that then brings up another issue (for me at least).  I know classify an article as FA or GA the article needs to undergo a peer review, but what about if the article is not one of those designations?  Can someone just assume that the article is good enough to upgrade it from stub->B-Class (bypassing the start entirely) or even start->B-class?  Or should a consensus be reached somewhere when the article class designation should be upgraded (either here or on the article page itself).  Perhaps this would be something to add the the  where a request for each category have an re-assessment section. --Miss Ethereal 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that an article can merit class skips. Somtimes the article is not classified, and it has been polished several times already. It might even start as a B-class, or it could probably go from a Start class to an A-class. But I think that the article should always be a GA before becoming an FA, IMO.--Guille2015 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with this, but I think that B-class should be the highest rating a single editor can award without going through some form of nominating and review process, like GA, peer review, or FAC.--Monocrat 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but how about A-class? Probably just a simple consensus in the talk pages.--Guille2015 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's about what I was thinking. :) --Monocrat 22:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we get a bot assisted page like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality statistics? --Squilibob 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already there: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anime and manga articles by quality statistics. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I say we go ahead and keep them there for now. They aren't taking up too much space and they deserve the extra attention.--SeizureDog 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know we don't have many really good articles, but this is more redundancy just like the infobox examples. --Squilibob 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New good and featured articles are something that really need to be noticed though. An addition to the list on the main page is much more likely to catch the eye than noticing that the GA or FA count has move up 1.--SeizureDog 10:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then how about this: We announce the last few articles that have reached featured status in a sort of "Wikiproject News" section. They would get noticed that way and when other articles are newly promoted then we remove the old one. That way there wouldn't be the redundancy. When the AMCOTW gets updated then that could be added to the news section, same with results of votes and peer reviews, etc. Thoughts? --Squilibob 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Maybe. Anyways, I just remembered something that makes it not a true redundancy. Good Articles can be bumped up to A-Class, then they are no longer listed in the GA list. So I think we should still keep the lists around. Besides, other Wikiprojects such as Japan and Video Games do it, I don't see why we shouldn't.--SeizureDog 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that sounds fine. Maybe sometime in the future we will have a lot of FA, A-Class and GA articles and then I might have a case. --Squilibob 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do propose however that we remove stub tags from articles that have been assessed. I think it looks better to have it mentioned that the article is a stub in the talk page instead of the main article, and with this system we can still keep track of what is considered a stub.--SeizureDog 04:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's a very much a stub then it should probably stay on the article, since it's sort of a way of saying "Please expand this article, it REALLY needs it" to even the reader. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:STUB it is wikipedia policy to have the stub template and category on articles that are stubs. --Squilibob 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally oppose this.  Stub tags are needed on the articles for article clean-up purposes. --Kunzite 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the rules should be tweaked a bit in our case. For the purposes of reviewing an article one should completely basically the infobox. My rough proposal: If the article is long enough to where you can scroll down have to scroll down to read all of the text, it's a start. If you don't have to scroll down, it's a stub. Lists must be excluded from the scroll test.--SeizureDog 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what Display resolution? What font size? Someone with small font size on a widescreen running 1920x1080 resolution is going to be entirely different to someone running normal font size on 800x600 screen resolution. It's an interesting suggestion but not a workable solution. What did you mean about the infoboxes? I have been adding articles that have complete infoboxes as stubs. So has Monocrat (who has been doing a good job, may I add). --Squilibob 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever. Basically pick a length that seems normal for your computer and use that as a guideline. And what I meant about the infoboxes is that if you follow the assessment scale you'll get a bunch of starts as they'll often meet the "particularly useful picture or graphic" requirement. Plus, any complete infobox is "not useless" as "some readers will find what they are looking for", I.E. any basic information will be present in the box. In short, according to the assessment scale, a complete infobox = Start, but that is just too easy IMO.--SeizureDog 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Stub from the reader's perspective, per the assessment criteria: "At best a brief, informed dictionary definition." An infobox essentially presents the following: "Z was a anime and/or manga of genre Y by author/director X, airing on W station or published by V in such and such years." That looks like a dictionary definiton to me. Worse, some or all of this information is likely to be repeated in the text. The photo in an infobox might be useful, but I tend to doubt it, as it doesn't necessarily give us character names, relationships, or information on the plot.--Monocrat 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that an infobox is a very important piece of information. I sometimes go to AniDB, AnimeNfo and ANN just to find out the information that is contained in a single WP infobox. You both have valid arguments but because a stub-like article that has an infobox is a better "Start" to a stub-like article that doesn't have one, (the ground work has been done) I think I will begin assessing such articles as Start. --Squilibob 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least make sure there is still at least a basic paragraph on the subject. I've made some super-stubs with complete infoboxes (e.g. Ray (manga)) and I don't think they should be considered starts.--SeizureDog 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Windy Tales has an infobox, but it sure as hell isn't a "Start". deadkid_dk 07:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I have been making sure that there is sufficient context to label an article as Start. --Squilibob 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! My criteria are per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. In a nutshell: stubs don't tell me much about the item period (like AMG), but starts have the basis for telling me more on plot and character. AMG simply has no information regarding plot or even characters (articles, even with a link to a main article, should be self-contained), while Air Master and Amon Saga simply present characters, giving me nothing about the plot. On review, those two perhaps should be a Start, but another criterion was that I defered to existing stub tags (one of which is on both) unless I had good reason. I'll reconsider that.--Monocrat 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Stubs refer to the main section of the series. Infoboxes and lists of things (episodes, characters, items, CVs) do not make an article and should not be considered for assesment in any way.  Out of the articles you listed, they're all in the "stub" area to me.  Amon Saga and Air Master may qualify as non-stub if their character sections are written well enough.  They would be just out of stub status. --Kunzite 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Monocrat already asked whether we should leave comments and Kirill Lokshin said only on borderline cases. I started a subsection above for Start/Stub and SeizureDog started a section below for A-Class. Should we just start a section for Start vs Class-B then? --Squilibob 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the opinion that comments should only be left on borderline cases. When just one user (or two at best) assess an article, you can't expect the assessment to be 100% accurate. The grade can sometimes be completely baffling. For example, Edorad Leones is marked as 'start' even though the article contains absolutely everything known about the character (since his life span was short, there isn't much known, and I even argued in favor of merging that article before, but even so I fail to see how it's a 'start'). The article is even illustrated. And even if an article is very accurately assessed by a number of users, the rating still doesn't help much if other users just coming in don't immediately know what to improve in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, that article doesn't have any references.  Even if it covers the topic, for it to be more than a start it should have some references. -- Ned Scott 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's not a problem to add references, I disagree that this has to be a criterion for the B class. In fact, the B class says the following: Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references. Therefore, according to the standard, B class articles will likely not list many/any references. In any case, if references were added to the article, it would easily be A class (read the A class description here to see what I mean). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading the class descriptions again, I have found the perfect article which can be classified as 'start' (not manga-related): Leonid Yakubovich. That article exactly fits the descriptions for 'start', but it is a long shot from some of the articles labeled as 'start' by our assessment team. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If editors are adding assessments to articles without discussion or due process, there needs to be some mechanism for dispute resolution over decisions. I also think that users who make major edits to an article should not be able to rate thier own articles. --Kunzite 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I propose that we make a list. I have made a mock up example of something that may work Here. It could just be a subpage of the Wikiproject. --Squilibob 23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair. On a side note, I'm wondering why everyone keeps insisting that the B class is a well-written article. According to the class description, it would still be lacking a bit of practically everything, and generally be useless for someone serious about the subject. In any case, I'll go over a few of the Bleach articles tomorrow and submit them for the Good Article review. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I Like Squilibob's idea. And I also agree that the person that is writting should assess their own articles. On the otherhand, Whether its Start or B class doesnt really have much difference to me, and will not hurt wikipedia if an article is assess as a B instead of start. Also consider that GA- A- and FA classes need to go through a process that the main editor will not be involved.--Guille2015 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: From reading that table of descriptions of each class I have noticed that a lot of articles are being classed as Stub when they have an infobox or a picture or a small list of information and I believe that they should be assessed as Start. I would like some opinions on these articles. Here is a list:
;Currently Stub:
Amon Saga
3000 Leagues in Search of Mother
801 T.T.S. Airbats
6 Angels
Ah! My Goddess (TV)
Air Master
Aishiteruze Baby
Alice SOS
Angelique (Japanese series)
I, myself, have stuffed up a lot so far and had to go back and change from Stub to Start. --Squilibob 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the rules should be tweaked a bit in our case. For the purposes of reviewing an article one should completely basically the infobox. My rough proposal: If the article is long enough to where you can scroll down have to scroll down to read all of the text, it's a start. If you don't have to scroll down, it's a stub. Lists must be excluded from the scroll test.--SeizureDog 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what Display resolution? What font size? Someone with small font size on a widescreen running 1920x1080 resolution is going to be entirely different to someone running normal font size on 800x600 screen resolution. It's an interesting suggestion but not a workable solution. What did you mean about the infoboxes? I have been adding articles that have complete infoboxes as stubs. So has Monocrat (who has been doing a good job, may I add). --Squilibob 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever. Basically pick a length that seems normal for your computer and use that as a guideline. And what I meant about the infoboxes is that if you follow the assessment scale you'll get a bunch of starts as they'll often meet the "particularly useful picture or graphic" requirement. Plus, any complete infobox is "not useless" as "some readers will find what they are looking for", I.E. any basic information will be present in the box. In short, according to the assessment scale, a complete infobox = Start, but that is just too easy IMO.--SeizureDog 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Stub from the reader's perspective, per the assessment criteria: "At best a brief, informed dictionary definition." An infobox essentially presents the following: "Z was a anime and/or manga of genre Y by author/director X, airing on W station or published by V in such and such years." That looks like a dictionary definiton to me. Worse, some or all of this information is likely to be repeated in the text. The photo in an infobox might be useful, but I tend to doubt it, as it doesn't necessarily give us character names, relationships, or information on the plot.--Monocrat 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that an infobox is a very important piece of information. I sometimes go to AniDB, AnimeNfo and ANN just to find out the information that is contained in a single WP infobox. You both have valid arguments but because a stub-like article that has an infobox is a better "Start" to a stub-like article that doesn't have one, (the ground work has been done) I think I will begin assessing such articles as Start. --Squilibob 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least make sure there is still at least a basic paragraph on the subject. I've made some super-stubs with complete infoboxes (e.g. Ray (manga)) and I don't think they should be considered starts.--SeizureDog 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Windy Tales has an infobox, but it sure as hell isn't a "Start". deadkid_dk 07:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I have been making sure that there is sufficient context to label an article as Start. --Squilibob 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! My criteria are per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. In a nutshell: stubs don't tell me much about the item period (like AMG), but starts have the basis for telling me more on plot and character. AMG simply has no information regarding plot or even characters (articles, even with a link to a main article, should be self-contained), while Air Master and Amon Saga simply present characters, giving me nothing about the plot. On review, those two perhaps should be a Start, but another criterion was that I defered to existing stub tags (one of which is on both) unless I had good reason. I'll reconsider that.--Monocrat 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Stubs refer to the main section of the series. Infoboxes and lists of things (episodes, characters, items, CVs) do not make an article and should not be considered for assesment in any way.  Out of the articles you listed, they're all in the "stub" area to me.  Amon Saga and Air Master may qualify as non-stub if their character sections are written well enough.  They would be just out of stub status. --Kunzite 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start vs Stub

