Talk:List of Oh My Goddess! episodes/Archive 1

message: I feel there may be too many images on this page.  Even on DSL it takes a little while to load: anyone with dial-up will likely be unable to load this page in reasonable time. Elric of Grans 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely had taken List of Star Trek: TNG episodes as an example. It has far many more images. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: That looks a lot better, image-wise! It is probably worth noting that the US release will likely be a little different (more episodes per DVD, and possibly different DVD covers), but we can update that as we go along. If you are changing to that style, then adding in the Mini-Goddess episodes to this page would not be so bad either. It will be a while before I get up to them, however, so they will either be low on content or someone else will need to fill them in.  I would be opposed to each Mini-Goddess episode having an article of its own, but perhaps one article per 4 episode, or per DVD, would be OK. Elric of Grans 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC there is only one DVD the entier mini-serries fit into... I dont know how to do the mini serries since it is a completely diferent entitiy, perhaps a seperate list or maybe in here. I just dont know. I do not have access to the list of mini serrries eposides + air date + kanji + romanji etc... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked you to a list of (English) episode titles and (Japanese) air dates at Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Staff and Cast.  The Japanese titles would take a little searching, but I could probably find them. As for sorting... I am at a bit of a loss there. It is not available in my country, so I do not know anything about how the English release is sorted. Elric of Grans 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 3 images are from the US dvd releases. Others are from the official AMG website. I do not know how many episodes per dvd it will be. I suspect it will be 3 per dvd... :/ --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal in English releases (at the moment) is five DVDs of four episodes and two of three, however, some will do two DVDs of five episodes and four of four. Elric of Grans 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to have more images I think its ok to stick with japanese covers then :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is English Wikipedia, so I personally feel it would be better to use the English covers, and so the English episodes/disc.  More images does not a better list make: this list should be about content, not images, so having superflous images, placed arbritrarially amongst the list, seems like a poor decission.  If you would like to go with the US ordering, I read in Newtype USA that disc one contains the first five episodes. Elric of Grans 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'US' does not dominate wikipedia. I feel the japanese covers are more approporate as after all the serries were produced in Japan. The arbitrary ordering of the DVD's is based on the official japanese website of the serries. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: True however I have taken the liberty to upload region two dvd covers, we need to find a smart way to put both regional releases to the article. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible comprimise, I used the DVD covers for region 1 on the actual Ah! My Goddess and Oh My Goddess!. Better? --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Do you guys not want this to pass. I know you like this page Elric of Grans. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Sorry for my perhaps rude comments on the FLC page, I am kinda stressed about this page not reciving the FL as fast as it perhaps should :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, no worries at all... with those tiny images being my main reason to oppose now gone, im changing my vote. AKMask 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I feel it is a little early to be thinking about a Featured List: you made the request only hours after starting the page.  Over the next few months, as the US releases come out, the episode titles are sure to change, and we will also soon have more information on the OVA episodes.  Given the cover for them, however, it is obvious which story they are based on.  Likely sometime before series two begins this will probably make a good candidate, but I feel it is a little early.  Besides, on the FLC page is says that all images should have captions.  A very small, easy to correct point, but it shows that this page has not been compared with the criteria yet. Elric of Grans 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In a few hours of creation the page had its current form (I constructred this on my sandbox). All Images do have captions. :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The page will never be complete so long as it is ongoing (which I sincerely hope is many many seasons). Hence waiting several months for all episodes to air in the states is not really necesarry in my POV. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes]] 

message: For example
    == Fair use for ARTICLE NAME ==
    This image, picture-fair-use.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
    # it is a low resolution copy of a DVD cover;
    # it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the DVD album in any way;
    # copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the DVD artwork on another DVD;
    # the image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist, name.
I'm not an expert but the the images seem like they may be too large? Perhaps resize them? Discordance 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont bother me with copyright paranoia, if you are not satisfied with the standard fair use template for dvd covers used wikipedia wide mention it in the templates talk page. The images apear at a low resolution. Much smaller than they appear on amazon.com. Unless TBS complains about the fair-use rationales we present, I do not believe there are any issues here. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images need fair use Rationales 

message: There is a discussion about Fair use images in featured lists at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Fair_Use_images which may result in this list losing its featured list status. - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove images or lose featured list status 

message: There is a discussion concerning the images on this list at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Clean_up_for_the_featured_ones]] 

