Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 24

message: Question: Is the project going to codify the apparent rule of thumb that the threshhold for having an article for a manga is the notability criteria for books with the additional criterion of 
:6. The series has been licensed in English.
anytime soon? Because it'd be nice to have a working guideline here. Or to decide once and for all that a series that doesn't meet WP:BK even though it's licensed should not have an article. (I'd prefer the former, myself.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think being made into an OVA, TV series, or game (likely video, but board and card would qualify it as well) should qualify it as well (basically expanding criteria 3 at WP:BK). I agree with adopting the criteria proposed above, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why only English and not other languages? _dk (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was your question directed at me? Or at Quasirandom. I'm assuming the latter as it being directed at me would make no sense since my comment had nothing to do with anything other than Japanese. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Aren't a large portion (majority?) translated into Chinese and/or Korean by the Japanese publisher as a routine matter? If so, no real notability is really demonstrated for those. Others with a better sense of the industry could probably comment on that better, though. Possibly licensed in any non-East Asian language would be a better criterion. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only Kadokawa Shoten has a foothold in Taiwan to publish their manga there. Other manga has to be licensed by companies like Tong Li Comics (Taiwan), Jade Dynasty (Hong Kong), etc, like the situation in the US. East Asia gets more manga licensed because of their cultural similarity to Japan, and the relative ease of translation. _dk (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that it would be any easier to translate from Japanese to, say, Vietnamese than to English. I'd suspect the translation from Japanese to any other language would be fairly similar in difficulty. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's beside the point. I will not stand for systemic bias based on ignorance. _dk (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was merely addressing your comment about "the relative ease of translation." Exactly how is that biased? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here's my question: what proportion of manga series are licensed in, for ex, Chinese? If it's relatively high, then it isn't a distinguishing marker of notability. (At the moment, I'm inclined to a threshold of licensed in Europe or the Americas, but good arguments can be made for both more and less restrictive criteria.) —Quasirandom 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the proportion of manga get translated into Chinese is rather high compared to English, but that is at most 70% of the manga published. Why do we need to restrict the criteria anyways? Isn't a manga notable enough if it manages to either i) sell well in Japan, or ii) is able to be licensed and published outside of Japan? What's this talk of Europe and the Americas? Not all manga get published as tankobon, even less outside of Japan. Why must western countries be the indicator of notability? I would listen to what SeizureDog says. _dk 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: May I add one more level: 6. Serialized. Currently it seems that any manga serialized would likely get a Wikipedia article....Manga, unlike books, do not get published into tankobons unless the publisher has deemed that manga to be  popular enough for publishing. (The publisher can also decide to discontinue a work if it's seen to be unpopular, that's trivial.) So when we're talking about a manga series, we're talking about a piece of work that has proven itself notable enough to be published again and again. I'm leaning towards option 5. Needless to say, I'm disgusted by the discrimination here only for the reason that "we need to set the bar higher". Ooh, English is all high and mighty. _dk 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not trying to privledge English -- I'm trying to find a relatively easy-to-demonstrate standard for notability that is consonant with the community consensus for other kinds of books and comics. Not everything published in English is notable. Nor is everything published in Japanese. —Quasirandom 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the discussion we're having now, and the annoyance I'm feeling, the standard would only achieve pissing people off rather than easily demonstrating notability. <sarcasm>It's published in Chinese in Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore? Who cares? It's published in Korea too? No, no, no, you don't understand, Asia doesn't mean crap to Wikipedia; it has to be in English to be notable for Wikipedia silly!</sarcasm> I'll step back. How about being licensed by more than one foreign company to demonstrate notability? _dk 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Licensed in two or more languages outside of Japanese sounds like a good criterion. Simple, objective, and demonstrates that more than one company thought it was notable enough to warrent licensing. —Quasirandom 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your previous edit, saying "countries" (or rather, regions) instead of "languages", since different companies hold the license for different regions (except in the case of multinational enterprises like Tokyopop), and so the localization would be different for places like, say, Hong Kong and Taiwan, even though they both use Traditional Chinese. And there's also the issue of Simplified Chinese vs Traditional Chinese.... _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Urk. I'd forgotten about HK/TW being separate licenses. I was trying to avoid the converse problem in most European langauges, which is that they are licensed by language instead of country. In English, you can get licenses split between North America / Commonwealth, but the publishing trend is toward unified English language rights -- and even with the split, they're multi-country licenses. French editions generally sell in all French-speaking countries, and ditto German. (Not to mention, if you believe the PRC, Taiwan isn't a separate country.) —Quasirandom 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  'K after a little thought, how about licensed by two or more companies outside of Japan? It's rare, as I understand it, for a licensing publisher to put out more than one language edition. (We may need to specifically note that Viz counts, because it's a U.S. company and does go through a licensing process even though it's owned by Shogakukan and Shueisha.) —Quasirandom 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea to me, I have no more complaints. _dk 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unified licenses sometimes exists in traditional Chinese versions of manga too, the most obvious example being those licensed to Tong Li-- So?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "more than one line in the publisher field in the infobox"? _dk 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather use "licensed in two jurisdictions outside Japan."--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then there's, say, the very common North American license covering the two jurisdictions of Canada and USA. I think two or more acts of licensure would be better, or in clearer terms, licensed to two or more companies. —Quasirandom 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's a level between licensing and publishing - if a book is published only in Japanese and has not yet been translated but is selling well and generating buzz, it is notable. Doceirias 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's buzz, though, there will be reviews satifying WP:BK's criterion #1. —Quasirandom 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize. _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that manga articles do show up in AfD with notability concerns, I'd like to have a guideline that is easy to apply without having to root around for Japanese reviews. —Quasirandom 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the best situation there, then, be the successful finding of Japanese reviews? _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the Japanese rather notorious for doing fluff pieces far more than doing actual reviews? Besides of which, we're having a hard enough time finding notable English reviews of manga :/ --SeizureDog 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I (and a small number of others) are doing to try to help find reviews is working on the subject archives over at the project magazine archive pages. Only Newtype USA and Animage have subject archives so far, and they are not completely populated yet. If we can get these pages filled more, checking the "What links here" list will show whether a particular show is mentioned in an article in a particular magazine. For instance, this page, which shows that an issue of Animage from 1987 has an article about it (a 6 page article, no less). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 6. Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan.
(One thing I like about this formulation is that it's easily extensible to manhwa.) The notability for anime I think remains the de facto standard of follow the guidelines for any other TV show/movie, as applicable. 
If no one objects, I'll swot this up as a brief note in manual of style. (And then get back to drafing the character article style guidelines.) —Quasirandom 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notablity for Manga 