message: I don't know about others, but personally it really bothers me that users tag article as assessed without showing any process of assessment or giving any reasons for the grade given. This is especially important because so far the assessment has mostly been done by individual users without a projectwide discussion for each assessed article. I think stating some basic reasons in the discussion page (especially reasons why the article was not rated higher, e.g. lacking references, poorly written, etc.) will help more people take this rating seriously. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Monocrat already asked whether we should leave comments and Kirill Lokshin said only on borderline cases. I started a subsection above for Start/Stub and SeizureDog started a section below for A-Class. Should we just start a section for Start vs Class-B then? --Squilibob 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the opinion that comments should only be left on borderline cases. When just one user (or two at best) assess an article, you can't expect the assessment to be 100% accurate. The grade can sometimes be completely baffling. For example, Edorad Leones is marked as 'start' even though the article contains absolutely everything known about the character (since his life span was short, there isn't much known, and I even argued in favor of merging that article before, but even so I fail to see how it's a 'start'). The article is even illustrated. And even if an article is very accurately assessed by a number of users, the rating still doesn't help much if other users just coming in don't immediately know what to improve in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, that article doesn't have any references.  Even if it covers the topic, for it to be more than a start it should have some references. -- Ned Scott 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's not a problem to add references, I disagree that this has to be a criterion for the B class. In fact, the B class says the following: Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references. Therefore, according to the standard, B class articles will likely not list many/any references. In any case, if references were added to the article, it would easily be A class (read the A class description here to see what I mean). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading the class descriptions again, I have found the perfect article which can be classified as 'start' (not manga-related): Leonid Yakubovich. That article exactly fits the descriptions for 'start', but it is a long shot from some of the articles labeled as 'start' by our assessment team. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If editors are adding assessments to articles without discussion or due process, there needs to be some mechanism for dispute resolution over decisions. I also think that users who make major edits to an article should not be able to rate thier own articles. --Kunzite 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I propose that we make a list. I have made a mock up example of something that may work Here. It could just be a subpage of the Wikiproject. --Squilibob 23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair. On a side note, I'm wondering why everyone keeps insisting that the B class is a well-written article. According to the class description, it would still be lacking a bit of practically everything, and generally be useless for someone serious about the subject. In any case, I'll go over a few of the Bleach articles tomorrow and submit them for the Good Article review. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I Like Squilibob's idea. And I also agree that the person that is writting should assess their own articles. On the otherhand, Whether its Start or B class doesnt really have much difference to me, and will not hurt wikipedia if an article is assess as a B instead of start. Also consider that GA- A- and FA classes need to go through a process that the main editor will not be involved.--Guille2015 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for assessment

message: Might it be advisable to add an optional field "Distributors" or "Publishers" to the anime infobox? It seems like outside of Japan, to this American's perspective, more anime is distributed on DVD than broadcast or transmitted by cable. Also, since we specify OVA for its template, and broadcaster for anime, would it be possible to omit the "TV" from the latter's header? --Monocrat 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with adding an extra field. The studio field works fine for this information already. You could omit "TV" from the header because one of the fields is "station" and so television is implied. --Squilibob 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems counter-intuitive to me to list, say, ADV in the same box as J.C. Staff for Azumanga Daioh, but I know little enough about the anime industry that I'll defer on that point.--Monocrat 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the talk page I see that zippedmartin and mako have already had this discussion. --Squilibob 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the Other section could be used for distributors, this would keep the Studio field free for the company that produced the anime. --Squilibob 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The examples were definitely instructive to me, so I'm for keeping them. How about a ficticious "Love Wiki" "Onegai Wiki" starring Wikipe-tan? --Monocrat 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that's there now is pretty good! Haha. I guess people can now also check out the Good/Featured articles for examples. I guess we just need some sort of replacement for the Otakon infobox now. -  12:41, 05 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Link to the examples, as was suggested last time the infoboxes were discussed. --Squilibob 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox animanga/Anime proposals 

