Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 21

message: Just wanted to give an example of the custom infobox up I drew up for Battle Angel Alita/Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters using Farix's template, by adding custom auxiliary fields and parameters.  There were no previous infoboxes being used for this series.  The anime WPs, task forces, or even specific series for that matter that don't have a task force may want to (will most likely) take Farix's template and add custom fields to it to create a standard infobox for a particular series.  

To see how it looks, Alita can be used as a sample.  BrokenSphereMsg me 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  So, it's a go-ahead. :) And for a "big test", I went ahead on Sailor Moon.  I moved the old infobox into the discussion thread as a comparator.  EDIT: After further implementation, it looks as if the infobox has never changed.  The desired effect is achieved. KyuuA4 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As expected, a bit of resistance comes from the Sailor Moon group to this generic box.  Will have to leave it be, and look at other series. KyuuA4 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It left out some important information and included some unnecessary or otherwise problematic information. It's a great infobox, though, and will probably be excellent for many series. --Masamage ♫ 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missing info can be taken care of by adding more "Aux" tags to the infobox.  This generic form is that flexible, as the range of anime characters overall is wide.  In any case, we're merely beginning to implement it today. KyuuA4 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to take a look at how I did the Tokyo Mew Mew transitions as an example of how to handle the replacement of the Sailor Moon infobox. There may be better ways to do it, but that is one alternative. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This infobox looks good.  I think it would be a good idea to create a standard generic character info box to use in all of the anime character articles.  Then if necessary more series specific info can be added to the infobox below the generic part.  I think this would make everything look consistent while still providing the ability to include more of the series specific information in the info box.  How's that sound? Elhector 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generic Character box.  That's exactly what this infobox is for. KyuuA4 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to hit you to hard with the clue stick, but have you actually read this topic or even the one at the very top of the talk page? The topic at the top of the talk page discussed the development of a "generic character infobox". This topic is about transitioning from the series specific character infoboxes to the "generic character infobox" — with a little side rant about just how many series specific character infoboxes there actually are. I encourage you to read the first topic and take a good look at Template:Infobox animanga character as well. You can see why I decided against using secondary templates for series specific fields (ex. Template:General VG character) and how the the current template avoids the need to create most specialized templates. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to Wikipedia, but not that new.  I did read the entire thread.  I was simply agreeing with the idea.  The "How's that sound?" question at the end of my comment was from an e-mail I was working on at the same time as i was commenting.  I'm not sure how that even wound up there.  My alt+tab skills must be to much for this computer :-P Anyways, like i said before, I think it looks great and is an great idea :-) Elhector 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My example above is just Template:Infobox animanga character with custom aux fields.  Customizing per series, anime WP or task force is what I mentioned too.  BrokenSphereMsg me 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few notes: You don't need to put the italics around the series titles since the template already takes care of this for you. Second, unless you using a specific color other then #DEDEE2, I would remove the color line all together to reduce clutter. Since you are also not use the divider, you can remove that field as well. And finally, I would remove any generic field that would not be applicable to that series, which you've mostly done. --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some pressing need for the giant color-barred Profile midway through the box? It's highly visually distracting imo. --tjstrf talk 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It separates the out-of-universe fields from the in-universe fields. --Farix (Talk) 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, glad to know there is some sort of reason, but could it at least be toned down? --tjstrf talk 02:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for those infoboxes outside the Evangelion franchise, but in those both the seiyu and the English voice actor(s) are listed. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This implimentation seems to work quite well: Diff. G.A.S  06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm facing a similar dilemma with Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha and Triangle Heart. As for the CSS and TRC characters, I would either list them as CLAMP series characters with a wikilink to the CLAMP article or just leave the series field blank. Seems I did something similar to a group of Osamu Tezuka's characters. --Farix (Talk) 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Gundam characters who appear in multiple series, I suggest tagging them with the timeline the series take place. I tried it with Amuro Ray's article.--Nohansen 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline is not the series name. It's better to use the base series name in those situations. --Farix (Talk) 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Tough call on Pokémon, especially when there are hundreds of them.  Perhaps an exception here could be acceptable. KyuuA4 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, it's not the Pokemon template, but the Pokemon character template. The pokemon have their own template, Template:Pokémon species I think, which is separate for the character template. --Farix (Talk) 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the looks of it, the Animanga infobox will actually improve the look of the Pokemon character infoboxes.  While Pokemon characters double up as video game characters, it seems that the articles primarily focus on the anime.  KyuuA4 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation

message: 22 templates deleted through TfD, 16 more currently at TfD, and an untold number deleted as test pages (WP:CSD#G2). 18 others have been orphaned and awaiting submission to TfD (perhaps in two groups) and one Template:Pokémon character still left to be orphaned. But while the Pokemon character template can easily be orphaned, should it? --Farix (Talk) 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Tough call on Pokémon, especially when there are hundreds of them.  Perhaps an exception here could be acceptable. KyuuA4 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, it's not the Pokemon template, but the Pokemon character template. The pokemon have their own template, Template:Pokémon species I think, which is separate for the character template. --Farix (Talk) 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the looks of it, the Animanga infobox will actually improve the look of the Pokemon character infoboxes.  While Pokemon characters double up as video game characters, it seems that the articles primarily focus on the anime.  KyuuA4 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. That guideline is painfully flawed. Kyaa the Catlord 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is unfortunate that a lot of anime sub-articles will be under the spotlight, articles like this tend to appear if there is no or little enforcement or poorly written guidelines. G.A.S  08:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need guidelines to recognize a poorly written, unreferenced article is a poorly written, unreferenced article. And simply because bad articles appear isn't good enough reason to have less than adequately thought out, less than NPOV guidelines that exist solely for the vanity use of elitist wikipedians to bash those who aren't as well versed. I thought that wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit and that creating stubs is acceptable.... Heaven knows my first article was (and probably still is) a piece of shit. Kyaa the Catlord 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. G.A.S  09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I see, they simply need to be clean up to the standard of other Wiki articles, which means less plot summary and more content involving third-party sources.  Within the scope of anime, that can be a major overhaul.  Plus much of that kind of material (reviews and statistics) is either in Japanese, or unwritten. KyuuA4 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I generally agree with the WP:FICT re-write, but I do see that some form of sub-article for style reasons is acceptable. However, notability should still be on the minds of editors, and there needs to be a clear line of what is a sub-article and what needs additional notability. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guideline on fiction: Delete Anime-related articles? 

message: It has come to my attention that the WP:AaM notice is above talk: Transformers: The Movie.That movie is not anime! You guys keep track of what's "anime" and what's not. You stick to  Armada and  RiD, okay?--Autobotx1010 04:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the three extra years the show ran for in Japan. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add on the "debate" over what is anime, and what is not anime. KyuuA4 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You want more of that, see what he's written in the TF The Movie talk page, which he tried to refactor out.  BrokenSphereMsg me 02:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll take a pass. --Farix (Talk) 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G1 Transformers Movie 