message: General response to everything above: I see no comments at Talk:You're a Goddess?. I have no metric whatsoever on how a good episode article looks like. Finding the airfield would be much easier if I do not fly blind and have a clue what I am looking for. A general guideline isn't all that helpful. -- Cat chi? 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EPISODE lists the following as examples of good epiosde articles: "Abyssinia, Henry" (from M*A*S*H), "Pilot (House)" (from House), "Cape Feare" (from The Simpsons) and "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)" (from Lost).  All include information about the production of the episode, and its reception by audiences and critics.  I don't know much about anime, but I believe that there's a pretty substantial critical apparatus for major anime series like Oh My Goddess.  It should be possible to find some production information and reviews from reliable sources.  These don't have to be general-audience newspapers; if there's an anime fan magazine which reviews individual episodes, that would do.  Of course, it's much easier to find sources for American and British television shows, but someone at the Japanese Wikipedia might be able to help find sources.  (It would be interesting to learn whether the Japanese Wikipedia has pages for individual episodes of this anime — since I can't read Japanese, I can't tell, but I don't see Japanese interwiki links on the episode pages that exist.)  One of these users may be able to help with the Japanese-language side of things; if you have specific questions about how to improve an episode page so it doesn't get turned into a redirect, I'll try to help if I can. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I think an article improvement drive would a better way to address the problem. -- Cat chi? 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with you, but some editors are just fond of deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually strongly agree with WhiteCat and Josiah Rowe that an article improvement drive would be a better way to address the problem. Greg Jones II 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched these articles for over a year now, and I've seen at least one of the series. Given the very nature of the show, and the information available to us, the probability of improvement is very low. Let me ask this, what kind of real-world information might these per-episode articles include? How much of this information do we even know to exist? -- Ned Scott 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Real-world information, for example, would be on professional reviews, official websites (on the Tokyo Broadcasting System's official website), reliable sources, anime conventions, professional film reviews and the OVA DVD commentary. Also, plot summaries should have no Original Research/Fancruft and redundancies must be reduced by half. Greg Jones II 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the pages linked from here and here may be useful, as may this.  Books like this may have useful content, as may magazines like Anime Insider and Newtype.  I'm not into anime, so I'm not qualified to determine which of these sources are reliable and which aren't — but it does look to me as if reliable sources exist to provide real-world context for these episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, you'll find lots of stuff per-series, but little to nothing that is per-episode, or that would justify such a format. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to give the editors of these articles a little more time to check for useful sources before we make a final decision.  I know that White Cat is interested in improving the articles, but didn't know what resources were available.  I know that you know more about anime than I do, Ned; have you looked for sources that might be used in these episode articles?  You say that per-series sources exist but per-episode sources don't; is that based on research, or just a gut feeling?  (If you have looked into this, and found nothing, then I apologize — I just want to make sure that we give the interested editors a fair chance to improve the articles.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyways, I have been told that :ja:Category:漫画雑誌 or :ja:漫画評論 would be a good place to start. -- Cat chi? 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, White Cat. Greg Jones II 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By all means, take all the time necessary. While I'd prefer merging and redirecting many of these articles, I am not looking to force the issue. As far as what I personally have found, nothing specific to OMG, but from other anime research I've done, it's generally true. There are exceptions, such as "Going Too Far" from Excel Saga, but even then that doesn't always mean there's enough per-episode info for a separate article. Remember, this isn't just about notability and sources, it's also about the amount of information and how we organize it. Sometimes even when you do have something from the real-world that can be said about an episode, sometimes that same information is better said on a character's page, depending on context. Etc, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have posted something on ja.chatsubo and am waiting for a response. -- Cat chi? 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How unfortunate. We need to move forward as soon as possible taking all the time needed. Greg Jones II 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to trim up the plot section on the movie article. Greg Jones II 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: There has been little editing of these articles and they all still fail to establish notability or amount to much more than plot summary. The movie could be an exception, but not in its present state. Absent better sources, these will be redirected soon. --Jack Merridew 10:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to edit them ASAP. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 13:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reported this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Greg Jones II 13:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on the issue on ja.wiki. I am sorry, ja.wikipedians are not men under my command. They will respond at their own pace. To Jack Merridew and Ned Scott: Do NOT rush me. There are 2 million other pages to keep you busy in the meanwhile. -- Cat chi? 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with White Cat's suggestion that rushing him is not necessary. Wikipedia is not a doomsday device, afterall. Kyaa the Catlord 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about rushing, at all. This is pointing out that the real-world information for these articles is not there. Sorry Cat, but if you want these articles kept then you'll have to deal with a little bit of pressure. So far you've had over a year and a half to work on them, and given the complete lack of evidence to even suggest the necessary real world information needed, we have no reason to believe that these articles will ever reach expectable shape. With that being said, I completely support merging this content to either here, or to split lists per series. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eloquently put, Ned. As is stands, and as it has for well over a year, these articles cannot justify their existence. If such a time comes when the necessary information is available then they can be recreated at a later date. Having said that, it important to bare in mind there must be enough information to warrent a full, seperate article. A single fact or two could be summerised on the episode list page. ShizuokaSensei 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This implies: for AMG, as well as any other series, episode listings with brief summaries is sufficient enough to cover the episodes themselves. KyuuA4 06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: also, splitting this list into several chunks is a good idea and it would be good to do so before pages get redirected so that whatever incoming links will find the appropriate page. --Jack Merridew 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with Jack that this list split is a good idea. Greg Jones II 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is going to get redirected. Do not play the dictator. I am working as hard as I can. Just stop it. -- Cat chi? 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? You do not appear to have edited these articles at all since this discussion began almost 3 weeks ago. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't learn Japanese overnight now can I? I am talking to Japanese editors on ja.wiki over this. It isn't easy to find someone into anime who knows both English and Japanese who is also willing to help. I am making some progress but I do not intend to rush things and annoy the ja.wiki community. They seem to be more easygoing than en.wiki. Pages can be merged "any time". Leaving me alone (regarding the merge thing) for a month or more would not harm the project. You are welcome to also seek the sources. Nothing prohibits you from helping out. -- Cat chi? 12:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leave you alone? These are not your articles. I do not speak or read Japanese, have not seen any of these shows, do not have any expectation that reasonable sources exist for these, or much interest in editing them. I may — if no one else does, first — break-up the list into smaller pieces. "Any time" would include tomorrow. --Jack Merridew 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please I beg you people. At least leave me alone on one article I work on. Let me contribute in peace. -- Cat chi? 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, All right then. I will wait while you work. Greg Jones II 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  motion to close 