message: If I'm not mistaken it is against wikipedia policy to include fair-use images on talk and project pages, so perhaps we should either ditch the examples or invent generic info and put Public images in there. Anyone else got a stance on this? 
Wikipedia:Fair use says: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace", so yeah... I guess we better reach a decision. - Phorque 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples were definitely instructive to me, so I'm for keeping them. How about a ficticious "Love Wiki" "Onegai Wiki" starring Wikipe-tan? --Monocrat 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that's there now is pretty good! Haha. I guess people can now also check out the Good/Featured articles for examples. I guess we just need some sort of replacement for the Otakon infobox now. -  12:41, 05 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Link to the examples, as was suggested last time the infoboxes were discussed. --Squilibob 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About our example wikiboxes

message: Does anyone object to moving the Peer Review requests to the To Do list? I think we should keep all of these sorts of things in the one spot and the to do list is included in the template which is accessible on several pages. --Squilibob 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, go ahead. -  20:10, 05 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok they are in the proposed News section for now. --Squilibob 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review requests

message: I have added transparancy in a bold move. Looks much better IMHO. --Cat out 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resizes pretty well, thank the maker of .png --Squilibob 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mascot image(s)

message: This catheory needs some attention. I am not sure what to make of various "media and release information" articles/lists. They arent anime lists so they probably belong to a different category? --Cat out 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be under Anime lists because it has no where else to go. They are lists and they are about anime, so I guess Anime lists is the only real category it should be under. --Squilibob 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They arent episode lists tho. Maybe a new subcategory for them? --Cat out 01:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah maybe a new subcategory. A few of them do have lists of episodes in them so could be put in both, others should be moved into a new subcategory and Sonic X media and release information could be renamed as per convention. --Squilibob 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused, I thought for an article to be in such a cat it only had to contain a list of episodes, not necessarily only be a list. When we list something as a manga cat, it's not just a manga, but a manga, anime, game, etc.  Why is this different? -- Ned Scott 07:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Lists of anime television series episodes]]

message: I propose a News section, similar to WP:GO but for our intents and purposes. To provide a consise summary of significant events that affect the project. It could be useful to inform editors of changes in our guidelines, provide results of peer reviews/featured article candidate submissions, results of the previous week's AMCOTW with stats all in one place. Proposal stage only, subject to changes and deletion if unpopular. --Squilibob 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me, it would probably help with distribution of information. --Miss Ethereal 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like a good idea. Roughly, what is you idea of the timeframe items would stay on it, and how many items there would be?--Monocrat 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be decided by consensus, just like everything else. I'd suggest either a week, two weeks or a month. --Squilibob 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A News section 

message: For starters, I would like to know how to start a to-do list that is specifically for the Wikiproject Anime and Manga. Also, a more specific To-do list. I've noticed that some pages include to-do list in the subpages like so: Talk:Chrono_Trigger/to_do and they show this to-do list with a template . If this is an option in this WikiProject, I would like to here how it works. If it is not implemented, I would like to suggest an implementation of such template. --Guille2015 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Template:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/to_do.  Click on the "show" box on the talk template to see it.  I've recently created subpages that list merges and expand articles based on category scans of all pages in this project.  (And I have the wikify articles that I pulled out in raw form in my todo.  Ran out of time this weekend /)  Feel free to update the articles OR refresh the lists with Catscan (if it's up) --Kunzite 03:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do

message: WikiProject List of Television Episodes is putting together some templates to help make entering data easier for lists of episodes.  This was originally based off of the template Template:Digimon episode.  We took that and made Template:Episode list, and then tonight I decided to make Template:Japanese episode list for anime and other Japanese shows.
These templates include labeled variables, so editors (new and old) don't always have to guess which || mark is the air-date cell, and so on.  Especially helpful with the creation of large episode lists.  Entry this way also makes it easy to make a shoot-off template with more custom appearances without having to rewrite the whole wikitable and re-order all the data.
Detailed instructions can be found on Template talk:Japanese episode list, and you can see the template in action on Kamisama Kazoku#Episodes. Feel free to use the Japanese episode list template and such. Any changes at this point shouldn't break articles using it. And tell us what you think of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes or here.-- Ned Scott 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good automation without too many limitations. You get to choose your own wikidate format and your own table class. --Squilibob 05:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. For anime with 13 episodes, it might be fine, but for ones with 26 episodes or more it'll do some major clotting to the article. Consider articles like Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni, where a seperate article for the list of episodes isn't necessary, but an image for each episode will make the layout look outrageous. deadkid_dk 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to only use it on lists where you do want the full information.  The template not only makes it easy to enter the data, but it also encourages editors to add it (people see empty fields, they seem to get the urge to fill in the blanks).  In other words, if it's a list of episodes where this amount of information is not desired, or where this format is not desired, then simply use normal wikitable code for the desired results. One size won't fit all. If editors do fill up all the information on a 26 episode anime, then it would probably be best to split that into it's own List of <showname> episodes article. -- Ned Scott 17:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are my thoughts as well. The list of episodes should stay in the main article until it finishes up a season, and then it gets split. --SeizureDog 04:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, does this suggest that we should remove this template from articles? I've seen these tables pop up on a few articles the last couple of days and I think they are both too bulky and generally look out of place with the rest of the article's contents. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the template is full we can split it off. --SeizureDog 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is now an alternative template for those who do not wish to include screen shots.  Just use all the same parameters and information given in Template talk:Japanese episode list, but replace the template name with Japanese episode list (no image). (thus, one can easily switch between images or no images without having to re-enter data).  See Template talk:Japanese episode list for more information. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode template for list of episodes 