message: Has anyone else noticed that  has moved Neon Genesis Evangelion to Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV) and turned the original article name into a disambiguation without any previous discussion on the article's talk page or on the Eva work group's page? He is also running some sort of bot to turn all links to Neon Genesis Evangelion into links to Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV). I don't think this is really the best way to handle disambiguation since when someone puts in "Neon Genesis Evangelion", they are likely looking for the series. The disambiguation page should be named Neon Genesis Evangelion (disambiguation) and the main article, currently Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV) should be moved back to its original location. --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I didn't turn all the old links to NGE into NGE (TV); I had to fix a lot of redirects like a number of old NERV (this was particularly egregious in userspage), Tokyo-3, and Angel redirects, and I also pointed links to List of Eva media and the franchise article as was appropriate. And as Willbyr pointed out, I suggested this back in, like, April in the appropriate place. It's something that sorely needed to be done as the articles have expanded. --Gwern  (contribs) 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With the new movies coming out, there are even odds people would be looking for information on those. If I were doing that, I'd just type in Evangelion and expect to get a page covering the franchise as a whole, not just a page on the decade old TV series. I think the change is a big improvement. Doceirias 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were to stay as it is, it should be Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV series) not Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV), as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Silver Edge 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been a small amount of discussion regarding creating an article for the franchise for some time now. I like the move, but I agree with Silver Edge; the article for the original anime should be titled as (TV series) or (television) instead of (TV). Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But (TV) is shorter, which is why I like it. --Gwern  (contribs) 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorter is not always better.  Better to stick with WP:NC-TV and the thousand(s?) of articles that use (TV series). —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to say the same thing...better you should make the change on your own than have an admin do it for you and quote the MoS. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the general idea is good, but like the others have said, a franchise article would probably be better than a disambig article. In any case, I think Gwern has made an improvement, and we are free to further improve (as in, moving from disambig page to a franchise article). -- Ned Scott 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to make NGE a disambig instead of the straight franchise article for a couple reasons. First, the term "Neon Genesis Evangelion" can refer to a lot of stuff; at least three, the franchise, TV series, manga, and the ADV movie article. I'm probably omitting some stuff there. None of those seemed to me to have truly overwhelming usage - in particular, while disambiguating, I noticed that a lot of usages were extremely ambiguous: while technically the author might have been intending to link to the TV series article, they actually would've been better off linking to the franchise article, etc. (ie, "2nd Impact, an event in NGE, is referenced in fictional work Foo" - should NGE link to the franchise or TV series? After all, 2nd Impact is a fundamental part of the Eva fictional universe and is not at all specific to the anime.) This also has the advantage that in the future, people linking to NGE might think more carefully about just what they mean, and readers could well be better served by this - if you just type in NGE, I could definitely see you intending to go to any number of places like EoE ("that NGE movie") and so on. --Gwern  (contribs) 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there already is a franchise article. I think we're better off going to the disamig than that, though, since it isn't really set up to let someone quickly any easily get to the actual page they want to be on. Doceirias 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Neon Genesis Evangelion]]

message: Is this real? It looks awfully like a hoax. --61.45.36.159 07:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --tjstrf talk 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I prodded it, but CSD G7 does apply. Changing it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look to this one too: Hellsing Death Nether. It seems to be a copy of the other article. Kazu-kun 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nether-Realm]]

message: hey guys, I just want to let you guys know that I made a new category for users who read manga.  Maya Levy 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't that category rolled into :Category: Wikipedians interested in anime and manga some time ago?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New User page: [[:Category:Wikipedians who read manga]] 

message: On Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes, it says the episodes will be redirected soon if anyone does not find any reliable sources. My only complaints are that we need to cite reliable sources and update all of the episodes. If not, these will be merged. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 13:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I enjoyed AMG - I do not see why each episode be given a separate article.  This guideline should be more related with that issue. KyuuA4 04:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Oh My Goddess episodes 

message: Horashe (talk · contribs) has been uploading anime-related pictures with an improper PD license tag; some of them have a website's watermark on them, and others even have the original copyright holders' notice on them.  How should I go about cleaning these up?  I haven't the slightest idea where to get started with images.  —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, you remove them from the pages where they're used (finding a replacement first if you're feeling helpful, if they're necessary then relabeling the non-watermarked ones with a proper fair use tag and rationale would also work), then you tag them for speedy deletion. Since I don't actually see a tag specifically for bad PD-self claims, the best option would probably be to use something like  which any admin worth their mop will then delete on sight. Also if the guy keeps it up, you can have him blocked. --tjstrf talk 07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've marked all the images and warned the editor. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't know the procedures regarding use of images. The second image you gave as an example is an official wallpaper while others look like they were just ripped from websites or blogs. A speedy delete tag would suffice. They can't counter it. Edit: Hmm...late response now. Input is for future referencing. Fox816 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Horashe has been indef blocked for ignoring my warning not to upload images under false copyright tags. All images uploaded by Horashe have been deleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper image uploads