message: So we've got a scale of possible inclusion criteria here:
* 1. Licensed in English
* 2. Licensed in a western language
* 3. Licensed in any foreign language but Chinese
* 4. Licensed in any foreign language
* 5. Published
The last directly counters the Wikipedia consensus -- if any book published got an article, we wouldn't need WP:BK to discriminate. I argue that 4 is also too broad: if two thirds of all manga series are licensed in Chinese, it happens routinely enough that it doesn't show the manga is notable -- it's not discriminatory enough. (Question: what's the licensing rate for Korean? Roughly the same? Smaller? Do the list need a 3a excluding that as well?) We have to set the bar further afield. So where? 
(Keep in mind this isn't a notability requirement that all articles must pass -- it's an additional possible requirement.)
Is it time for a poll? —Quasirandom 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I add one more level: 6. Serialized. Currently it seems that any manga serialized would likely get a Wikipedia article....Manga, unlike books, do not get published into tankobons unless the publisher has deemed that manga to be  popular enough for publishing. (The publisher can also decide to discontinue a work if it's seen to be unpopular, that's trivial.) So when we're talking about a manga series, we're talking about a piece of work that has proven itself notable enough to be published again and again. I'm leaning towards option 5. Needless to say, I'm disgusted by the discrimination here only for the reason that "we need to set the bar higher". Ooh, English is all high and mighty. _dk 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not trying to privledge English -- I'm trying to find a relatively easy-to-demonstrate standard for notability that is consonant with the community consensus for other kinds of books and comics. Not everything published in English is notable. Nor is everything published in Japanese. —Quasirandom 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the discussion we're having now, and the annoyance I'm feeling, the standard would only achieve pissing people off rather than easily demonstrating notability. <sarcasm>It's published in Chinese in Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore? Who cares? It's published in Korea too? No, no, no, you don't understand, Asia doesn't mean crap to Wikipedia; it has to be in English to be notable for Wikipedia silly!</sarcasm> I'll step back. How about being licensed by more than one foreign company to demonstrate notability? _dk 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Licensed in two or more languages outside of Japanese sounds like a good criterion. Simple, objective, and demonstrates that more than one company thought it was notable enough to warrent licensing. —Quasirandom 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your previous edit, saying "countries" (or rather, regions) instead of "languages", since different companies hold the license for different regions (except in the case of multinational enterprises like Tokyopop), and so the localization would be different for places like, say, Hong Kong and Taiwan, even though they both use Traditional Chinese. And there's also the issue of Simplified Chinese vs Traditional Chinese.... _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Urk. I'd forgotten about HK/TW being separate licenses. I was trying to avoid the converse problem in most European langauges, which is that they are licensed by language instead of country. In English, you can get licenses split between North America / Commonwealth, but the publishing trend is toward unified English language rights -- and even with the split, they're multi-country licenses. French editions generally sell in all French-speaking countries, and ditto German. (Not to mention, if you believe the PRC, Taiwan isn't a separate country.) —Quasirandom 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  'K after a little thought, how about licensed by two or more companies outside of Japan? It's rare, as I understand it, for a licensing publisher to put out more than one language edition. (We may need to specifically note that Viz counts, because it's a U.S. company and does go through a licensing process even though it's owned by Shogakukan and Shueisha.) —Quasirandom 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea to me, I have no more complaints. _dk 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unified licenses sometimes exists in traditional Chinese versions of manga too, the most obvious example being those licensed to Tong Li-- So?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "more than one line in the publisher field in the infobox"? _dk 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather use "licensed in two jurisdictions outside Japan."--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then there's, say, the very common North American license covering the two jurisdictions of Canada and USA. I think two or more acts of licensure would be better, or in clearer terms, licensed to two or more companies. —Quasirandom 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's a level between licensing and publishing - if a book is published only in Japanese and has not yet been translated but is selling well and generating buzz, it is notable. Doceirias 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's buzz, though, there will be reviews satifying WP:BK's criterion #1. —Quasirandom 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize. _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that manga articles do show up in AfD with notability concerns, I'd like to have a guideline that is easy to apply without having to root around for Japanese reviews. —Quasirandom 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the best situation there, then, be the successful finding of Japanese reviews? _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the Japanese rather notorious for doing fluff pieces far more than doing actual reviews? Besides of which, we're having a hard enough time finding notable English reviews of manga :/ --SeizureDog 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I (and a small number of others) are doing to try to help find reviews is working on the subject archives over at the project magazine archive pages. Only Newtype USA and Animage have subject archives so far, and they are not completely populated yet. If we can get these pages filled more, checking the "What links here" list will show whether a particular show is mentioned in an article in a particular magazine. For instance, this page, which shows that an issue of Animage from 1987 has an article about it (a 6 page article, no less). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Options 