message: There's something wierd happening in the Content section but I cannot figure out what it is. Shiroi Hane 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the code tags? They're in the main css and make the font a monospaced font, courier new I believe, and they also make the background of the text white. --Squilibob 10:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. not doing it here on this machine, but using IE5 in work there was a wierd.. thing appearing between the section header and the text, kinds like a very large open bracket. If it is still apparent when I am next in work I will try and screencap it. Shiroi Hane 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page bug? 

message: I suggest that any time you use a site such as ANN or Anime Nfo to fill out an info box you add them to the references section. Some reasons I believe they should not simply go under external links are as follows:
*It is being used as a reference after all.
*The linked website generally offers little more infomation that what is used to fill out the infobox.
*Our anime articles are sorely lacking their references for the most part, and this should help encourage further sourcing.
*From Wikipedia:External links
:*What should be linked to #2: Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links.
:*Occasionally acceptable links #1: For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Internet Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews. 
::*I'd like to point out that the reason stated for linking to IMDb is for the REVIEWS. If you want a link to Anime Nfo in the external links for this reason, link directly to the reviews section for the anime. If it's from ANN, link directly to the review (if there's only one) or to the main page with the caption "includes reviews" after the link as per Planetes. 
Here's what you would need to copy and paste onto the page.
:Unfilled
 
 *
 
And an example of what it looks like filled.
:Example
 
 *
 
:Shows as
*
Do I have support for this motion? It's only 5 little copy and pastes guys, not hard at all.--SeizureDog 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing sources is always a good thing, we should definitely encourage this. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See . Usage instructions can be found on the talk page. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also see  for citing manga. --SeizureDog 13:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I always considered that referencing something from itself is not necessary. I think that the NOR refers to as primary sources to authors and other articles in that are original. The reason primary sources are encourage is because they are more verifiable than second and third. Meaning where secondary sources cite the primerary, and third source talk about secondary sources citing primary sources. --Guille2015 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should generally not be used much unless it's something almost everyone misses in watching or someone sticks a citation needed tag where you can refer to the work.--SeizureDog 04:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References suggestion

message: Can we please rename her? Anyone who understand how romaji works can tell you that her name ends up sounding like "Wii-kii-peh"-tan instead of "Wii-kii-pii"-tan. To me, the extra "peh" sounds awful. I like the sorter "Wii-kii"-tan better. Plus it's pronouced the same in both languages then. --SeizureDog 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Except that you are mispronunciating it technically. --SeizureDog 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I like TrollBoat-tan, let's go with that ;) And if any of you had made that article on the English Wiki I would have slapped you. --SeizureDog 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hey, you know, if we talk to the guys on the imageboards, they may very well make a Wikipe-tan comic. Wanna? :D ~Kylu (u|t)  18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh man, please do. I'm getting so giddy. :D _dk 00:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * "Wiki-tan is beset by Troll-san!" ... actually, nevermind, sounds more like a hentai doujin. c.c 206.246.160.221 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no problem with that :D *shot* _dk 08:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename Wikipe-tan to Wiki-tan

message: One question, two parts, one about culture, other about a translation. If you know either, please take a look at my last post on Talk:Trouble Chocolate, if I can make something out of this I'd like to add it to the article, but I just don't know enough myself, and the page doesn't really get any traffic to see the question. Thanks. -Goldom (t) (Review) 09:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. I think I got what I was looking for. -Goldom (t) (Review) 11:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a Q for someone with Japanese culture/language knowledge 

message: Squilibob recently added MegaTokyo to our GA list, but I took it down for not being a true manga, merely being influenced by them. I'm actually rather neutral as to if it should count as part of the project or not, but I feel it needs to be discussed first. And if it is to be considered, what about Avatar: The Last Airbender? It's pretty much semi-anime. Should the project be only for true manga and anime (made in Japan), or include anime/manga style works outside of Japan as well? --SeizureDog 10:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is: I don't care if it's in the project. However, if the original language is not Japanese (or a Japanese and Korean or American or Liechtensteinian or whatever co-production,) include the article in an "inspired" category or list i.e. Amerime. (And don't get me started on glorified fanfiction webcomics.)  --00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MegaTokyo as a Good Article 

