Talk:Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha

message: Since the series has changed hands to Funimation, should this article then be re-categorized from Geneon to Funimation, or at least have the Funimation category added to it? Tasunke (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recategorization? 

message: could someone possible write something on the upcomming movie? i would do it, but i am still very new to Wikipedia and an epic fail with all the power codes etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagal6 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie? 

message: Yes.  They should all be merged into a single article.  Together they form one whole franchise. KyuuA4 (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they are all pretty short articles. And given the amount of redundancy between the pages, the final product wouldn't be overly long either. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed on merging them though, so I'll leave that to someone more experienced. Matty 07:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against merging all articles into one. It would be like merging all Gundam articles together because they are part of the same franchise. OK, their scales are a bit different but you get they idea. However, I am in favor of starting an overview article for the franchise in general, in the image of Gundam (mentioned above), Macross, Ultima, The Elder Scrolls, etc. The old series pages would then be trimmed to include only the information about that particular series, while the redundant data (first of all, information on the ) would go to the overview page. I can do it myself but I'd appreciate any help. :) --Koveras ☭ 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be merged into a single article. An overview article I think would be too short and combining them all into one would, as said by User:Matty, would remove the redundancy between pages that would still exist if you use an overview article. AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other tertiary sources (e.g. ANN and IMDb) have separate entries for each TV series. Why should we merge them, then? Do we even have a precedent for such merging? Also, I would like to see a list of redundancies we are talking about, since I'm afraid we have different views on the topic. --Koveras ☭ 10:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel that your first point is moot: those sites have a seperate entry for each season of every anime when Wikipedia combines such things into one article. Actually, I change my mind. An overview article would be better under the scale arguement since I remember that there things that wiki article does not cover yet like the Magical War Chronicle Lyrical Nanoha Force and alot of the Drama CDs that one could even argue deserve an article of their own. I agree that the articles are not quite repeating themselves yet, but they probably will when expanded so a weak arguement I suppose. However I do feel the fact that there are multiple character entries for the same character in different articles is confusing. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  But if we do put a overview, the existing three Nanoha articles are going to need alot of rewriting. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree on the topic of Drama CDs and Force and on the fact that rewriting is badly needed. About the characters, I don't think character sections in individual series articles are needed at all. E.g. two of the three currently featured anime articles (Madlax and Tokyo Mew Mew) don't have character sections, only a link to the character list article on top of the plot summary. On the one hand, this approach eliminates redundancy, on the other, it forces to concentrate on writing a good summary of the plot. --Koveras ☭ 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I would support the merging of Nanoha and A's, but I would oppose the merger of StrikerS because the series is radically different from the previous two. The only thing it has in common with the previous two are the main characters. It is even arguable if StrikerS is a magical girls show since all the characters, including the "extras", can perform some level of magic. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't that be original research? --Koveras ☭ 10:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just contestable, meaning it will require a reliable source to verify that StrikerS is considered a magical girl show. --Farix (Talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a precedent when out of three anime series articles, two have been merged while the other was not on the premise of them having... genre differences? --Koveras ☭ 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Nanoha Series 

