Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 5

message: I just wondering what everyone's opinion is on using the ISO date format in articles. I know that the ANN Encyclopedia often lists dates in the ISO format whenever it can. And since putting the square brackets will cause the wiki to automatically format the date to the users preference (ex. 2006-04-26 becomes 2006-04-26), using the ISO format shouldn't be a problem. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the Japanese (ISO 8601) format. It makes converting dates from Japanese articles much easier. I've been using a macro that does 2005年11月17日 → 2005, November 17 when translating articles. But 2005年11月17日 → 2005-11-17 would be easier when I manually convert. --Kunzite 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the idea using standard wikipedia date format (e.g. 26 April2006) was that user preferences would reformat that date into the users preferred date format? (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) "Date Formatting") I know the date format per-user is selectable in preferences... I'm sure I'm missing the point, but if I don't ask I won't learn. n.n ~Kylu (u|t)  04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ISO 8601 dates do get reformatted per user preferences: 2005-11-17  → 2005-11-17 Unregistered users do get a mouseover text with the spelled out date. --Kunzite 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The best way to avoid ambiguity for both the reader and the editor is to express the month as a word. Non-registered users see the dates as they are expressed. The Iso8601 format may be confusing to some readers such as children, so I prefer to use the month as a word method.  The Iso8601 format does have an important use: in tables where columns need to be a fixed width. --Squilibob 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely oppose any format that does not include the full month (in text), i.e. April 26, or 26 April. The reason is that unregistered users (who constitute most of our readers), as well as registered users who don't have a special preference (i.e. all new users and editors who want to easily spot date formatting errors), will have a problem understand a format like 2006-04-26 (or similar). I think text encyclopedias use a date format like AAA XX, XXXX (Apr 26, 2006). Can't remember for sure. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I know most of the English language printed encyclopedias I've run across use "US" style date formatting (July 4, 1776, etc) however I think it might be a distribution issue. If, for instance, I picked up a Japanese encyclopedia, wouldn't it show Japanese style dates? Same with Arabic and French? Technical encyclopedias (I've got an ARRL reference book handy) seem to use ISO dates, however. Just food for thought. ~Kylu (u|t)  01:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO date format 

message: Seiyū (for Japanese titles)
# After the battle to keep the Seiyū page, I think we would be amiss to not use the word. I think using "seiyū" is fine as it provides a link and anyone not familiar with the word (or unable to figure it out from context) can simply click the link. This is standard on almost all WP pages which use technical or jargon terms: just make sure the word is linked so anyone unfamiliar with it can click and find out what it is. We aren't going for the lowest common denominator here. This is an encyclopedia, and even the most learned person is going to, from time to time, run across words with which they are unfamiliar. ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. As long as it's linked I don't have major objections to it.  It might not be my preferred style, but it's totally acceptable in my book. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every instance of seiyū that I've seen has linked the first instance as it should be. Just an fyi. Kyaa the Catlord 06:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment Actor is not actually gender specific.  The vast majority (I know, this is an uncited claim) simply use actor for both male and female.  -- Ned Scott 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's right, we're looking for a convention - a guideline not a rule. It's like parlé from Pirates of the Carribean --Squilibob 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is actually a straw poll to see if there is a consensus one way or the other, which currently doesn't look like there is. Part of the problem I have with the current poll is that there are too many options right now and we should limit the next straw poll to just two choices. We may even have to conduct an RfC to finally resolve this issue. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete ... er, I mean, yeah, a RfC would be a good idea. :) Problem is, you'll have a lot of people vote "Voiced by" simply because the majority of Wikipedians that would vote take the stance that English should be preferred over a Japanese term on the en.wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t)  21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing should change one way or the other until a concensus is formed. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: the words "voice actress/actor" or "voiced by" could also be a link to the seiyu page - Hey that's a good idea. No that's an excellent idea. --Squilibob 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I use it occassionally. I don't like how the text (Japanese) appears if you only use the Japanese name. Why not make it appear only when an optional english name is passed as a parameter to the template? --Squilibob 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: I would propose that we set as a general guideline, that all anime titles follow the Japanese name in the event that there are differences between the English name and the Japanese name. At the same time, it would also be useful to have a redirect page created from an article containing the English name to the article for the Japanese name.
For example, Karin (manga) has a seperate English name called "chibi vampire." With this model, the "chibi vampire" article would link to the "Karin (manga)" article. Doing so would help to maintain naming accuracy, and yet provide the necessary information for those who may not know the original Japanese name.
Karn-b 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current naming convention is to use the official English title as this is an English wiki, unless the foreign title is better known. For the case of Karin (manga), it is currently better known by it's Japanese title, so there is no need to move it at this point. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current resolution of having an automatic redirect from Chibi Vampire is an acceptable workaround. But I am biased in this case, there is nothing chibi about Karen. Maybe a touch loli, but she's no runt. Kyaa the Catlord 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but what I was trying to propose that this were introduced as part of the guidelines - that the Japanese title takes precidence (with the exception of existing articles - I don't think the Oh! My Goddess people would be happy to moving it back to Aa! Megami-sama) for the reasons above Karn-b 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As TheFarix said, there is already a guideline, in fact a policy (WP:NC), and it says that the English title takes precedence, except in some rare cases. Introducing a guideline that directly contradicts the WP:NC policy is not an option, unless the policy is changed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I must have missed that. I can see the argument in that case. Karn-b 15:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime names: Japanese or English?

