Talk:Voice acting in Japan

message: OK so I noticed that the attempt to delete this article has been blocked, though mostly because I didn't go through the right channels or do the right things concerning AfD policy, which I accept. No argument from me here.
However, it's still obvious to me that there is still some resistance to the reason for this article. Maybe it doesn't deserve deletion, but the posts below--and the people who wrote it--still have questions about it. So what can be done? A move request? Some other kind of vote? Anyone got some kind of suggestion? I mean, just because *I* made some bad moves regarding the deletion process doesn't mean that this article fits Wikipedia's guidelines. Drawing attention to me away from the article is only an Ad hominem fallacy. Take me out of the picture and the problems with this article (unsourced and doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines for Japanese articles) still exist.
So... anyone got any ideas? At least counters to EVERY single point against this article, as listed below? - Nick15 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or another question, is there some way to get an unbiased person (or people) involved in this matter? Because I fear anime fans who want to keep this article for reasons outside of Wikipedia guidelines will band together to vote to keep this article as is, and there are more anime fans than there are nonanime fans (at least in this corner of Wikipedia). - Nick15 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably what you're looking for, but you should make sure you've exhausted the possibilities of discussion here before proceeding, since it often has a large backlog (I haven't read this talk page so I have no comment on whether that's the case). I'm going to take your comments here as meaning that you have no objection to my closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seiyū. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Olaf, I do appreciate your help on this. I kinda figured that my AfD attempt would fall apart, BUT the whole point was to rattle the cage a bit and get the people here to push me back on the right track. I tend to do that in life a lot and it has always steered me right. - Nick15 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted Deletion 

message: The lead section says: "Popular seiyū, especially female ones such as Kikuko Inoue, Megumi Hayashibara, Aya Hirano, Aya Hisakawa, Nana Mizuki, Paku Romi and Kugimiya Rie, often have devoted international fanclubs."  This list is a bit too long for a simple "such as".  Would someone pick two or three representative ones? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that Inoue, Hayashibara, Hirano and either Park or Kugimiya (I lean towards Kugimiya) would make a good list. That gives you two older and two more recent ones, all of which are well known. If four is too many I would drop Hirano as the others have a broader range of roles. Hirano is mostly well known for one particular role rather then a range of works, compared to the others at least.Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Can't believe that Nana Mizuki was ommitted from any reference here...when she's the most successful and popular female voice actress. She's considered the Queen of Seiyuu-Singers for a reason. 174.125.94.197 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of female seyuu is too long 

message: The lead section says, "Some Japanese voice actors have capitalized on their fame to became singers, and many others became live movie or television actors." This claim deserves either a reference, or at least one example from each category (wikilinked to the respective articles).  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Seyuu who switched careers

message: The "Actors and seyuu" section should be merged into the "History" section.  (I cannot figure out the dates of the events so I cannot do it myself.)  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Actors and seyuu section

message: I've noticed that many articles still link to this article using the term "seiyu", and many other articles use the word "seiyu" instead of voice actor. Would it be appropriate to go through each article and rewrite them to remove all instances of "seiyu" (UNLESS the word "seiyu" is specifically appropriate, such as when used like "the Japanese word for 'voice actor' is 'seiyu")? What's the policy here? - 66.92.0.61 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it would be appropriate, as we have the perfectly good and widely understood term "voice actor" in English. --DAJF (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it would be a good idea to fix every other page that links to "seiyu"? - 85.234.144.145 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "seiyu" from other articles? 

message: This article is completely unsourced bar a few unreadable fan sources, and has been for years.
This article is filled with original research, and very little is verifiable.
'In Japan there are around one hundred and thirty voice-acting schools.'
So? There are acting and voice acting schools across the globe.
'Some fans may watch a show merely to hear a particular seiyū' 
And? There are people all over the globe who watch certain movies and TV shows in order to see or hear their favourite actor/voice actor. There is no way to tell if this is verifiable, even though it is cited, as it is impossible to tell if this info is accurate. And since it appears to be a fan magazine, it probably doesn't count as being an accurate, verifiable source.
 
'Conversely, the Japanese term seiyū is commonly used among English-speaking anime and game fans for Japanese voice actors.'
Any proof of this? The statement screams original research. This unverifable claim sums up this page in a nutshell: it was created for waps. Articles on Wikipedia should not be written for the fans.
Wikipedia is not the place to make things seem more important than they are. Anyone who actually reads these talk pages should know that this is the case.
For more evidence and examples of this article's problems, see:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_acting_in_Japan/Archive_1#Is_this_all_really_necessary.3F
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_acting_in_Japan/Archive_1#Some_real_problems_with_this_article
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_acting_in_Japan/Archive_1#Reply
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_acting_in_Japan/Archive_1#I_don.27t_get_it
And for Wikipedia's actual guidelines, see:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking 
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal (In regards to the 'Five ways to become a seiyū' section)
195.194.150.129 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There area several Japanese language magazines dedicated to this subject area and area already mentioned in the article. Although they are currently not used as sources in the article, that doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. —Farix (t | c) 16:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that you believe one of two things: Voice acting in Japan may be notable but the references do not show its notability well enough, or the subject is definitely not notable. In the first case, why don't you be bold and add more references yourself. In the second case, why don't you be bold and nominate this article for deletion?  Sorafune +1 03:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had access to the magazine and knew Japanese, I probably would add sources. —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no reliable sources. I have been looking. Every time I try to add the notability template, in order to try and get people to collaborate and actually work on the problem, it gets removed without consensus or even discussion. If I were to nominate this for deletion, the fans of the subject would rally round and say either 'it's important to weaboos' or 'there are a handful of magazines', as has happened in the past. This article cannot be verified, and the people who claim to say that this subject is notable have made no attempts to add these 'sources' that prove their claims. The article was created as a fork of the main voice acting article, in order to make it seem like voice acting in Japan is more important than anywhere else on Earth, which is not the case. Being bold is great when there aren't legions of fan boys/girls who state that the article is necessary and yet make no attempt to actually fix the problems. Having a quick read through the talk pages shows all of the problems that this article has, and that people have purposefully failed to address. 195.194.150.129 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we don't have enough good sources. So that's why we have the additional sources for verification tag. We don't need a notability tag.  Sorafune +1 21:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  Are you seriously contending that Voice Animage, Seiyū Grand Prix, Animec, and Newtype are not reliable sources or do not cover Japanese voice acting? These are all magazines mentioned in the article as covering the subject. The real issue with the article isn't notability, but sourcing. And for that, we need someone who can read Japanese and has access to the back-issues of these magazines. —Farix (t | c) 20:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, notability is not an issue, but there's room to improve on sourcing and general improvements to the page in general. The list of links to prove the IP's case smacks of having a dislike of the article rather then simple concerns as the article doesn't actually fail the list of guidelines being given (using shorthand for derogatory term isn't helping their case). There is no traction in claiming the subject is unnotable, especially given the number of English language sources that do exist.Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Notability 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Voice acting in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67LVL0OrY?url=http://www.aa.alpha-net.ne.jp/mamos/digital/pcm.html to http://www.aa.alpha-net.ne.jp/mamos/digital/pcm.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified