Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes/Archive 1

message: I've gone ahead and moved this page back to Episodes of Fullmetal Alchemist, since it's not really a list anymore. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: A few days ago, I noticed that while Cartoon Network was broadcasting episode 41 or so, the number of episodes synopsized was only 3, so I began adding synopses.  I've added synopses for episodes 4-24 and 26-31.  I also edited another person's entry for episode 25.
I cerainly don't mind others pitching in, but I'd like to make a plea for the synopses to be brief.  I don't think it is necessary to record every detail of an episode, just the main plot points.  One paragraph, a handful of sentences, I think, is enough.  The purpose, in my opinion, of a synopsis is to serve as a memory aid, to help folks remember what happened prior to the episode they are watching now.  Or perhaps to help folks find which episode has a particular plot developement they want to go back and watch.  So please don't be surprised or offended if you see me copy-edit a synopsis you wrote.  Thanks.sprocketeer 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit, it is more difficult than I initially thought to keep an episode synopsis to a single short-to-medium-length paragraph.  Some of the episodes are dense enough that a paragraph is needed for each major thread of the episode.  I've had to resort to 3 and even 4 short paragraphs to keep the narrative clear; especially in episodes 1-3, which carry a great deal of exposition to set up the story's premise; episodes with major plot developments (25, 32-34); and the most recent episodes, which are building to the series climax.sprocketeer 20:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of synopses 

message: Could someone please explain why they're posting episode synopses a week or more in advance of the Cartoon Network broadcast, presumably spoiling the episodes for folks who have not yet seen them?sprocketeer 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people are choosing deliberately not to. But there are always a few people who want to do something else. Some people add junk synopses that are little more than whatever they got from them seeing the preview or using a tiny bit of information from another source to write two sentences of spoilers. There is an informal system in place to fix the problem and most people are doing the right thing. Any kind of discussion about an official policy is going to turn into a Wikipedia political correctness debate. That said, I would stay away from the page for the next couple weeks unless you want to get hit by big spoilers. 205.188.117.8 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. The schedule of episodes is irrelevant to us except insofar as it might aid writing the articles. --maru  (talk) contribs 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the big hurry? 

message: Someone recently changed the spelling of Shou Tucker's title from "Sewing" to "Sowing," but if you pause episode 6 near the beginning as Mustang hands Edward a clipboard, you can clearly see that it is spelled "Sewing."sprocketeer 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but the word "sewing" is more appropriate than "sowing" in this context. We really don't need proof anyway; it's common sense. If someone else wants it spelled as "sowing" they can argue about it here. --Wikivader 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  "Sewing" not only evokes the mental image of different life forms being "stitched" together, it is remniscent of the H.G. Wells novel The Island of Dr. Moreau.  As DNA and genetic engineering were unknown in Wells' time, his explanation for Dr. Moreau's creations was vivisection.sprocketeer 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sowing Life Alchemist? 

message: In episode 3, Mother, I found and described a bit of humor in a grim scene:
"After apprenticing themselves to a master alchemist, the brothers use her training, a precise collection of the chemicals that make up a human body, and their own blood in an attempt to resurrect Tricia Elric. The results are catastrophic; Edward loses his left leg, Alphonse loses his entire body. Ed gives his right arm, literally, to attach Al’s soul to a nearby suit of armor." [emphasis mine]
One can argue whether the humor was inappropriate (e.g., "I'd give my right arm for that!"), but the edit someone made was both inaccurate and redundant:
"The results are catastrophic; Edward loses his left leg, Alphonse loses his entire body. Ed gives an arm and a leg, literally, to attach Al’s soul to a nearby suit of armor." [emphasis mine]
As the previous sentence stated, "Edward loses his left leg."  He doesn't lose another leg; the edit was redundant.  Moreover, the word "literally" should then have been removed as it was part of the excised humor.  A better edit, sans humor, would have been "Ed then gives up his right arm to attach Al's soul to a nearby suit of armor."
I have restored the original edit.sprocketeer 19:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor vs. Accuracy when making edits 

message: Article is too large. I am breaking it up to 51 peices. This will finaly be an actual list. --Cat out 18:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes 