message: I've tried to add some cites to the Americanization article and cannot get them to display. Could someone help? I'd much appreciate it. Kyaa the Catlord 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it. This new system is pretty cool; it makes citing a whole lot easier. - mako 09:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I first encountered it thanks to user:pfahlstrom and now that I've used it, I think its groovy. Just kinda... new. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help please

message: What is the general decorum when it comes to splitting an article? Do we hold a discussion first, or do people usually just do it? Rozen Maiden seems to be growing fact, and has shot past the 35 kb size. Karn-b 15:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be too worried about the size warning. Though, I do think the character descriptions could use some trimming first and that some of the story sections should be combined. If anything should be split off the article, it should first be the lists of media information. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never asked for consensus before when splitting an article, though putting the  tag on the top of the page while you're planning the changes would probably be a good idea. --Squilibob 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rozen Maiden - article split 

message: We usually don't explain in other places that names are listed in western order.  Why do we need to explain this on character pages? --Kunzite 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that the reader will know immediately what the person's given and surnames are, and not confuse the two. --Squilibob 05:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not usually used elsewhere on wikipedia (other than list pages) i.e. Chunichi Dragons or Ken-Ichiro Kobayashi. This is more of an issue for WP:MOS-JA --Kunzite 05:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well all I would like is consistency. If it isn't needed then pages that already have such a sentence should have it removed. The nihongo template works well to differenciate the names as long as there is kanji for the name as well. --Squilibob 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only ones who need the explanation are the Japanophiles. Your average English reader probably doesn't realize that there are different naming conventions other then GN SN. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is that there is an unspoken precedent to the way article layout is presented. It is inconsistant just like the seiyu/voice actor thing and the kanji. Do we do it this way or that? There is a group of us adding lots of content but we're not all on the same wavelength and we'll be more productive if we all keep to an agreed style and the layout of all articles will be consistant for the readers and other editors. --Squilibob 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See proposal on WP:MOS-JA entitled Using kanji with links to other articles. --Kunzite 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought it was pretty common to insert a space between the kanji/kana of the family name and given name anyway, just to show which is which. It's not always completely apparent. For example, the seiyū Mari Maruta (まるたまり) had her name written as "Tamari Maru" in several episodes of Geneon's release of Sailor Moon.  I mainly use the space because it's generally what I see in the Japanese seiyū articles and other English articles relating to anime. I do not have a problem with omitting the space, but I can see why it is used. (Revision: Of course, now I realize that problem could be easily handled with the pronunciation guide, debunking that argument. Ah... whatever, it does allow casual readers to tell which kanji is the family name and which is given upon first sight at least, I guess) --EmperorBrandon 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to explain that names are in western order? 