message: Bringing the Anime List of Fuji Television and Anime List of TBS pages to attention, perhaps we should have categories for anime by station? Probably just for a few of the stations since some anime are aired on several stations across Japan. --Squilibob 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that'll make the lists obsolete, and categories would better suit this purpose.  FOX TV Network shows is a category.  So, yes, categories on Japanese TV networks make sense too. KyuuA4 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of anime by station 

message: Here are today's edits to the revised introduction. Please comment, either here or on my sandbox, at User:Timothy_Perper/Sandbox. I am NOT going to keep posting these here, since it takes too much space. So again let me repreat my invitation to join in and comment, make corrections, and help format all this.
There *are* changes in this -- new references, reordering, and rewording.
Manga (ñüâÊ, Manga?) listen (help·info) (pl. manga) is the Japanese word for comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku). In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II (Kinsella 2000) but have a long, complex history in earlier Japanese art (Ito 2005, Kern 2007, Schodt 1986). In Japan, manga are widely read by children, adolescent boys and girls, and adult men and women (Gravett 2004). A broad range of subjects and topics occur in manga, including action/adventure, romance, sports and games, historical drama, comedy, science fiction and fantasy, mystery, horror, sexuality, and business and commerce, among others (Gravett 2004). Since the 1950s, manga have steadily become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry (Kinsella 2000, Schodt 1996), representing a 481 billion yen market in Japan in 2006 (Comipress, 2007; approximately 4.4 billion dollars; note 1). Manga have also become increasingly popular in the US and worldwide (Patten 2004, Wong 2006). In 2006, the United States manga market was $175-200 million (Cha, 2007).
Manga are typically printed in black-and-white, although some full-color manga exist (e.g., Kishi, 1998). In Japan, manga are usually serialized in telephone book-size manga magazines, often containing many stories each presented in a single episode to be continued in the next issue (Schodt 1986, Gravett, 2004). If the series is popular, collected episodes may be republished in a paperback book called a “tankobon” in Japanese (Schodt 1986, Gravett 2004). A manga artist (mangaka in Japanese) typically works with a few assistants in a small studio and is associated with a creative editor from a commercial publishing company (Kinsella 2000). Popular manga series are frequently animated after publication (see anime) although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films.
Manga and manga-like comics exist in Korea (“manhwa;" note 2) and in the People’s Republic of China plus Hong Kong (“manhua”; Wong 2002). In France, “la nouvelle manga” is a form of bande dessinée drawn in styles influenced by Japanese manga (note 3). In the United States, manga-like comics are called Amerimanga, global manga, or original English language (OEL) manga (note 4).
MORE COMING
Note 1: <http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=500+billion+yen+in+dollars&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8>.
Note 2: <http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/lexicon.php?id=67>.
Note 3. <http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6318937/Frederic-Boilet-and-the-Nouvelle.html>.
Note 4. <http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/lexicon.php?id=99>.
Cha, Kai-Ming 2007 Viz Media and Manga in the U.S. <http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6430330.html?nid=2789>.
Compress 2007 2006 Japanese Manga Market Drops Below 500 Billion Yen.< http://comipress.com/news/2007/03/10/1622>.
Gravett, Paul 2004 Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Harper Design.
Ito, Kinko 2005 A history of manga in the context of Japanese culture and society. J. Popular Culture, 38(3):456-475.
Kern, Adam 2006 Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyoshi of Edo Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN-10: 0674022661; ISBN-13: 978-0674022669.
Kinsella, Sharon 2000 Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Kishi Torajiro 1998 Colorful: Karafuru. Tokyo: Shueisha Young Jump. .
Patten, Fred 2004 Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge.
Schodt, Frederik L. 1986 Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Schodt, Frederik L. 1996 Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press.
Wong, Wendy Siuyi 2002 Hong Kong Comics: A History of Manhua. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Wong, Wendy Siuyi 2006 Globalizing manga: From Japan to Hong Kong and beyond. Mechademia: An Academic Form for Anime, Manga, and the Fan Arts, 1:23-45.
Timothy Perper 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking: if you have these books (or even some of them), please consider adding yourself and these books to the Reference library. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be very happy to. In fact, I had tried to do so before but I couldn't figure out how to add the titles. So maybe someone can help me here? Timothy Perper 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Revisions to Manga entry 