message: Thanks for splitting up this article.  It's about time someone did so - now I feel lazy for not doing it myself ;-).
Mistamagic28 13:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you compensated for that by mass rewriting descriptions. :) --Cat out 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Last time I saw this page, it was just a list of episode titles, and some other stuff.  Now it's separated by volume, and we have separate pages for every single episode? That's insane! (In a good way.) The FMA pages were once kind of half-assed and disorganized, but they're getting much better. --Wikivader 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was pointed out to the episode guides that Buffy the Vampire Slayer have..now THAT's insane! O____O OK guys, let's not get beaten! we need more work! XD --itakoaya 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very nice work 

message: Episode 51 has both a Japanese and an English title, and that should be reflected on this list. Any explanation of the timeframe surrounding the titles should be on the page for that episode, not here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode 51 has no Japanese title and has an English title that was the invention of the dub company (Funimation). The fan-inspired Japanese title "Munich 1921" is simply a caption that appears late in the episode. There is no basis for considering that a Japanese title. 168.127.0.51 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 51 

message: Do we really need to add "(Fullmetal Alchemist episode)" to the end of every article? I know some like Teacher (Fullmetal Alchemist episode) need it, but with most of them, there are no other articles on Wikipedia that have that title. Most episode articles only do that if there is another article on WP with the same name. Matty-chan 01:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we just keep all of them the way they are. It makes everything more uniform, instead of having some articles with "(Fullmetal Alchemist episode)" in the title and some without. Besides, moving pages around just to make the titles shorter isn't worth the time, in my opinion. --Wikivader 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television):
For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name:
* Bart the Genius (no other article with that name exists)
* The Sting (Futurama) (to differentiate the episode article from the 1973 film of the same name
Matty-chan 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode article titles 

message: The OVA has been removed from anidb.net after it was initially listed there; has it been cancelled, was it a hoax, ...? —Nightstallion (?) 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVA 

message: The images are wasting a lot room, they have big blank spots above and below them.  I know this was chosen as a FA, but any ideas? - Peregrinefisher 05:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason the image cells are so large is because they are meant to encompass multiple episodes. I don't think that the whitespace detracts from the actual list content. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added screen shots for episodes 1-28, and I think they look alright--Salvax T - C--01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