message: one article this place could use would be a list of anime fan types, including hardcore otaku, fangirls, fanboys, Underground Anime Fans (see my profile), and such.(Vance Clarend 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles for these already exist: otaku, fanboy,  Fan (aficionado) (which includes sections on both fanboys and fangirls) article. Things like "hardcore" and "underground" involve too much POV, so I don't think we'll be seeing those types of articles. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime fan "types" 

message: Could somebody look at this edit and determine if it's a valid edit or vandalism?  Thank you.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More then likely, but the article is also listy and should be cleaned up. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I could help by implementing a table to compact the data better and shorten the scrolling length of the article, but I'll wait on the verification of that edit.  My opinion is that it's vandalism, too, based on the mass amount of removals, but I'm not familiar enough with the series to confirm. --Crisu 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a valid edit?

message: I created some articles relating to the series. I know little about it. Will someone care to expand them. --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD bait! If you can't provide more then that, then it's probably better that the articles not exist. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Legend of the Galactic Heroes]] 

message: I was under the impression that it had been deleted and removed from most articles.  Someone has re-created it.  Should we use it or not?  Should we remove it from articles? It's rather large and unfriendly to me. --Kunzite 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it is large and unfriendly. Could be redesigned so there isn't so much whitespace, but does anyone actually use this thing? --Squilibob 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the old AFD from 2005.. Seems they suggested replacing it with an info box (which now exists.)  I think I might re-TFD it.  --Kunzite 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be more useful if we split it up. Have a "List of manga by English title" template (remove the Japanese listing from it and replace it with a single link to the Japanese list instead), a "List of manga-ka" template (but only use it on Manga-ka articles), and get rid of the "List of manga distributors" altogether (it's easier to just put that in the "See also" section).--SeizureDog 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Mangalist]] 

message: I'd apriciate any help with this. I need someone to write 1,2 line episode synopsies... --Cat out 12:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes]]

message: A few weeks ago, some Rambo admin moved Berserk to Berserk (manga) and redirected Berserk to Berserker. I immediately redirected it to berserk (manga) to prevent the massive destruction of links. On May 22nd, Someone redirected berserk to berserker and moved some of the wikilinks to berserk (manga). (note his reason listed was "Poper redirect. real life takes precedence over an cartoon" despite the fact it'd odd to call berserk a "cartoon" and that in real life only academia calls a berserker a "berserk")  This caused someone else to list Berserk (manga) as a candidate for moving it back to Berserk, where it had been for well over a year.  Please read my comments at the bottom of Talk:Berserk (manga) to see why I feel the article about the manga and anime series should be at Berserk.  On another note, when this mess is over, I'd like to get the berserk-related articles cleaned up, as many of them were written/severely edited by someone  with no command of the English language -Aknorals 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly Berserk needs to be a disambiguation page. That is what they are for. --Squilibob 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it really even warrents a disambiguation page. I've never heard anyone actually refer a berserker as a "berserk". I don't see why a simple "This article is about the manga Berserk, for the Scandinavian warrior see Berserker." wouldn't suffice.--SeizureDog 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that's fair enough, and there is a disambiguation page anyway, so maybe it could be done similarly to Naruto with the anime/manga page at Berserk and a statement This article is about the manga and anime series. For other uses see Berserk (disambiguation). --Squilibob 00:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair enough. Though I will point out that Berserk (disambiguation) redirects to Berserker (disambiguation)--SeizureDog 03:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I already did that. Back in January 2005, in fact. (Someone has sense vandalised it, which I reverted) Though resently I have made it read: For other articles related to the word "berserk", such as berserkers see Berserker (disambiguation) to do those few people who might be looking for the norse dudes a one-click solution, not that they appear to think that is a senseable solution....  Also: if you feal that it's silly for an article about (a manga series, an anime series, 2 games, and (soon) the usage of music in said works, as well as the why the series is popular, etc) and spans multiple articles already to be a redirect to the wrong article, then please vote on Talk:Berserk (manga). I very much need your support.  -Aknorals 10:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name changes ([[Berserk (manga)]])