message: and etc can be used I think. -- Cat chi? 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be right. Also, if you have reliable sources, you can cite them. WP:CITE and WP:V. Greg Jones II 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a quick look at those two, they appear a general review of the series and doesn't have any episode-specific information. Or am I missing something? ShizuokaSensei 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not even sure if these sources will work. Greg Jones II 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not general review of series. They are reviews for the dvds. Each DVD holds several episodes. Japanese version of the dvds have 3 episodes per dvd. US one has 5 episodes per DVD. -- Cat chi? 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  ShizuokaSensei, you didn't miss anything. I just went through these and there is nothing specific about any individual episode. As a review of the series it is not even very flattering: "The production values are surprisingly average", "The animation quality hovers between ‘average’ and ‘mediocre’", "Belldandy remains a total subservient, naïve doormat, blindly devoted to the reactionary milquetoast Keiichi who's too inept to properly return her developing feelings for him. People tend to go either way on the Belldandy character; either she's an obnoxious, archaic fantasy girl for men who prefer their women to act like indentured servants, or she's the archetype of perfection, a flawless example of graceful femininity." This could reasonably be used with the series article and some of the character articles. It does not speak to the issue of individual episode notability. --Jack Merridew 09:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not even understand your rationale. You talk about sources and then link this to notability. I really do not understand the logic of that at all. WP:N and WP:CITE are different and for the most part unrelated guidelines. -- Cat chi? 09:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the source you gave does not serve to establish notability for individual episodes. I believe I was clear enough on this. --Jack Merridew 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't meant to establish notability. It is just a citation candidate. -- Cat chi? 09:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I acknowledged that above. I'm done here today; time for others to comment. --Jack Merridew 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Splitting this list into several articles has been mentioned above and seems a good idea. I see that it achieved Featured List status and am unsure how to effect a split in this context... so, comments, please. --Jack Merridew 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this. -- Cat chi? 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is not necessary to split up the list. KyuuA4 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lets not explain ourselves, that's the ticket. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think before we start thinking about splitting this list up we need to bring the current problem of the indivdual episode pages to it's conclusion. There are currenty those scrabbling around frantically for information to assert the notability of single episodes above and beyond that of the series, but if this fails and the aricles are redirected here, then we should probably think about splitting this into more easily digestable chunks.ShizuokaSensei 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thinking, that we would only do this if we merged/redirected the episode articles. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh wow. Pressure is stunning. Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! NO way! Redirect! Redirect! Redirect! It is a reminiscent of the vocabulary of a Dalek. Please drop the attitude. Redirecting is unnecessary just with the amount of content. Redirecting would reduce encyclopedia quality hence is unacceptable. Is this an attempt to "get even" with me since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott? -- Cat chi? 08:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Why do you think this about you? This is about the articles — really about the LOE in this section. If no one wants to split-up the list now, fine. The individual articles do not establish their notability and that needs to happen if they're going to survive this discussion. I have not looked at the reviews you gave above, but see that others were not impressed with them. I'll look now... --Jack Merridew 09:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... For one this entire discussion started the same hours the RFC was closed. Interesting coincidence. The notability claim is really ridiculous. What is your metric for notability? -- Cat chi? 09:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notability is established by third party reliable sources "taking note", in this case, of individual episodes. No one doubts that the series is notable enough to warrant an article — and a list of episodes — but there is no notability for individual episodes of most tv shows. --Jack Merridew 09:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability can be established by a variety of ways. Your view on episode articles in general are merely your opinion and is not backed by policy or guidelines. Any broadcast world wide is quite notable if you ask me. -- Cat chi? 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a read of the guideline: Wikipedia:Notability. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have, many times. If a show itself is notable by sheer common sense so does the material that make up the show. If individual episodes are not notable then neither is a list of them and hence neither is the show itself. Blanket AFD all non-featured Simpson's episode articles and see how that goes. -- Cat chi? 10:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cat, with the greatest respect, your attitude throughout this entire discussion has been somewhat uncompromising, and you now appear to have taken on a full-on confrontational siege mentality. Please take some deep breaths and step back for a moment. The opinion echoed by several editors that individual episodes of this show lack notability is based on nothing other than the lack of third party sources to suggest otherwise. There is certainly no personal agenda against you, Belldandy, or anyone else. Nobody is giving you any attitude, and there is certainly no need to start name calling. ShizuokaSensei 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but the sudden pile-on on a list of articles which were inactive for quite some time is rather intense, given it is right after the RFC. If sources don't exist, thats one thing. But recognition that they are hindered by language issues is a different thing. I think everyone agrees to this. Sources do exist but it is hard to find a Wikipedian who shows interest in the series to translate them. There are very very few JA<->EN translators. Notability is not anglo-centric after all. -- Cat chi? 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a translator, just to clarify. I need to use some online translators though. Greg Jones II 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is not at all clear to me that sources that will serve to establish notability for individual episodes exist in any language. --Jack Merridew 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  ShizuokaSensei, thank you for pointing this out. White Cat, please do not take this personally. You seem intent on defending these articles as-is; in their current state they are more like little shrines to the episodes than encyclopaedic articles. --Jack Merridew 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting-up the list 

message: Articles on Wikipedia are not expected to be featured to "exist". Most Simpson's episode articles do not have featured status. Cape Feare is a notable exception because it is a featured article. The only difference these articles (linked on the list) have from featured article Cape Feare is that these articles do not have information on the production, cultural references, and reception but neither do most of the Simpson's episode articles. This doesn't warrant a mass merger obviously.
When an article lacks content, you should be trying to add it as per . You are not prohibited from including production, cultural references, and reception related info to these articles. I should not be the only person trying to improve these articles. There seems to be an abundance of complaining by the involved parties but seemingly no one but me has seriously tried to address the lack of content by expanding aside from me. I do not WP:OWN these articles therefore you should be trying to help as well.
The episodes themselves were obviously "produced" so therefore there must be info on production. This information probably available only in Japanese just as production info on Simpson's is only available in English. Just because some information isn't easily accessible does not mean it doesn't exist at all. Mind this is a recent series so production info may not be immediately available as this is a commercial strategy.
These episodes did receive a reception. A second season would not have been announced had the reception was not adequate. This is how it is for any anime or TV show for that mater. For every new season there must be an adequate amount of profit. Any TV show has to have "ratings" so that companies know if a show is good or bad (weather its profitable or not). So this information must be out there as well. Again it is difficult to access this info because it is mostly in Japanese. 
As for the countless "cultural references" in the series, they are rather hard to write about. Firstly the references are often to Norse Mythology, not a field of my expertise. Other cultural references include references to advanced physics such as string theory, again not a field of my expertise. What this means is that it is complex and hard to write about. Does not mean they don't exist.
The mini series actually have more cultural references than the later 2005 TV series such as various "Godzilla"-like episodes which even had Mecha elements in one episode. Mini series even has an episode (rainy day) with no verbal speech whatsoever. 
Notability isn't even an issue. There are featured articles on less notable material.
-- Cat chi? 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia articles 

message: There has been no progress on these episode articles in the four weeks this discussion has been going in circles. Closing. --Jack Merridew 09:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reopening and do not close. Do not adjust section depths either. -- Cat chi? 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: All of the episodes, exclusing the movie, have been merged now. The discussion on merging the episodes is closed by Jack Merridew. Greg Jones II 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, they have not been merged. They have been redirectified. Secondly the discussion is not closed. I will find sources and improve these articles as I see nothing objecting this. -- Cat chi? 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes merged