message: The revised Introduction for the manga article has now been completely written and formatted. It is on my user page Timothy Perper/Manga.
This is ONLY the Introduction, since we’re working on the article section-by-section.
Please look at it if you’re interested, but please do NOT make editing changes directly on the draft. Instead, put comments, suggested changes, questions, and so on onto the DISCUSSION page. This procedure avoids a set of complex and messy glitches in how the Introduction is edited.
In a few days, after people have commented (if they want to), we will REPLACE the present introduction of the manga article – that means the main article – with this new, *revised* introduction. The next sections will be replaced later, so, for a while, the main article will have revised and older material in it.
We have already started work on the next section, which deals with the history of manga, but that section is NOT yet complete.
I want to thank everyone for their help! I mean that most sincerely!! Thanks!!!
Special thanks to Wikipedian Peregrine Fisher!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Perper (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Introduction is Ready to be Put In 

message: i know that this may not be the right area to discuss this, but i wasn't sure where else to post this and gain a decent amount of anime/manga minded people
but what is everyones thoughts on a possible anime/manga wikipedia set aside on its own, in a sense separate from wikipedia yet also part of... kinda like the subject specific wikipedias that have appeared to be popping up so much lately
mainly we'd be able to orient rules such as image policy and various other things more towards anime/mangas specific needs, set up articles the way that anime/manga feels they need to be split up, instead of the way that wikipedia who looks more at the broad picture then individual sections at times
anyway, just an idea i thought I'd post to see what people think... peace, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. That would be the paradize for those persons who refuse to use English names despite the fact that Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia. Kariteh 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How would this deal with existing anime-specific Wikis that have already been set up?  Work alongside them to cover series that aren't big enough to warrant the same level of coverage but not duplicate the work already put into those that have by redirecting readers there?  BrokenSphereMsg me 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer using a general fiction wikia, since it would be more likely to be accepted as a linkable pseudo sister project for in-universe articles. --tjstrf talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea but setting up a wiki is no easy task you'd betetr get alot of people to help out.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There's already an anime wikia. However, it doesn't get much use. And if you thought the fan battles on Wikipedia are fierce, then you probably don't want to imagine what those same battles will be over there since it doesn't have policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:USEENGLISH deeply ingrained into them. It's only saving grace of the wikia is that we don't have to deal with WP:NOTE, which is our biggest PITA. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well my main qualm with current policy is with the whole image fair use stuff... i feel that it has hit anime/manga articles expecially hard as we/ve had to cut 95% of our images out of articles which has, in my opinion, really effect the quality of the articles... because of that i'd think that if certain articles were to also be migrated over 2 another wiki we may be able to have a Fair Use Rational more specific to anime & manga... idk , prob just a foolish idea of mine but i thought i'd see what others thought... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blame all that on Copyright.  Regarding anime images, I have to wonder if some high quality fan-art is acceptable as a replacement. KyuuA4 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: o i have no prob undestanding that is copyright's problem... but its because of wiki policy, or at least the new policy, that is effectin us badly... but ya the fan art is a good idea... i wonder if thats possible... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fan art on Wikipedia or the anime Wikia?  The argument that fan art is derivative is surely to be brought up as grounds for deletion.  BrokenSphereMsg me 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Gohan, it's nowhere near so bad as you're making it out to be. We have the worst sourcing issues due to the language barrier, yes, and some of the anti-fandom guys target our pages due to their popularity (that there are a dozen Naruto character pages in the top 100 at any given time really galls them), but otherwise we actually have it pretty damned easy. When was the last time you saw any article on an actual manga series (not a character or whatever) fail at AfD? I've never seen it happen unless it was an outright hoax or a oneshot. Fair use image policy is in a bit of chaos right now, but that'll correct itself in the long run. --tjstrf talk 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: so more of a FICTpedia... so are we going to do anything to try to do this, such as get ahold of other fiction groups or somethin.... i mean this is all an amazing idea but it obviously require more planning prior to us doing it... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any concrete plans right now, but I've dropped the idea a few places and gotten positive reception. The hard part isn't just getting the idea accepted though, it's getting the editors to write content. We would need lots of active fiction editors from here, and to make WP:EL accept widespread interwiki linking to a fiction wikia. Some of the work will also be on the wikia side, convincing the current minor fragmented fiction wikias to join. College is just starting up now though, so a lot of people (including myself) are quite busy, so this may not be the best time to try starting any major efforts. --tjstrf talk 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well personally i think that the best option would be to go for what people may see as the lazy way and just copy and paste most articles, and then let them evolve from there... OR for certain pages that suffered major removal of imformation, to go back oto the old one and work from there, but yet again, thats just the lazy way of doin it, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Can't let much of the In-universe material here go to waste.  Best to have a back-up of that material incase of a "Notability Purge".  I've seen work relating to other fictional work whose notability is questioned - such as Futurama episode Xmas_Story.  Much of the character articles seem to be similar. KyuuA4 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ya ik, which is why i personally think that all of us fictional wiki editors would benefit from setting up a fictional wiki... and reguardless of the fact that school just started im very intersted in doing this and would be willing to help/assist in its creation... but i think we need to get others informed of it too.... not only more in anime/manga but also sci-fi people, other tv shows, and all that... who's in?Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anipedia