message: Well, since no further arguments in favor of the total merge instead of moving redundant information to an overview article, I propose to stick to the latter.
First off, we have to reach a consensus on the naming and scope of the articles. I suggest following:
* Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha (series): Redirect Nanoha here. Make following sections:
** Lead-in. As any good lead-in, should contain essential information from the rest of the article.
** Overview. I don't know if we really need this section, but the basic idea is a brief OOU summary of the entire series' plot, with essential source media details. Kinda like this and this, plus the history of the conception (e.g. that it is a Triangle Heart spin-off, what the title means, etc.). Alternatively Series chronology: The table form is good for giving an overview over release dates and in-universe times but you can't include much commentary there and the actual "chronology" of Nanoha series is a bit shady (seems that all in-universe time is measured by Nanoha's age).
*** In any case, the link to the general characters list goes here.
** Media. Further subsections:
*** Anime: A paragraph for each of the three seasons and the movie, detailing their release history. Also, a sentence about the plot, unless already mentioned in the overview section.
*** Manga: Include all manga here. I assume they are mostly adaptations (except Force), so a bulleted list should probably suffice. Give basic publishing details and a brief synopsis.
*** Drama CDs: Ditto.
*** Novels: Ditto. If too small, merge with manga.
*** Whatever other media can be found.
** Cultural impact: Any information on how the series gained attention. Kinda like here, only, of course, on a lesser scale.
* Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A's, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha Force: Replace character list with plot summaries (even if stubby at first) with a link to the general characters list (see below). Expand production history, media/publishing, and reception sections. Cut the OR "Project Fate" section from MGLN article. Purge all media that is not an adaptation of the original or a soundtrack and move these into the overview article.
* List of Nanoha characters: Rename to List of characters in the Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha series to better describe the topic, then revamp its structure. Although it is customary to group characters into sections by some weird mixture of their in-story affiliation and the main-secondary criteria, I rather prefer lists based exclusively upon characters' first appearance in the series (and alphabetic names order in case of disputes), as it is done e.g. here. This form is much less ambiguous and each character gets a single (!) section that can be referenced from other articles (which is the next best thing after having a whole own article).
* Furthermore, I propose merging Numbers (Nanoha), as well as the smaller individual character articles like Reinforce (Nanoha), into the general list (StrikerS and A's sections, respectively). The larger character articles like Nanoha Takamachi may stay as they are, although out-of-universe notability should still be established.
* List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha episodes is good as it its, though a couple of refs certainly won't hurt.
* Template:Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha: Modify according to the implemented changes.
Thoughts, objections, words of approval? --Koveras ☭ 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular objections, although I don't think it would be a good idea to include both a table of releases and prose description of those same releases. AngelFire3423 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean the "Overview" and "Series chronology" or the "Series chronology" and "Media" combination? --Koveras ☭ 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Series chronology" and "Media" combination. 06:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that'd be slightly redundant. I guess we'll have to go with the prose overview. Do you agree? --Koveras ☭ 08:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I would agree since there's only four original works so far. However I would also mention the StrikerS Soundstage X as a fifth original work since it is the continuation of StrikerS. Edit: Also I wouldn't mention the movie as part of the main series since its just a retelling of the first season. AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some more soundstages that take place between A's and StrikerS, I think they can be included into the main series listing. I agree about the movie, though it has to have an extended entry in the Media->Anime section. --Koveras ☭ 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if we should include them or not since drama CDs are usually listed under a seperate section from the original work for most series, though let me get back to you once I've actually listened to them. I'll start doing that tomorrow. AngelFire3423 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as they contain original plots (not adapted from another medium) and don't contradict the canon, it's OK to add them to the overview section IMO... But yeah, we need to know their contents first, so I'm counting on you. ;) --Koveras ☭ 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Proper good job, mate! I'll see to add those to my sandbox in the next few days... Do you also happen to know the respective release dates and publishers? --Koveras ☭ 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was in the process of making a list of albums here, but it got blanked, though that's probably because I misnamed it as a list of media information as oppose to a list of ablums. I should remake the page. AngelFire3423 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see why that page was blanked. ^^; It consisted primarily of track listings and that's something Wikipedia guidelines discourage. Instead, I would include the media information about singles and OSTs on the corresponding media pages (in a "Music" or "Soundtrack" section under "Media") and only give links to external track listings instead of copying them. Ditto "Sound Stage Best Vocal Collections". On the other hand, the Drama CDs, which contribute to the overall continuity, IMO belong to the Overview article. --Koveras ☭ 09:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  One more thing: I've just discovered that there is a Nanoha wiki on Wikia. I think it will be a good place to dump all those track listings to: there are no restrictions on such content there and we can always link to Wikia articles from here. Generally, it is always recommended to outsource excessively detailed informations to specialized wikis (e.g. we can have an article for each single Sound Stage there). I would recommend you to register on Wikia for that purpose, in case you haven't already. And if its admin doesn't pop up in a month or so, we can always adopt it. --Koveras ☭ 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give me one moment, I'll make it into something decent here. I'm going to model it after List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums which I spent quite a while working on. Edit: Also, I was thinking a while back of changing the link to the Japanese Nanoha Wikia page into that one found here. But then again, I'm not really sure if we should be including external links to wikia. AngelFire3423 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list looks good but I really doubt that it won't be AfDed at some point. Linking to Wikia is OK, if it provides additional information not found on the local page. We can't cite it as a source but it's a fine "See also" link. Certainly better than a page in Japanese. --Koveras ☭ 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it will since the article is notable thanks to the chart listings, which is point 2 on WP:Notability (music). AngelFire3423 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, that's good, then. Though we'll still need a brief write-up on the soundtracks in the respective series articles. --Koveras ☭ 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I created the article: List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha albums. I also split off the the drama CDs: List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha drama CDs. AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  On a side note, I've been recently given admin rights on the English Nanoha wiki, so I can cover you if you decide to move in. --Koveras ☭ 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Had you actually followed our discussion, you would have noticed that we are currently in process of removing redundancies from the articles. --Koveras ☭ 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Historically, "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha" was the title of the first anime, and the eponymous franchise came to be later. Moreover, "MGLN" is just a provisional title of the series, as there is no official one that I know of. I believe we should leave it as it is. --Koveras ☭ 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm currently stuck at writing the overview article because I don't have internet at home and can only make small edits from work... but I'll get back to it the next week, I think. --Koveras ☭ 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Well if you just add cites to most of the dates then I think it would be fine. AngelFire3423 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And by "dates", you mean the airing and publishing dates or the in-universe dates? --Koveras ☭ 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the air and publishing dates should be good enough. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll see what I can do. --Koveras ☭ 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: As viciously as I tortured Google for hours today, I'm afraid I couldn't find the publishing information of the original A's and StrikerS runs by Megami Magazine... The closest match I got were the publishing dates of the bound volumes by Gakken, which I added to the respective articles. :( What should we do? --Koveras ☭ 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's really irritating when the main site doesn't keep archives of it's own releases. It should be fine to just leave the article as it is and start the article as it is. Then maybe someone more resourceful will be able to find a cite for it. AngelFire3423 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing we could do would be cite the exact issues of Megami Magazine that the first and the last respective chapters of the mangas were serialized in... Those wouldn't be hard to calculate, assuming we accept the dates, would they? It's not the best way but at least, that's something... --Koveras ☭ 07:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much what we're looking for. AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've made some educated guesses but I don't give any warranty that they are actually correct. My guess is as good as any, I guess. What do we do now? --Koveras ☭ 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the article. I've been lazy lately, so I'll probably start working on the Nanoha series again soon. AngelFire3423 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger. The article has been created. I suggest we move further discussion regarding the cleanup there. --Koveras ☭ 08:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanoha series overview article 