message: Wow! I really didn't think that was gonna happen with all those complaints. Good job everyone who worked on it. I think it's a pretty nice looking list, and I supported it, though I do agree some of the descriptions still need work, so let's keep it up so it doesn't get revoked later. Congrats! -Goldom (t) (Review) 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was honestly very perplexed at how it passed. I mean, I was supporting it and all, but there were a lot of complaints it seemed. Now I just have to hope I can get the guy that keeps screwing with my List of Virtual Boy games to back off. -_- --SeizureDog 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a number of editors that have been removing fair use images on the bases that it violates the letter of WP:FU. However, the letter of WP:FU also dictates the remove of images that legitimately fall under fair use because it falls outside of article space. Case in point, the removal of the images for the anime and manga portal. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the "Fair use = no Featured List for you" complaints were thrown out was addressed in the talk page of the admin who closed the discussion - he felt that that was an inappropriate argument since there's no rule against featured articles using fair use images. I don't know about this other list though, Farix is correct that fair use is not allowed outside article space (I've had to remove logos off templates several times, which never makes people very happy), but I think lists count as articles, so... -Goldom (t) (Review) 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that use of fair use images in "selected articles" of the portal space should also be allowed under the WP:FU. Images on these selections serve the exact same purpose as they do in the full articles in the article space. --TheFarix (Talk) 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Think it'd be possible to move the FMA article to FA, next? (Or any Anime article for that matter?) ~Kylu (u|t)  07:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of anime I think deserve a FA, but I don't think most of the articles are really quite there. My opinion would to be to work on the "big" shows, the ones that are extremely-well known even outside the fan community. FMA certainly falls in that category. Others would be things like Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop, CCS (just to name some examples off the top of my head). Maybe a good first step is getting them to GA quality - I suspect there are several that could get there with just a little work, and a GA is sure to attract more attention to help it up to FA. I think the main trouble with getting these articles to FA is references.. fiction is by nature hard to find sources about. Also, an encyclopedia tone has to be throughout, but this project has done well on that in most cases. (Compared to say, the majority of Video Game articles, where about 80% of them sound like they belong on GameFAQs.) -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re FMA list = FL 

message: Y'all may be interested in the recently-created Retrab. Cheers. --Fang Aili  talk 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Retrab]] 

message: I have given this page a complete rewrite, and am pretty pleased with how it turned out (compared to the old copy, anyway). If anyone has more suggestions, let me know. -Goldom (t) (Review) 09:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citing of the show itself gets really redundent, really quickly. Citing of episodes should basically be reserved for if someone asks for the source or for really exact details that might have been missed even by people who have watched the anime (such as details mentioned once only casually). Also, when they ARE cited, they should have a quote along with them. See Final Fantasy X for examples.--SeizureDog 10:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I went a bit overboard with them, it's just I've had encounters in the past with cases of (citation needed) popping up on every single sentence. I guess I'll trim them back though, since there are a lot. I didn't really used to think I needed to cite obvious statements so heavily either, but different editors, different opinions I guess. I can't please everyone, so I guess I'll go with the people more likely to be reading this page. I'll leave all the ones in the non-summary parts though, since those are more subjective claims. -Goldom (t) (Review) 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean about the quotes. I've never noticed that done before (even in articles I have read, where now that I look, it actually is). I guess I've just never read too many featured articles (that statement's gonna come back to bite me some day, isn't it... I just mean I generally figure I couldn't help them much, so i stick with needier places.) I never saw any mention of doing this in WP:CITE or WP:FOOT, but they don't really talk about citing episodes directly. I can see how it would help sometimes, but there's others I think probably left best as-is: like after the premise section, which is the entire 1st ep., it cites that. I don't think there's really any single place I could quote to show that better, but I still think it should be cited to show where it comes from. I'll take your advice and cut back on them though, and I will add some quotes... eventually. (Don't feel like rewatching the show right away) -Goldom (t) (Review) 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Earth Girl Arjuna]] 

message: I've added  to the project banner. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we did use the importance perimeter, how are we going to determine if an article deserves a particular "importance" ranking? Anime that may be popular in one country may not be popular elsewhere. And by what metric are we going to judge popularity? --TheFarix (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and removed the imprortance code. It doesn't seem to be getting used and I don't see it being very useful even if it were to be used. If after further discussion it is determined that this is not the case they can be added back, but leave them out for now. --SeizureDog 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not. Keep the useless statistic around, see if I care. --SeizureDog 08:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find it.. pretty useless.. I'm gonna take it out again.. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  importance 

message: I question the need of having increasingly large tables of multi-language lists. I've seen this a few other places on Wikipedia, and I think it needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets out of control. Please come share your thoughts on the Talk:List of characters in Saint Tail page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree & Codify into the anime guidelines.. Unless notable, they should not be included. And if they're notable they should maybe only be included in a trivia section.  I would also like to expand this to non-English/Japanese CV. (Again, unless notable -- though we barely reach notability with most US VA's and many Japanese CV's.)--Kunzite 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple languages question

message: Maybe it's just me, but something weird seems to be going on with the  where the caption of the image is not a subtext for the image rather than an actual caption.  Is it just me?  Was something changed or is it broken?  --Miss Ethereal 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See its talk page about what has been going on. In short, one person has made changes and been enforcing those changes and no one else has been pleased with it. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just reverted it.. I thought someone else had reverted earlier this week.  --Kunzite 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Caption