message: I think we've got a consensus here -- that a manga series is notable enough for an article of its own if it meets at least of the five criteria listed in WP:BK or the additional criterion of
: 6. Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan.
(One thing I like about this formulation is that it's easily extensible to manhwa.) The notability for anime I think remains the de facto standard of follow the guidelines for any other TV show/movie, as applicable. 
If no one objects, I'll swot this up as a brief note in manual of style. (And then get back to drafing the character article style guidelines.) —Quasirandom 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: Giant worms devouring a Japanese (?) city is what I remember from an anime series. The protagonist was a girl and the plot evolved around something like global warming, pollution, environment or something anyway it didn't seem like the series is about human relationships of any sort. The name of the series was something "purely" Japanese perhaps the girls name I think the first letter was "a" but I couldn't find anything in the anime category on Wikipedia... H;AP! Lysis rationale 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like like Earth Maiden Arjuna. Although the main character's name doesn't start with an 'a'. Toothpyx 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, Toothpyx, you realize the main character's name is Ariyoshi there, right?--SeizureDog 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he was referring to Juna, the given name.--十八 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but knowing how the Japanese address people, she was probably called Ariyoshi more than Juna.--SeizureDog 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a long time since I watched it, but all I remember is her boyfriend calling out to her "Junaaaaaa!" over and over again. Toothpyx 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the English dub, perhaps? I don't remember that from the Japanese. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Japanese version. Tokio always calls Juna by her given name when they're alone, and in the later part of the series he calls her that way all the time. Kazu-kun 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did stop watching it fairly early as I found it to be overly preachy and low on plot. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime series - giant worms devouring a city? 

