Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 17

message: Images on List of Planetes episodes (and fatured status) have been called into question. Might need new images or better rationales. These rationales must speak to why the particular image was chosen to identify the episode - a simple copy-and-past rationale that is the same on all images won't do.
Additionally, after several failed amendments to ban screenshots from episode lists, images on other Featured Lists are now being removed by some administators. See the administrator board at WP:AN#Clean up for the featured ones for examples and surrounding discussion. --GunnarRene 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Wikiwar on fair use images continues *sigh*. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admins are not informing anybody before making wide-scale deletions, and are not following any kind of documented procedure at all. It's anarchy and it is ridiculous. --Masamage ♫ 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People should weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes. JuJube 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like the admins are waging war on TV related articles. First individual episode pages now episode screenshots. In a month there won't be any TV related articles left... --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Wikipedia was supposed to andvance free content culture by showing how we can make a quality encyclopedia, but it seems that the agenda now is to show disfavour to the "content industries" by somehow making an encyclopedia that says "hey, guys, this is pretty good, but it still sucks a little because of that stupid copyright legislation". I think the former strategy is a hell of a lot better than the latter. --GunnarRene 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not an admin and I support the removal of the screen shots 100%. For a long time I argued in favor of screen shots in LOEs, but I finally came to the conclusion that identifying an episode in a list, while great and all, isn't vital enough to use non-free content. The lists are not as useful, they don't look as good, and it sucks, but that's just the way it is. We all just got a little to comfortable with having things slide, but now people are enforcing the rules. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And believe me, I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. I've spent hours upon hours finding good screen shots, and even longer making arguments to be able to use screen shots, in LOEs. -- Ned Scott 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They're not enforcing the rules, because the rules on non-free content used under fair use haven't been changed. Somebody pretended that lists with significant textual content were "galleries" and started removing and blocking, pretending that it was a copyright issue, when it really was an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (after at least two failed amendments to ban the screenshots from lists). The message here is that episode lists should be nothing more than navigational aids, and that we should have the screenshots in individual episode articles - on the pluss side for those guys who want to hide spoilers, the screenshots have now been censored from episode lists. But you now have to wade through hundreds of articles to find that episode where the South Park characters were rendered in 3D. Or ask at the reference desk, or something. Finding an episode is a sufficient purpose when it's part of a critical commentary work like Wikipedia. --GunnarRene 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO it's the rare episode of a rare series that is notable enough to warrant an article (let alone the issue of availability of worthy sources). Switching en masse to episode articles, especially if they were to mostly consist of information now contained in the lists, might simply shift the field of battle and prolong the acrimony rather than settle the issue one way or another.--Monocrat 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So from what I'm getting, it would seem that Template:Japanese episode list and Template:Episode list would have to be altered to remove the possibility of adding screenshots to comply with Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. Not that I'm happy with this decision, but it looks like this is what is going to end up happening.--十八 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late; it already happened to Template:Japanese episode list...--十八 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope they will; fair use is forbidden in most of the other wikipedias, and it's like an "exclusive" of en.wiki. That's just unfair :-) P.S. Because of the Exemption Doctrine Policy some wikipedias are censoring the images from commons, so you just don't know how lucky you are --Εξαίρετος (msg) 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter nonsense. Claiming that Fair Use will go extinct is to say that either copyright law or our critical reasoning ability will be abolished, since there is no such thing as a free image for an irreplicable event. But if you want to dream that, go ahead. --tjstrf talk  09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't ever happen that free images completely replace fair use images, that's true; but fair use images don't necessarily have to be there. Take ja.wiki: have you ever seen a screenshot of a manga, anime or videogame in one of their articles? Compare the images/text ratio in Mahoraba and ja:まほらば. Fair use is a license available only in the US, and people often think of it as a license under which everything can be published; that's a misunderstanding. A screenshot of a character should be used as fair use *only* on that character's article, and there being two it's already pushing the fair use. So I agree with TheFarix that eventually en.wiki will adopt a stricter policy and we won't see so many fair use images anymore. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 09:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious solution is to write better text which makes proper use of the images. If this were done properly, the anti-Fair Use brigades wouldn't have a leg to stand on. --tjstrf talk  09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A screenshot of a character should be used as fair use *only* on that character's article That only invites cruft as some editors will now go and create individual character and episode articles just so they can maintain the screenshot. Not every character is notable and it is a rare episode that is notable as well. But it's much easier to demonstrate notability as a group. Thats one of the reasons why I prefer lists of characters and episodes over individual articles. As for critical commentary of the fair-use image must be present before the fair-use image can be included (which seems to be the route that this small group of editors is taking Wikipedia), that will only invite original research. --Farix (Talk) 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they do that, we can AfD the article if the character isn't notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if we wanted to be more like the Japanese wikipedia, we could also get rid of quotations and references.    Apparently, the JA wikipedia's strict interpretation of the GFDL prohibits this as well.  This causes many problems when translating text from JA. --Kunzite 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list images being removed by sysops 

message: Should a catagory of "Otaku Anime" be added for series which are markeeted to anime otaku? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anymouse1 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would be totally subjective in its inclusion criteria.--tjstrf talk  05:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also not a genre recognized by most anime reviewers and databases. --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime otaku as genre?