message: Well, after a month of silence, I still haven't made any progress so I was wondering whether it'd be better to just start the article and let wiki magic do the rest. What do you think, can this pass for a more or less complete article? ^^ --Koveras ☭ 06:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you just add cites to most of the dates then I think it would be fine. AngelFire3423 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And by "dates", you mean the airing and publishing dates or the in-universe dates? --Koveras ☭ 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the air and publishing dates should be good enough. AngelFire3423 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll see what I can do. --Koveras ☭ 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: As viciously as I tortured Google for hours today, I'm afraid I couldn't find the publishing information of the original A's and StrikerS runs by Megami Magazine... The closest match I got were the publishing dates of the bound volumes by Gakken, which I added to the respective articles. :( What should we do? --Koveras ☭ 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's really irritating when the main site doesn't keep archives of it's own releases. It should be fine to just leave the article as it is and start the article as it is. Then maybe someone more resourceful will be able to find a cite for it. AngelFire3423 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing we could do would be cite the exact issues of Megami Magazine that the first and the last respective chapters of the mangas were serialized in... Those wouldn't be hard to calculate, assuming we accept the dates, would they? It's not the best way but at least, that's something... --Koveras ☭ 07:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much what we're looking for. AngelFire3423 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've made some educated guesses but I don't give any warranty that they are actually correct. My guess is as good as any, I guess. What do we do now? --Koveras ☭ 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the article. I've been lazy lately, so I'll probably start working on the Nanoha series again soon. AngelFire3423 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger. The article has been created. I suggest we move further discussion regarding the cleanup there. --Koveras ☭ 08:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanoha series overview article Take 2