message: The anime in question being Ganba no Bōken. It got an honorable mention in the Anime Insider top 50 anime of all time list (which since only included licensed anime, was effectively their pick for best unlicensed anime of all time) and was also voted #22 in TV Asahi's poll for best anime. I must say that I'm rather surprised at our missing this. I thought we had nearly every anime at least to stub status, but this looks to be a fairly large oversight. Anyways, anyone want to help gather up some info on this?--SeizureDog 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it.  =(  BrokenSphereMsg me 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too busy to help, but there is a Japanese page: :ja:ガンバの冒険 Doceirias 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important anime missing an article 

message: In the absence of having the lessons learned from the FLCs of the lists of Claymore and Naruto manga chapter lists written up somewhere, I'd appreciate anyone who took part in those commenting in the peer review of List of Yotsuba&! chapters and letting us know what needs to be done to make this a potential FL. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for [[List of Yotsuba&! chapters]] peer reviewers 

message: As with the magazines, I've started a subject archive for the Reference Library. You can see the first page here. We should try to keep it to about 5-10 titles per archive page so they don't get too large. I'm planning on being more specific for each topic on that page (which shows are referenced, what kinds of resources are in the article, etc.) Any suggestions for improvements are welcome. I think this will make this list of books much more useful. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Library Subject Guide 

message: I have a problem: there are a few anime-series, dubbed in Arabic out on the net and I would like to know their original titles. Some are easily recognised, eg. Future Boy Conan. However, what about: "Al Namer Al Mo9ana3"?? If someone knowledgeable went to http://video.google.com/ and searched for "Al Namer Al Mo9ana3" ...and told me if that "arabic old anime" had another name, I would be very grateful. 
Also; if you search for "sasuki arabic anime" you will also get a series, which I also assume has another name?
And there is a series on http://filfil.net  which is about inventions/explorations, see eg: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2950144344096476181&q=genre%3Aanimation+arabic+duration%3Along&total=156&start=100&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
Again; it looks as if it is a Japanese anime film, dubbed into Arabic. Does anybody recognise the series?
And if you search for: sindibad arabic    -on  video.google.com, you will find a series which obviously is an adaptation of  Sinbad the Sailor, but which one? Is it the 
*"Arabian Nights Sinbad no Boken (1975) - an anime TV series by Nippon Animation"?
If anybody could help me with these problems, I would be very grateful. Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic anime: please help clueless! 

message: *Any consensus on the case of non-English dub actors being listed? I'd really like to remove the Latin American dub actors from this page, but would like to have a policy to back me up before I go to the trouble of doing so. Hill of Beans (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I've noticed many of these edits come from this Spanish dub actor/user.  Pretty much everything he's added is non-notable to an English-speaking wiki. Hill of Beans (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Anime- and manga-related articles)#Inclusion of non-English language release information covers it pretty well. Non-English information is limited only to the infoboxes, otherwise transwiki information to that respective language's Wiki. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign-language dubs (again)