message: Since we have a Magazine Archive, I thought it would be useful to have a Reference Library as well, listing anime-related books which could be used as references for articles. Please go add any books you have (or add your name next to those already listed). Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did start my own list some time ago, but a centralised one is much better obviously. Shiroi Hane 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Library 

message: I propose a section devoted to the different Manga/Anime trade magazines. Because there are several that I can think of right off the bat. 
1) Newtype 
2) Anime Insider
3) Shonen Jump —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already cover those, unless something changed recently and the Shonen Jump article suddenly isn't in our scope anymore. --tjstrf talk  07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widen the Scope? 

message: Just my two cents on the project. When I say the project in this writing, it refers to all articles of an anime related spectrum. The whole seems to be going over well, with a high article quality on average. However, most anime and manga articles are written from the point of hardcore anime fans (in the sense that they see Japanese animation as pure, and make a heavy criticism of western animation and Western animation infleunced by anime), and contain material far too thick for unacquainted laymen to get around. Also, the project makes too much of a distinction between anime and other cartooning (for example,never using the words comic or show). Beyond that, the project is generally fine. (80.247.146.169 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Personal View on WikiProject A&M 

message: What is the policy regarding one-shot manga and very short series by notable authors? One-shots by non-notable authors I assume could just go up for deletion.
Specifically I'm thinking of Hiroaki Samura, who currently has an article for his work Emerald (manga) despite the piece being all of 65 pages long, and a similar page for his one volume anthology Ohikkoshi. Neither of these articles will probably ever get beyond stub length, unless of course someone went and did a blow-by-blow retelling of their entire plots. Should they perhaps be merged with the author's page?
I would normally have conducted this discussion on the relevant talk pages, but none of them are particularly active and there may be cases beyond just those 3 articles that need discussed. --tjstrf talk  18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, one-shot mangas normally don't get their own page since there isn't enough info to bring them past stub length. Pages like these should just be covered on the artist's page. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the one shots are brought into a collection, like Ohikkoshi, a page might be justified, but uncollected one-shots seem a little excessive. Doceirias 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, In the absence of any evidence of notability, one shots are best collected in the mangaka's article. --Kunzite 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's been internationally translated, it's probably notable. --tjstrf talk  09:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Things are notable when they have multiple non-trivial independent references or have won a major award. International translation itself gives no indication of notability.  --Kunzite 04:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One-shots policy

message: WikiProject Digimon is facing a mass image cleanup task, started by the need to update images from using  to a more appropriate tag. Most of these images contain no source information at all, or fair use rationale. We've let it slide for a long time, and unfortunately there are 1,160 images that likely require updating. To assist in this task I've updated the project's banner,  with a notice, and started an instruction page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon/Images. I've only created a very basic page for now, and would really appreciate any help with improving the instructions page. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like it's going to be fun. Majority of all anime images I've seen lack fair-use rational, so we've got a lot of work to do after these are done. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass image cleanup for Digimon 

message: Fan speculations are rampant in anime and manga, and these, according to standards on WP:ATT and WP:NOR, should not be in any articles due to its being original research by some fans, and its lack of attribution. Does that mean, any kind of fan speculations, even universally accepted by fans, should never be in WP?
A related question: I wonder how to remove such content on articles without angering editors.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag is as needing a reference. If no suitable references are provided within a couple of weeks, then delete it. If someone complains, then point them to WP:ATT and WP:NOR and inform them that if the fan speculation can not pass both of those policies, then it has no place on Wikipedia. Of course there is still the chance that editors will be angry over it, but there is not much you can do about those types. --Farix (Talk) 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dealing with Fan speculation

message: Some of you may remember a discussion (now archived) in which I proposed that, since the genres used to classify anime and manga are identical, we should merge :Category:Anime by genre and :Category:Manga by genre trees into a common :Category:Anime and manga by genre, as is done already with many of the other anime and manga categories, to prevent overcategorization.
Nothing came of the discussion then, but I have finally gotten around to making a CFD nomination for the proposed merge. I have already listed the discussion on our deletion sorting page, but either nobody has that page on their watchlist or nobody cares about the merger, so I'm announcing it here directly.
Please feel free to express your opinion at the discussion, and if you haven't yet, please watchlist our deletion sorting page as well. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think pretty much everyone agrees- I don't remember anyone objecting past the point of "not all manga have a corresponding anime and vice versa". All that is needed is someone with the bot-power to effect all of the changes required. I think consistency is a good thing and have been frustrated for a long time with the inconsistency in this WikiProject, probably its only problem (since the scope is so broad). --Squilibob 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Since apparently nobody follows WP:MANGA/D

message: Could someone add it to our delsort page? I'm not exactly sure how to do this... (And, based on the hubbub about it being placed on hiatus by Seven Seas and spawning some major drama at ANN, I'm pretty sure it meets the notability requirements.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're running test cases, you'd think people would pick something more borderline to nominate than a series with an anime adaptation. Or was this one just pulled off of recent changes or something? --tjstrf talk 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure it was off recent changes as the nominator is a protoller of recent changes.--十八 07:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, understood. Really, there are very few manga pages on Wikipedia that don't meet notability, since in order for a series to earn a translation (or even a scanlation) it will most likely be a series which is either (1) adapted into English and/or an anime and hence notable (2) multiple volumes in length and hence notable (3) by a notable author and hence notable. Anything else we simply don't have the info in English to write an article on. --tjstrf talk 07:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still rather shocked that my article for 12 Days (manga) is still there. OEL/Amerimanga is even more tenuous! :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 12 Days, if nothing else, is published by a very notable company, so I do not believe there should be a controversy on that article.--十八 07:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nymphet up for deletion