message: Apparently, this has just recently been adopted as a guideline. Unfortunately, it hasn't been mentioned here and I don't think anyone in WP:Anime knows about. But this is something all of us who are planning to rewrite an anime article or are already in the process of rewriting to keep in mind. Also don't be surprised when you start seeing , , or  tags pop up all over the place. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forget where I first saw it, but it seems like it will be a good thing. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it is just more work for our already overtaxed project. I'm not sure if we have the manpower to fix even a faction of the anime articles. Though I would like to be proven wrong. ;) --TheFarix (Talk) 04:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I donno, it seems anime popularity is going up in English speaking countries, as well as Wikipedia popularity. I think the real challenge is getting all the newbies into shape in a timely manner.  It's gotten easier, but it can be pretty tough to learn all the things one should know on Wikipedia. People seem to gravitate towards structure rather than chaos, so there's usually a will to learn. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about it. All of the projects are over-taxed, but we all keep plugging along. No one will expect changes to be made immediately. And Ned Scott's comments are true as well. Cheer up. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know this wasn't already a guideline - I always thought this is how we are supposed to do it. It just sounds better anyway. I wouldn't worry about it too much, I think our project is doing really well in this regard, I haven't come across any anime articles that I've felt "This really doesn't read like an article" (which is what this guideline exists to ensure). I don't think anyone is gonna throw a fit over a little plot summary or anything, it just doesn't want articles written as if the events in them are real. It's mostly about tone. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My (minor) concern is that the new guidelines seem to actually deprecate a simple in-universe plot summary, while noting they're acceptable. More broadly, I think many (or most) character and episode articles might not survive a tough reading of the guidelines (new and old): e.g. Naruto Episode 1, To Challenge the Sun, Uzumaki Naruto, and Il Palazzo (to demonstrate my own, newbie work). --Monocrat 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, those do look like they need to be changed. But it really isn't too hard, just adding a few words here and there should do it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is imperative for us to salvage as many articles as posible. However the process should not be rushed so as not to comprimise quality. I recomend salvaging artilces linked from existing featured lists first. --Cat out 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)]] 

message: One of the things I like about the  template is that the contented within the parentheses will not be bold if the entire template is surround by bold tags or if the template is preceded by ";". However, I've noticed some complaining about the format, overuse and perceived abuse of the template. But also, Nihongo isn't always 100% adaptable to many of the situation we are putting it into for character names. (ex. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and Shakugan no Shana)
With that in mind, I was wondering if anyone would be amenable to creating a spin off template just for anime character names. For starters, we can simplify much of the spans so that the underlying HTML will not be so messy and remove the "?" present in the template. A fifth parameter can also be added so that we can included additional text after the last parentheses without it becoming bold nor worry about breaking something with a hack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 
:I created the  for an alternative to the standard nihongo temate which doesnt always work nice especialy for character articles etc. I am also just sick of passing bold in the parameter... --Cat out 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like nihongo as it currently is.  It's a good compromise.  However, it's not needed for 100% of the times that it is used. I would also like to say that I oppose an "indic scripts" style warning at the top of every single page.  (Such a warning often interferes with our infoboxes.) I think that it might be nice to have a version without the question mark, but it doesn't really matter.  My two pennies, anyway. --Kunzite 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Nihongo's replacement 

message: I hereby invite all parties for the improvement drive on the stub articles linked from :Category:Air. Now I plan to expand them if no one volunteers anyways but I thought I'd try sharing the experience. --Cat out 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up Breeze (Air episode) when I saw you make it yesterday, but there's still one bizarre sentence that I couldn't figure out that I mentioned on the talk page, but maybe saying it here is more likely for you to notice. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea I noticed, thanks. If you want to really get my attention, feel free to use my talk page. I work on way too many articles :) Oh btw I responded to you on the talk page of breeze. I'd apriciate it if you take a look at Town (Air episode) as well --Cat out 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I'm slowly making some progress with the Maburaho rewrite. So far, I've gotten from the top down to Kuriko, and I still need to do from Ren on down the character list. I've also added the voice actors, episode list and theme music as well. But I would like others to check my tone on the rewritten parts. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maburaho article progress 

message: I have created a straw poll in hopes of quickly resolving the dispute over List of Air episodes. Talk:List of Air episodes#Straw poll for which episode table to use. I strongly encourage everyone to share their opinion and vote. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't reverted me mercilessly there wouldnt be a dispute... --Cat out 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll for List of Air episodes 