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)
replies: text: Pending the outcome of that discussion, there is no reason to overreact prematurely.  It appears that discussion is still far from over, with strong opinions being expressed on all sides of the issue. Fullmetal2887 07:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --Ali'i 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone. These images had rationales and proper tags. I would support reducing their resolution though. Also, removal would break WP:WIAFL criteria 3. --GunnarRene 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't create galleries of Wikipedia:Non-free content in general, and especially avoid undoing the cleanup work of other editors.  Jkelly 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a gallery. I am familiar with policy and consensus on this matter.--GunnarRene 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no need to protect your preferred version. I am well aware of the 3RR rule. --GunnarRene 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confused on some points.  You can learn more about Wikipedia's policies on licensing and copyight at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content.  Wikipedia:Administrators are encouraged to block users, protect pages and delete content when copyright and licensing issues are a concern, but your use of "preferred version" is obviously intended to suggest that there is an editorial dispute, which is not the case.  Regardless, the administrator who protected the page had not otherwise edited it. Jkelly 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an editorial dispute where lists with significant textual contant have been unilaterally defined as "galleries", but let the record show that there was one more revert that I didn't see, so protection is not so bad - except that this list now lacks any and all images. See below.--GunnarRene 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is only a violation of your disputed reading of the policy.  The only consensus that exists about this is that we are not going to change our rules to prohibit images in lists like this.  See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. - Peregrine Fisher 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have unprotected the page, on the understanding that the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes and the parallel action on other list articles has led to a consensus (at least among those people familiar with foundation policy) that the images should stay out. I would also advise against an image in the lead - what do you need it for? If there isn't any content in the lead that has made support through an image necessary up to now, why would it become necessary at this point? This article contains no critical analysis of the show's visual style or anthing, does it? If you just want it for the page to look nicer, then that's the clearest proof we could possibly have that all the other images weren't genuine fair use either to begin with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus among people familiar with foundation policy. The main change introduced with the new Board Resolution was the removal of by-permission and non-commercial-only media. The resolution calls for narrow limits on fair use in the project. This project's narrow limits are here. There were two proposals to ban non-free content in lists. Both failed. So now some administrators took it upon themselves to go out of process and delete the media anyway, by pretending that list articles are "galleries". --GunnarRene 17:36, 2 May 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: I plan on redirecting the single episodes to this article fairly soon. They cannot have anything more than a plot summary and some small notes, so they cannot comply with WP:EPISODE. They would need outside (second and third party) information such as reception and development to stay as articles. Being an anime, this is very unlikely for single episodes. TTN 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, all the episodes should be merged back to this page. I just picked an episode at random (Death (Fullmetal Alchemist)). Not only does this not come close to the guidelines set forth by WP:EPISODE, but it are clear violation of copyrights. The screenshot, and the plot, are both non-free, and thus must provide a fair-use rationale for their existence. When it comes to images, FU rationales are on the image page (which the image has, but does not fulfill). For plot summaries, you need realworld context on the page to justify their use. That means production information, or reception information, or something that isn't "in-universe". This page has nothing but a plot (one that is overly long at that), thus it not only doesn't meet the criteria for an episode article, but it meets the criteria to considered a copyright violation. Remember, all shows are copyrighted by their networks, as the only reason we are allowed to give any kind of detail is because we are supposed to be provided critical commentary on the subject. This isn't IMDb, or TV.com, this is an encyclopedia. The only way we can justify encyclopedic fair use is to provide critical commentary, which goes for the image as well. Just putting a generic fair use rationale on the image isn't enough. There needs to be critical commentary in the article to justify needing an image to illustrate something. This is why all those images were pulled from the "list of episodes" articles. Because do not justify image use, and detailed plots (like what is in the article that I linked) can cause legal problems. And studios have successfully sued over this type of infringement. Being a "non-profit" business doesn't exclude us from lawsuits and copyright infringements, especially when we don't provide a justifiable reason for their use. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching an episode, a film, or reading a book. Plot summaries should be included on these articles..but to add context to the real world information. Plot summaries should never be their own articles. I decided to go through more episodes and what I came across was almost every single article contained literally nothing but a plot and an image. I saw less than a handful with a trivia section (which also contained original research on possible "foreshadowing" that had not source to back it up). The amount of "trivia" from all those articles could easily be brought here. Since you don't want to be in danger of losing FA status, I suggest putting it on this talk page until people can find revelvant sections for it, with reliable sources to back it up. Be Thou for the People contains a 1400 word plot and nothing else. Come on people, we are asking to have a lawsuit with that. They all need to be merged until real world content can be found to justify a split to a separate article. This isn't simply about "trimming plots". Any article that has absolutely nothing but a plot and an image should not be an article. If you can expand it, with reliable sources (psst, IMDb trivia sections don't meet that criteria), prove it. Otherwise, lets all be rationale adults here and merge this information back into this article, and since they are nothing but plots, and we don't want to lose FA status here, simply redirecting will suffice for the time being.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA status of this article is not in jeopardy over the status of the individual episodes' articles.  In the coming days I (and most likely other editors) will attempt to resolve the issue by adding reliable sources to the articles.  In the meantime, there is no reason to take an action as drastic as redirecting them all back to this article. Fullmetal2887 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some examples of what you'll be adding? You need real, non-trivial information to really count towards anything. That is pretty impossible with an anime. TTN 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said if you merged all the trivia then the FA status of this article would be in question, not the way it currently is. Your biggest problem right now though is the fact that you have 51 articles, and 73% of them are nothing but plots. Of those, 5 are way too long. Of the 27% (or 14 for those counting) that have more than a plot, what they have is unsourced, original research, (glancing over a coupe there were purely irrelevant) trivia sections. Merge them now, and unredirect them as you go, as you expand them to be more than just a plot. It isn't like you are "losing" anything. The page isn't being deleted. Once you have production information (in the least), or reception for an episode, then start unredirecting and working on the page. This whole "leave them be, I'll get to them soon" has been the excuse laid down for months on these pages and the similar ones on other series. Let them be redirected, because right now, all 51 violation fair use criteria, and that is a bigger problem. Writing up a summary with spoilers of an episode, without provide encyclopedic critical commentary to justify its use, violations the copyright established by that network. Just redirect them back and open when you can. They aren't going anywhere, and redirecting them doesn't hurt anything. When 73% are nothing but plots, you definitely aren't losing anything.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single episodes 

message: Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly.  These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages.  Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected or merged. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage.   Thanks.  TTN 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, these will be redirected in a while per the above. TTN 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode notability 

message: As the new series is going to be premiered in April, what is going to be done with this episode list? It may be better to split it into two separate lists, in fact, for each season. NOCTURNENOIRtalk 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is still no episode still, what are we going to split? More important, the episode list can only be splitted once the series premiers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, I'm saying in the future... NOCTURNENOIRtalk 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does raise the related question of why the second series seems to be all but unmentioned in the main article, though... —Dinoguy1000 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's there at the very bottom of the "Anime" section under "Media". NOCTURNENOIRtalk 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. However, this needs to be discussed in a proper split discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Series 