message: *Some deletionists speedy-deleted Holly Kaneko before I even had a chance to reply on the talk page.  As mentioned in the topic above, we've got profiles of Spanish-language dub actors, yet anime seiyu are now deemed non-notable and speedily deleted!?  This disturbs me and I view this as an abuse of admin privileges.  I've tried to put it back the way it was, but I'm afraid whomever deleted it may try it again.  If you guys could help me with watching over his and the other seiyus' pages, I'd appreciate it or any other advice.  Evan1975 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start keeping an eye out.  If any RfC's or any other hearings are started concerning this kind of stuff please stop by my talk page and give me a heads up.  I would love to participate. Elhector (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Holly Kaneko looks to seriously fail notability. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 447 hits for Harî Kaneko + 255 hits for Holly Kaneko + 164 hits for Hari Kaneko +  93 for Harii Kaneko + 77 hits for Kaneko Harii + 37 hits for Kaneko Harî, + 25 hits for Kaneko Hari + 2 for Kaneko Holly = 1,100 hits.  If those guys hadn't speedily deleted the article, I could have explained this to them. Evan1975 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I whole heartedly disagree with KyuuA4.  Elhector (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly doesn't state why the person is notable or demonstrate that the person can pass WP:BIO. The number of Google hits is irrelevant. What you need is nontrivial coverage by reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a recent AfD that sorta noodled around this topic, but failed to come to a consensus -- pending a discussion of just what the guidelines for seiyu/VA notability are. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Holly Kaneko's and Ruri Asano's articles are prefect examples of articles that should be avoided. There is nothing there to explain why the person in notable and there are no non-trivial third-party sources. The number of roles that person did has been in has no bearing on notability of the voice actor or actress. --Farix (Talk) 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with KyuuA4 and Farix: there doesn't seem to be anything showing notability. I did a quick search in Japanese, and came up with only a couple articles stating she was going to be voicing one role or another. No notable coverage at all. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're telling me that all of these people are notable? Or the aforementioned Spanish-language dub actors?  If they're a seiyu notable enough to be listed on Japanese Wikipedia, they should be listed here. (Unless they were seiyu that only did dubs, I  guess)  As for Japanese-language hits: 1990 for 金子はりい + 634 for かねこはりい + 486 for かねこはりぃ + 309 for 金子はりぃ = 3419 hits.  I could add more to the article (more roles, etc.), but I don't see the point in doing so because people are just going to keep claiming "non-notability" without defining what it takes to be notable.  (This is the first I've heard of Google hits not being evidence.)  Evan1975 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of Google hits is meaningless. But I already have pointed to you to the standards by which people are considered notable. --Farix (Talk) 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say that they are meaningless, it just says that it's not the only deciding factor.  You also refuse to specify what does qualify notability other than your "nontrivial coverage by reliable third-party sources" doublespeak.  Evan1975 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of Google hits is not a factor in determining if someone or something is notable. Never has been. Now if you refuse to read the notability guideline that I directly pointed to you twice, then there is not point in discussion this with you. --Farix (Talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest you try reading it yourself, as it does 'not say "The number of Google hits is not a factor in determining if someone or something is notable."  Also, your own submission doesn't even pass notability standards. Evan1975 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find at least two different newspaper articles covering Kermit Hunter's play Honey in the Rock, which is sufficient to pass the general notability criteria. And given that it is one of the longest running Civil War dramas, it wouldn't be that hard to find more. Also, as quoted by WP:BIO, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online." Since you can only assert notability based on Google hits, then the hits are worthless. --Farix (Talk) 04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Google hits all by themselves can not be used for determining notability. The Google hits can be used to find notable coverage, though, by looking at what actually composes the hits. If, within the hits, you can find evidence of notavble coverage, then the Google hits are useful. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There isn't any problem with applying WP:BIO that I know of. --Farix (Talk) 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And WP:BIO is what it currently points to, for articles about people -- which would include seiyu -- but I put that in default of any other criteria we might want. Tips would be helpful, though, such as a suggested number of reviews mentioning the voice acting, or whatever. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any need to add anything more then what is already in WP:BIO. It's not broke, so there is nothing to fix. But a notability criteria on voice actors should be held at WT:BIO anyways. --Farix (Talk) 04:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By nature of the job, seiyu are entertainers, right?  Criteria listed there should suffice. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BIO has a general criteria that all biography articles must meet and then more specific criteria based on fields. If there is a problem with applying the basic criteria to VAs, then it signifies that there is a problem with the guideline as a whole. --Farix (Talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem with applying it voice actors.  Quoting WP:BIO: "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  BTW, no article must follow any guideline, it's just recommended that they do.  Guidelines are meant to be broken when there enforcement would be a detriment to the project or where it is used to keep otherwise useful information out of the encyclopedia.  Obviously there are some that feel this way in this situation so it warrants further discussion and collaboration on this matter.  Let me start by posing this question.  What harm to the project is caused by allowing these seiyu articles to stay? Elhector (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But to have an exception, you need to have a very good and very convincing reason for it. But the best reason you can come up with is WP:ILIKEIT, which will never be good enough. And you still haven't stated why there is a problem with WP:BIO with voice actor articles. --Farix (Talk) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I had suggested earlier to remove that automatic wikilinking from the template, but there was no consensus to do such. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seiyu speedy-deleted