message: We're in the final editing stages for the first part of the new "origins" section for the Manga entry, and people are invited again to visit Timothy Perper/Sandbox2 and add comments, suggestions, and observations.
I have also created User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox3 for the next section of "Origins." Please make comments, observations, and so on. Timothy Perper 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing the revision of Manga entry 

message: I understand WP:MOS-AM asks for "official English titles for article names" and that the TV series has been released as Fighting Spirit... but as the Hajime no Ippo manga still hasn't been released in English speaking countries, shouldn't the article be named Hajime no Ippo?--Nohansen 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  For another example, see Otoboku. KyuuA4 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Use the title most English speakers will be familiar with, which is likely Fighting Spirit. WP:USEENGLISH does state to use the English titles unless the work is better known by English speakers under a foreign title. --Farix (Talk) 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "official English titles" part in WP:MOS-AM is kind of a very basic guideline, it's not the important part. The important part is the end of the sentence, which is: "unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form". Overall, it all just amounts to using the most popular title for English-speaking persons (whether this most popular title is English, Japanese, or in theory any language). Kariteh 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This an interesting conflict. The manga came first, and the article should be written to make it clear the anime is derivative, no? So should naming follow the most familiar title for the manga or the most familiar for all versions of the sotry? —Quasirandom 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could depend on which work is more popular in the English-speaking world, the manga or the anime? It might be difficult to know this for sure though. Kariteh 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases where you are not sure, stick with the English title. That is what WP:USEENGLISH basically states. --Farix (Talk) 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the manga still doesn't have an "English title", only the anime does.--Nohansen 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely semantics that really doesn't matter. --Farix (Talk) 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in any case, the article should have both versions of the title in bold in the first sentence of the article, and redirects liberally created. —Quasirandom 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And correction.  An English title does exist, and it's the one currently used.  Anime, manga.  Doesn't matter. What, Kariteh just said. KyuuA4 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "only the anime does": Yeah but that's irrelevant. The article isn't about "the manga" or "the anime"; it's about both of them, i.e. about the franchise. Kariteh 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hajime no Ippo" or "Fighting Spirit"? 