message: After vigourously trying to find how this sham of an article got to this way (no offence but its rated as C-Class) and having looked erroneously I have finally found the revision history when at its earliest the article was FA List Class. I could re-write the whole page, meaning this article, and we can make it all FA status again. What does everyone think? This is what I propose サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC
:If you want to get this back up to FA, then you're going to have to add more information. An FA of the past might not be an FA of today. Just take a look at the Yu Yu Hakusho seasons. All of which have been FA for a while now, and would hardly be above start now. If you want FA, you need to add DVD information, release info for the OVA's, possibly soundtrack info for the music. All of the information in the lead needs to be supported later in the article, with sources. Getting it up to FA wouldn't be hard, just maybe a bit time consuming and a lot of edits. I suggest using a sandbox, it would allow you to make major changes without disrupting the actual article. Also, if you do follow that revision, don't have the "DVD box" section, that is an automatic FAIL at FLC. Rau J (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It's just that it got delisted because some silly IP thought about deleting massive amounts of data for no apparent reason. That's why it was delisted, not because of it's content. But I'll add the rest of the info and hopefully get to FA List Class. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 14:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Try checking for refs in the main article. I remember that User:Sephiroth BCR was making a rewrite of the summaries, but he stopped it. Try asking him for a few summaries.Tintor2 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I recommend having a look at some of {[WP:ANIME/NEWs]]'s newer featured episode lists. At least some information can be provided in the lead alone, and sourced directly. (IMO, the lead seems fine). The main problem is the episode summaries, which should preferably be of equal lengths (100-250 words, applied consistently). Sources seems good now. G.A.Stalk 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix the lead earlier and I can get some of the summaries done, but I'm currently caught up doing other work and getting swamped by outside of Wikipedia work. I can move this to the top of my to-do list, but you'll have to wait a bit for the summaries. My only fear is that this page will turn into a colossal mess when the new series comes out. NOCTURNENOIRtalk 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: (What new series?) Hey I can amalgamate the OVAs here and then combine it with the list. When complete I can safely claim that the article will look at least GA. If teh new series is released we shouldn't put info here but create a separate article with teh title List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes (new series) if and when it comes out. This is how it won't get swamped with edits. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A list cant be GA. It can be FL.Tintor2 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: D'oh! サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right I have edited the lead slightly in the version on one of my user pages. I combined both the old lead and the new lead. I have also added in the OVA section. This ensures that it has been updated as far as possible. Also I'm just waiting for some feedback now. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I have made the final edits to the article on my userpage. I need some feedback. I want to make this FA-List class as soon as possible. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the article with the version on userpage. I chasing after FA status now. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmh, there are too many images. Summaries from some episodes were trimmed. I recommend to have a look in the Bleach seasons or the D.Gray-man episodes.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I have a few concerns. First, is it just me, or does it look like crap now that the English titles are smushed into a tiny column? Second, are the episode summaries going to be expanded? That is a ton of data removal right there and I'm pretty sure that you can use parts of the previous episode summaries to build the ones we need for FL. Thanks! DARTH PANDAduel 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I just realized that several (if not all) of these episodes had individual pages written for them at one point. While I agree that these pages were correctly merged into this list, would an admin be able to retrieve the deleted plot summaries for use on this page? I would be very willing to help cut down on each summary as this would be far quicker than having me rewrite each summary from scratch. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIRtalk 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found the episode summaries! This may take a few days (or weeks, depending on how busy I am) to do, so bear with me! NOCTURNENOIRtalk 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important News 

message: Okay, can some explane the differace between fullmetal Alchemist: the main show and the Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood?  I am not getting the plot line... cause isn't Elisa borning as Ed getting his Alchemist certificate? Belleberly (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're two separate series. The original FMA anime series followed the manga's plotline only for a couple dozen episodes or so, and then diverged after it caught up with the manga and attempted to tie everything up in 52 episodes and a film. FMA: Brotherhood is supposed to follow the manga's plotline much more closely (I haven't seen any of it, though, so I can't judge, but from the sounds of reviews I've read, it seems it doesn't start with the beginning of the series), and basically completely ignores the first anime series beyond allowing it to explain some concepts (once again, from what I understand). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between series?