message: Their is a discussion going on right about the use of fair-use images in List of character articles at Fair use talk page. Basically, some editors say that these articles do not follow the WP:NFCC per minimal usage. (Duane543 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of what is being stated in regards to limiting fair-use is understandable and actions have been taken to improve articles that correspond with Wiki guidelines as best as possible (i.e. Getting acceptable group images instead of having a truck load of individuals). It's very important to note that not all group images can suffice. They have to fit the article in a manner that compliments the environment. Slapping any image with characters bunched together is disregarding quality issues, which is policy, just to uphold another issue. As well, it's the actions of some editors in enforcing the guidelines that make it hard to work with. It depends who you're dealing with. Some can comprimise and work with you, others not to much. Another stem of this is interpretation. Several feel that 2-3 images or even just 1 is good enough yet that's just a general assumption that makes things more difficult for us trying to improve an article. In truth, especially dealing with fiction, even taking into account the most neccessary characters to be identified- 2 or 3 max just will not cut it at all.Fox816 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in List of character articles 

message: Just dropping a line here that the Naruto manga chapters FTC nomination has been languishing without comments for over a month now. Feel free to read up on the featured topic criteria and comment. Discussion rather than nothing is always good. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto manga chapters FTC 

message: With the ongoing uproar over individual character articles being redirected and merged into lists due to lack of real world information and use of secondary sources (see above re. TTN), I just realized that in addition to online sources, we also have print sources, both books and magazines available.  How much would using these help towards addressing the issues that are leading to this state of affairs?  --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those would greatly help. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some publications like Newtype-USA contain interviews with Staff about productions, and Seiyu's about their roles in upcoming/current/past series. Such information is basically prime for character articles, and there's quite an abundance of out-of-universe info to keep some articles independant from lists. I'm in the process myself of going through what I have and adding info for articles I'm working on. It should also be noted that contained as extras in DVDs as well as in some cover-slips there's a hoard of info about production and setup. What's also good is some have interviews with the Staff that did the dubbing and transition for ENG release and/or cleanup for re-releases (example: Evangelion Platinum series - animation was touched up, added scenes, cleanup dub, etc...) Fox816 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Books and Google Scholar can also provide potential leads.  It's time like these when I wish I could access Johns Hopkins University's article database as I've turned up several potential scholarly articles from there, but it's restricted access.  =(  --BrokenSphereMsg me 22:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The secondary sources part is being softened a bit on WP:FICT, but regardless, if you are looking for sources in print, this is a great time to remind people about the Reference Library and Magazine Archive. Wikipedians who own books and magazines on anime can list themselves there and what works they own. When you're looking for sources that's in one of them, you can go and bug the editor who listed their name with that book, and they'll help you out. The concept is still growing, but even with just a few users listing themselves, we have an impressive resource on our hands. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Wikilinked to those 2, but you plugged it better.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 05:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources 

message: Yanno, it's more than a bit embarrassing that not only is the Year 24 Group article as stubby and unreferenced as it is, but that we don't have articles for all the members, and what articles we do have are mostly stubby as well. Just sayin'. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't have that much either. If it was translated, it may double the size of the current article, but that's it. I've never even heard of this group until just now.--十八 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion:  You may want to consider going to the bulletin boards at ANN and such and asking around for information.  Just a suggestion.--NBahn (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Juhachi: Which is kind of a shame, since that girls read 'em is one of the (many) distinguishing features of manga, compared to other comics, and these mangaka are and integral part of the history of making it so. Oh, and here's something -- the manga article isn't even linking to this one. I'll go change that now. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Year 24 Group]] needs work 