message: Hellsing (anime) currently redirects to Hellsing (TV series). I didn't quite understand the move rationale located in the history, but I think it should be moved back per MOS. I would move it myself, but I don't want to create any double redirects or whatever they're called. UnfriendlyFire 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably to distinguish it from Hellsing Ultimate - in which case Hellsing (anime) should be a disambig page, not a redirect. Doceirias 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that was the case, then a disambig wouldn't be needed. Maybe a Hellsing (anime) and a  notice for Hellsing Ultimate. UnfriendlyFire 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a second, I was confused by this change.  But I see.  It's definitely a move to distinguish the TV series - yes, Hellsing was broadcast on TV - vs the Ultimate OVA.  For another example, look at Ah! My Goddess (TV series). KyuuA4 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellsing 

message: We have decent guidelines for how to put together a good article about a series. What do we have for a good article about a character? Or is it mostly collective wisdom / make it look like this one / peer review muddle at this point? (There's also WP:WAF, which is great for perspective but isn't exactly helpful about structure.) —Quasirandom 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Sailor Jupiter and some other characters from Sailor Moon are in :Category:GA-Class anime and manga articles.  They don't look as good as other GAs I've seen, but that's a place to start. - Peregrine Fisher 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:WAF#List of exemplary articles has a sub-section for characters that have reached FA status. And remember, the great potential these articles have is in real-world information. Tell us things you don't know from just watching the show (avoid an all-plot article). -- Ned Scott 06:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, as far as notability is concerned, there needs to be enough "Popular Culture" references.  Yet, as far as anime/manga characters are concerned, much of that material is Japanese. Most anime/manga character articles tend to have limited (if any) out-of-universe material. KyuuA4 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not thinking about notablity concerns (WP:FICT covers that pretty well) as what information is expected in what order. Especially for iconic characters who aren't from long complicated series and so don't have attributes that go on and on and on (like the Sailor Moon characters) -- characters like Yotsuba Koiwai and Chiyo Mihama who have documentable presence in popular culture ... so what else should be said? —Quasirandom 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Inside information precedes outside information.  Aside from the introduction, they start with Personality, Character background, etc.  Then all that is followed by out-of-universe information. At least, that is the pattern many of the fictional characters seem to follow. Example: Palpatine. KyuuA4 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guidelines in WP:FICT suggest otherwise. Or rather, they suggest not creating the character subarticle until you have the outside information needed to establish out-of-universe notability, and until then the inside information should accumulate in the main article. But that's a digression: I'm hoping for guidence on presentation AFTER those steps. That is to say, sequence within the article not order of adding information. —Quasirandom 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for character articles? 

message: Does anyone know of any encyclopedic animanga sites other than ANN?  --BrokenSphereMsg me 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Animenfo, but it's rather poor quality. --Mika1h 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried running a search there for Chameleon Jail, Takehiko Inoue's first manga that seems to be relatively unknown compared to his others and which I'm planning to write an article on, and got no hits.  ANN does have it, but the info is sparse.  I do have a little info re. its releases from his page, but was wondering if there might be more out there.  BrokenSphereMsg me 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Particularly for the main anime article, I found myself simply using Google when looking for specific items.  I suppose there is also Newtype.  However, as an online source, that magazine is rather limited.  Here's a very old source, Ex.org.  Unfortunately, it is no longer active, and the material remaining there are old archives.  It could still be useful for older series. KyuuA4 07:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Using Google book search can help find a good mount of references (I'm often very surprised at what I'm able to reference in it). Even when you can't see a complete copy of a book, there is often enough there to let you cite the book itself as a source. On that note, don't forget you can also bug people who own some of these books, as listed in our Reference Library. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs other than Animenewsnetwork? 

message: After a bit of discussion and KyuuA4 pointing it out on the talk page, Quasirandom has started a rough outline of a character layout guideline for WP:MOS-ANIME. The basic idea seems to come from featured character articles. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Start of drafting character guideline. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS for character articles 

message: I've been trying to redirect Meido to somewhere other than Cosplay since they're are only tangentially related. In anime and manga the maids aren't in maid costumes because they are cosplaying, it's because they ARE maids. It's like having Catgirl or Meganekko redirect to cosplay....But instead of redirecting it to French maid (which I really want to do), I've redirected it to the new Meido (disambiguation) page, which seems to be the more logical place. The problem is, I've been reverted soon afterwards with the reverter saying that we should uphold the discussed (and outdated) outcome. He also said I should point him to a new discussion saying that the times have changed, so here I am. Discuss, everyone. _dk 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why a phonetic spelling of an English word needs to redirect to French maid, but it definitely should be redirecting to Cosplay. If I searched for Meido, I'd expect to get 冥土, the first entry on that disambig page. Which doesn't seem to have an actual entry. Doceirias 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm saying it should get redirected to the disambiguation page. And 冥土 is just a synonym for the Japanese netherworld, Jigoku. You're right on it being a phonetic spelling of an English word, and by that reasoning, why should it be redirecting to cosplay? _dk 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty convinced that Meido doesn't mean anything but French Maid. Why should it redirect anywhere else?SidiLemine 11:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why this should be redirected to cosplay. Even the AfD doesn't support that position. In fact, most of the merger comments suggest redirecting this to French maid with only one opposed to such a merger. So if you want to go by the consensus in AfD, then the redirect is perfectly valid. At least it is more valid then the current redirect to cosplay. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also add that a redirect created through AfD doesn't have to stay the same because of the AfD. Editors should be able to change the redirect to a better target without having to be tied to a previous AfD result, especially when the result does not conform the consensus reached at the AfD to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was bold and changed the redirect. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer the other suggestion from the AfD - Cosplay restaurant#Meido. There it explains the phenomenon, and makes reference to the French maid aspect as well. Confusing Manifestation 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it be better to move Meido (disambiguation) to Meido? --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; I used the  to get that to an admin's attention, and the move has been made. -- JHunterJ 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Meido]]

message: Why do some voice actor articles have blood type? This does not seem encyclopediac at all for an English-language project like this. What is the need to give out this sort of private information? • Lawrence Cohen 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably added due to Japanese blood type theory of personality. It's like adding an astrological sign, trivia. Ninja neko 13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I'll re-add the two I removed earlier, unless it's a problem. Please let me know. • Lawrence Cohen 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood type 

message: For those who know, the naming situation in Case Closed is kind of in a mess-- not only there are English naming, but sometimes manga and anime cannot agree with their namings. So I created Template:Case Closed Names-- but I wonder if such a template is excessive? --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems useful to me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this template excessive? 

message: I nominated List of seiyū for deletion (2nd debate). As the 'main contributor' tool thingie is broken (or just not working for me), I thought I'd try to notify the author/editors here. You can find the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of seiyū (2nd nomination). Ninja neko 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for List of seiyū 

message: I'm having problems with a couple of users who keep trying to add a long list of examples into said article (who I might add have not responded to my post on the talk page). This is especially problematic considering the fact that "harem" is a rather loosely defined genre which can easily cause debates as to if any even series is harem or not. The few examples included in the prose have been carefully selected to be very clear cases of harem (which I try to cite being referred to as harem when I can). Of course, this is on top of the fact that such a list is cruft and is redundant to :Category:Harem anime and manga. Any help improving the article to reflect it as an established genre (instead of just a fanboy term) would be appreciated.--SeizureDog 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Genre articles do not need lists of series included.  However, I remember purging the list in shoujo ai, yet that was objected. KyuuA4 00:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purge in Yuri (term) was done with no prior notice or even an edit summary, thus no one knew what was going on and assumed it to be vandalism. I went through a similar process with Tsundere where earlier this year it was decided to purge the list and provide a short paragraph of primary examples, and for the most part it's been like that ever since (though users still like to add to it from time to time).--十八 00:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, my bad on not explaining as such.  Also, I seem to notice that the presence of a list (over there) seem to trigger some kind of "editing conflict" with regards to the content of that list. KyuuA4 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Same issue with shōnen-ai, which has 3 of these lists, one of them filled with original research. I'm hoping to get to a consensus there to get it replaced with a reference to :Category:Shōnen-ai. Ninja neko 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In truth, every genre article we have is suffering from this plague. We need to band together and stamp it out.--SeizureDog 09:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Harem (genre)]]