message: Now I understand that we're supposed to be covering all anime and manga, anime terminologies, and other anime-related items to some extent. My question is, to what extent? I'm asking this because I see some game articles being covered (like planetarian, for example) and some not (like Disgaea: Hour of Darkness), and to be honest, I'm a bit confused. Let me summarize my question to a few points:
# Are we covering anime-styled games? If yes, which ones? If not, how should we deal with articles about games spun off from animes (or vice versa)?
# Should we cover subjects that are using the anime style but are not actually anime or manga themselves? (I'm looking at OS-tan and webcomics here)
# Should we be covering non-Japanese comics? (eg. Korean manhwa, Chinese manhua, webcomics, etc)
# Are we covering hentai? doujinshi? eroge?
I hope I don't look like a moron, asking these questions. _dk 07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you look like a moron? These are all valid questions and I don't know the answers to any of them either. --Squilibob 09:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say at least the anime-style games could easily fall under our project, since it includes the art.  Personally, I think anime is more of animation from Japan than a style, since anime itself is so broad to be a style.  But at the same time, similar styles often have many things in common, and influence each other.  So Korean animation that is similar to anime could also fall under our project, but I think on a case by case basis.  And I'm pretty sure hentai and doujinshi fall under our project, and with the same logic for the games, eroge as well. It's common for many of us to be interested in all these things, so it's likely the group as a whole can add and contribute to these articles via our discussions and guidelines as well. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Modern Visual Culture? - mako 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that games are within the scope of WP:Anime unless it is part of an anime/manga franchise (i.e. the .hack series). If you have two article on the same franchise, one being about the anime/manga and the other being about the game, the game article wouldn't fall under our scope while the anime/manga article will. But that, I think, is about as much of a distinction as we can make about this issue. Everything in-between—and there is a lot of in-between—is a gray area that has never been ironed out with the CVG WikiProject. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are the first person who hasn't put "The" before my name, and the only reason "The" is in there was because Wikipedia wouldn't let me have "Farix" in the first place. ;_; --TheFarix (Talk) 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 5. What about light novels? (like Suzumiya Haruhi) Strictly speaking, they should be under WP:NOVELS, but almost all of them include anime drawings. _dk 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Since they're closely related to Manga, we should handle them.  WP:NOVELS may be ok, but since Light novels are heavily Japanese they could also go to WP:JAPAN. --Kunzite 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be appropriate to simply discuss these questions with the other WikiProjects and see who wants to do what? Alternatively, could a page be maintained by more than one WikiProject? ~Kylu (u|t)  02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can; indeed, that's fairly common with, say, geographic and thematic projects intersecting.  Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we include games in our scope even they're already taken by WP:CVG, we can adopt ourselves a spanking featured article, yay! :D _dk 08:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'm for including anime game in our scope. It does have the word "anime" in the title after all. Light novels are an obvious inclusion, except we virtually never seem to be able to get much information on them.--SeizureDog 03:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light novels have the same problem as Audio Dramas and even some popular Japanse literature like Nansō Satomi Hakkenden.. they are rarely translated.  --Kunzite 13:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which brings up another point we really should know: who in the project is able to fully speak/read Japanese? We need to know who the go-to guys are for any Japanese needs we may have. I'm still just learning, and I am only able to read anything through a slow and painful of looking up every word in a dictionary. --SeizureDog 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the project 

message: I'm trying to put the whole list into table form but it's quite big so I'd like some help. Drop by and format up a letter's worth of manga if you have the time. --SeizureDog 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one that should be converted to category and then listed for AfD. --Kunzite 19:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you daft? If a list as basic as this should be deleted then virtually EVERY list on Wikipedia should be deleted. It hardly can be considered listcruft and your logic for deletion completely eludes me. --SeizureDog 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists generally aren't useful unless they either (a) contain information beyond the article title or (b) arrange their articles in an order other than alphabetic.  An alphabetic list of article titles is a category, basically. Kirill Lokshin 19:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list is much easier to navigate than a category, especially considering manga have the habit of multiple names. Plus, there are plenty of manga articles that have yet to be written, so it also serves a development purpose. --SeizureDog 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help at [[List of manga by English Title]]

message: I know this has already been brought up before, and many of you are already aware of this debate, but I would like to make one last requires regarding the fair use debate over screenshots on List of Lost episodes. There are so many Anime articles this could impact:
In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8.  I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.
One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.
I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots as fair use 

message: I found the website AnimeResearch.com while looking for Evangelion material, and I thought I would bring it to the group's attention. It's not pretty, but at a glance it seems promising as a place to get secondary sources.--Monocrat 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find. This could turn out to be very useful in actually getting some references, which of course we desperately need. On that note, does anyone have any print sources they can look too on anime/manga?--SeizureDog 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website for secondary sources 

message: I started up Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers.  Could use some help.  The whole transformers cat needs to get coordinated.--D-Boy 06:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers]] 

message: I notice that a lot of the text in the movie (US version) is in English. Was this translated, or is that how it appeared in the original Japanese version? Thanks, 10:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like in the profiles and background and stuff? I watched a subbed version, I seem to remember that stuff being in English then too. Generally that sort of stuff isn't translated. Japanese culture loves English, it's "cool". --SeizureDog 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowboy Bebop: The Movie 

message: The article is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon (monster). It is quite obvious that the page could at the very least use a good cleanup. Circeus 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article was deleted because lack of source was equivaled to OR. Article still has over a dozen incoming links, though. Circeus 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mon (monster)]] 

message: Please come participate in the article naming discussion taking place on Talk:Kohta Hirano. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kohta Hirano discussion