message: Noting that WP:ANIME now has its first featured topic, with Naruto manga chapters recently passing. Feel free to comment at the nomination for Seasons of YuYu Hakusho as well. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to the Naruto editors -Toothpyx (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First featured topic 

message: *I hope someone from this project will offer assistance, as I haven't had much luck in getting anyone else to pay attention.  There is a content dispute between myself and  at this article.  Initially, Taiketsu was blocked for revert-warring on this article, insisting that because this Wikipedia is primarily used by Americans, this article should list only the U.S. airdates, even though episodes have previously aired in Canada and the U.K. before here (and the last few have actually not aired in the U.S. yet).  He's trying to circumvent the issue now by changing "English airdates" to "U.S. airdates" in the article.  To me this is a clear case of systemic bias that should be avoided.  I was under the impression that avoiding systemic bias was policy, but as it turns out it's not.  I have an RFC on the article, but no response yet.  Can someone help?  I guess it's hard to get people to give a damn about Yu-Gi-Oh, but... give it a shot, please? JuJube (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute at [[Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information]] 

message: We need an admin for those of us working with The Big O articles to check the content of List of allusions in The Big O and post it as a subpage of Talk:The Big O. -Babelious 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask him. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Him" already did it, so no need to ask me. Look here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an admin! 

message: I have just summited the article Manga for peer review. I have a feeling that it is not very far from Featured Article status, but this review will help determine what else needs to be done. It should be imperative that we give this article, and Anime, the final push towards becoming a Featured Article. To participate in the peer review, go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Manga. --Farix (Talk) 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool beans. You're right that getting Manga and Anime should be one of the, if not the, highest priorities for this project. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea. Timothy Perper massively revamped the manga article quickly. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Manga]] at Peer Review 

message: Pick one. KyuuA4 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick one? But they're so different... In fact Robotech is made up not only of Macross, but also of Southern Cross and Mospeada, two anime series which originally are in no way related to Macross. Anyway, why do you want us to pick one? Kazu-kun (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - yet, sometimes, I tend to overlook the fact of Robotech being a composition of separate series.  Come to think of it.  I may as well do List_of_Macross_characters (possibly the whole franchise), for the same reason compiling the list for the Robotech characters.  Although, there might be a way to coordinate the two, as Robotech is related to Macross in some way shape or form. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  Only a few characters actually make appearances across more than one of the Macross series, with the vast majority of them being unique to the series that they appear in.  Why not arrange it by series, e.g. list of Macross Plus characters, list of Macross 7 characters, and so on?  --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  And a bunch of 'em actually have their own articles, particularly those of the first series. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I think a list of characters for the whole Macross franchise would be easier to source - don't forget list of characters need real-world content too. Macross as a whole is pretty well known so I'm sure there's a good amount of references out there that we can use. Of course, the Robotech franchise needs its own list too, which also should be easy to source. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concerns were for length, in which case we split off with the focus on the longer/more character-populated series.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as length, it's best to worry about that - when it does get too long.  If necessary, then a split off of the individual Macross characters will be done. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robotech or Macross

message: Well, I've been generally re-organizing articles related to Macross, such as coverting Macross from a redirect page to a franchise page and opening up List_of_Macross_characters as a basic list, per discussion above.  Naturally, clean up and added short character descriptions will be needed there.  Hmm, considering converting Macross as a disambiguation page - while moving current material into Macross (franchise). Also, often finding articles better merged - such as Project Super Nova merged into Macross Plus.  This kind of merge would produce something similar to Haruhi_Suzumiya_%28franchise%29#Series_concepts. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the dab page cover?  --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply listing the individual series - particularly the major ones. Macross can refer to the whole franchise or any of the individual series.  There's also SDF-1 Macross.  Then again, (I suppose) the disambiguation won't be necessary, as Macross doesn't refer to anything outside that of the franchise or series. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Related material like Macross Digital Mission VFX series of games could fall into that, but could be mentioned as part of a list, e.g. list of Macross video games or a subsection within a general franchise article, unless the game relates to a specific title in the overall series.  BrokenSphereMsg me 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, as Macross video games are already listed in the franchise article.  Thus, I have considered retracting the disambiguation suggestion as it would be redundant to the franchise article. Though, would a simplified list in a disambiguation be helpful? As y'can see, I'm going either-or on this right now. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamping Macross related articles

message: According to http://tools.wikimedia.de/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=all&limit=100&month=12%2F2007&mode=view (which warns "This tool is still being tested. Some of the results may be false or misleading!") reports rankings for the most visited pages on the English Wikipedia. For anime in the month of December we have:
07 - Naruto
21 - Bleach (manga)
33 - Akatsuki (Naruto)
56 - List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes
57 - List of Naruto characters
78 - List of Konoha ninja redirects to List of minor Naruto characters
80 - Pokémon
Pretty interesting. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that's in all namespaces. If you count just the article namespace Naruto is in 3rd (!) and the List of Bleach hollows and Naruto Uzumaki also make it into the top 100. Which makes anime/manga articles 9% of the top 100. Cattus talk 23:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool!--NBahn (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Naruto tops Guiltar Hero.  That's interesting. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime on the top 100 most visited articles 

message: Hello. I am considering a formation of a WikiProject known as Wikipedia:WikiProject Sakura Wars. In my sandbox, I work on User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars (video game), User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars 2, User:Sjones23/Music of the Sakura Wars series and User:Sjones23/Music of the Sakura Wars series (template). I want this project to be similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. I want it to be part of this WikiProject here and the Video Games WikiProject. If you have any comments or suggestions for me, please let me know here. Thanks, Greg Jones II 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely better as a task force (there are WAY too few interested peeps in the series, for starters), but as to go under VG or AniMag...eh that's a toughie. I'd say in English more people know it as an anime even if it's origins are as games... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be better served as a task force. WikiProject FF could also probably be a task force and it wouldn't change anything other than it not being under the name of WikiProject. However, since it crosses over pretty well into WP:ANIME with WP:VG, it might benefit from being a WikiProject so it can nicely encompass both at the same time, while as a task force can only technically be under one project.--十八 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comments above, but I also have an idea. For all of the Sakura Wars games, half of the task force should be under WikiProject Video games and for the Sakura Wars anime adaptations, the other half should go under WikiProject Anime and Manga which is here. Any other comments or suggestions? Greg Jones II 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A task force with two parent projects? Seems reasonable to me, if you can keep things straight amongst yourselves. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, a task force with two parent projects should be no problem. In fact, it should only serve to bring more attention and improvements to the articles in question. Many existing articles fall under the scope of two separate Wikiprojects (Anime and Videogames being common). Wikiprojects are just a common gathering place, but nobody owns these projects or the articles they work on, and so where there's not a lot of interest you should get help from existing projects that it falls under TheBilly (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WikiProject Japan jointly operates several taskforces with other projects, so this isn't anything new. A very large percentage of the Military History taskforces are jointly operated. Check these out for more ideas. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your points. Greg Jones II 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Sakura Wars? 

message: We now have an Featured-status article (well, list) for a series that is only a manga, with no anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job. Now get Yotsuba&! to FA status and Yotsuba Koiwai to GA status and you have a featured topic. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's my next goals -- though it'll be difficult, without resources in Japanese. What's needed for both is Development sections, with statements from Azuma about the origins and influences of the series and character. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor milestone 

message: We now have two featured topics, with Seasons of YuYu Hakusho passing WP:FTC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think we know where the kudos is due.  Pull off 3 FTs and there's a hat trick on that end.  An excellent job, as always.  BrokenSphereMsg me 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm out of ideas for future FTs though. =/ The only one I can imagine doing at the moment is List of Naruto episodes with the relevant nine seasons (as List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) are featured), but I'll be unable to bring the remaining lists to FL status until they finish their run in English, which won't be for a long while (unless the English media skips the filler episodes, which I don't see happening). Maybe I could run Claymore (manga) to GA status (as List of Claymore chapters and List of Claymore episodes are featured lists), but being able to run List of Claymore characters to FL status would be near-impossible considering that finding English media for sources will be really difficult. I'll mull on it. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second featured topic