message: I have started writing a draft for the overview article (you can monitor it here, in case of interest) and saw that there's some inconsistency in the English translation of several terms:
* Velka(n) vs. Belka(n)
* Riot Force 6 vs. Section 6
I'm sure there's more, and I think we need to normalize the spellings, as well. Ideally, there should be some official spelling promoted by the licensor or maybe even the original creator but I don't know where to find it... If you do, please post a link here. Also, add any more such discrepancies you happen to find. --Koveras ☭ 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it says Riot Force 6 in shiny english on the official site though when they translate StrikerS, we should probably go with that spelling. As for the first point, I think the dub romanized it to Belka though I'm not entirely sure. By the way, the Japanese is ベルカ which gets romanized to Beruka. Do you mind if I edit the page, or should I wait? AngelFire3423 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to fix the spelling on the existing pages, I can't stop you. ^^ Though I don't think I have used the "improper" spellings in my sandbox yet... --Koveras ☭ 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I meant actually editing the content of the sandbox. I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to structure it as a list of the original works in chronological order (as per canon): Nanoha First Season, A's, StrikerS, StrikerS Sound Stage X, ViVid, and Force. Then list the other adaptations of those series in sections like Drama CDs, and manga, etc. sort of the way Gundam#Franchise does it. Also I would say that the opening and ending themes and the broadcastors would be excessive information for just the overview. AngelFire3423 (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, you can copy my draft to your own sandbox and show me the layout you propose. ^^; You see, I'm reluctant to apply big layout changes to my current draft because it's still under construction content-wise. But if your content proves more efficient, I promise I'll convert my sandbox to it. ^^ --Koveras ☭ 09:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well here it is. I'm not quite sure how to organize the sections other than the table. AngelFire3423 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am uncertain. Trimming the table by removing OP and ED is a good idea but we'll have a tough time explaining the rationale behind splitting the entries into "canon series" and "adaptations" instead of just listing them by medium. --Koveras ☭ 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I was thinking about that too, and I guess the way you're doing it would be better. By the way, do you happen to know which is the original work the manga or the anime series for A's and StrikerS? I would like to say the anime, but then again, the manga was made first. And it doesn't help that Masaki Tsuzuki is both the mangaka and the writer for all the series. AngelFire3423 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  Hmm, although excluding the two manga, it's how the official site does it. Also at the A's discussion someone verified that it is Belka. AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For some reason, the official Nanoha site won't open for me, so I don't know what you mean. :( And as for the precedence of works, I think all entries until Force were anime-first, so I'd say it is the manga that is an adaptation of anime, not vice versa. It's not really uncommon for manga adaption to be released first, to advertise the actual anime. --Koveras ☭ 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well try using a proxy site like using google: link to Nanoha site. I uploaded a screen dump to tinypic, copy-paste "/r/23vc8d5/5" after the .com (sorry it's a blacklisted url) if that doesn't work for you or try another proxy site. The manga for both A's and StrikerS was released before their respective seasons, but it's probably the case of advertistment as you say since everyone treats the manga as adaptations. By the way, I started working on making A's into an article that follows MoS. AngelFire3423 (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it seems that the official site also sees it our way. ^^ Yeah, keep up the good job on A's. I'll continue working on that overview article in my sandbox as soon as I find some time to (I'm kinda in a middle of something IRL)... --Koveras ☭ 07:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  You would have to find someone with the official translation. AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It could work, it's not like I had any specific plans for the media sections... Although the order of the media subsections can be changed according to the release dates, too (like it was done e.g. in Mnemosyne (anime)). --Koveras ☭ 09:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content consolidation 

message: some say the rome pinyin of this product should be "Ririkaruna" instead of "Ririkaru", which is correct? C933103 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only a vague idea of what you mean by "rome pinyin", but AFAIK "Ririkaru" is the correct romanization of "Lyrical", whereas "Ririkaruna" seems to be the word "Lyrical" and the first syllable of "Nanoha" lumped together... --Koveras ☭ 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the image at the top of the page. Ririkaru corresponds to the katakana in the image (the yellow characters); there are four characters, one for each syllable. 2.25.142.126 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rome pinyin 

message: "He stated that "aside from the great opening song, the music, though good, is forgettable", but described the ending theme as "lame"." -- Okay, if it's what he said I guess it belongs in the article, but can't we find another critic's opinion to contrast this with? Because the ending theme is awesome. 2.25.142.126 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and find such critic's opinion, then add it to the article please. :) --Koveras ☭ 06:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  songs 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion