Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 25

message: Hey, are there any standard naming conventions for anime/manga articles? Should articles be titled for the original Japanese name, or the English title since this is the English Wikipedia? I was looking over the listings for series in Kodensha's Afternoon monthly and I noticed that some were in English and some were under the Japanese title, and in the process of updating it changed one to English. Same question for names of characters (first name first or family name first?). -SeaFox (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our style guidelines, Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. So if it's licensed, use the official English version, pretty much; otherwise, unless it's really well-known by an unofficial translation, use the Japanese. —Quasirandom (speak) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be helpful to bring up the issue if it's going to cause some issues, such as at Zero no Tsukaima or Kimi ga Nozomu Eien which both have official English releases but still retain their Japanese titles for other reasons.--十八 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very a much a case-by-case basis. Most of the time, when using Japanese names we go with given name and then family name. The link Quasirandom gave to WP:MOS-AM clarifies that and a lot of other things, with links to the relevant Wiki-wide policies and guidelines. --Masamage ♫ 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the charcter has two names, one from a Dub, and one from the orginal, The orginal seems to normally be the one to go with unless you are referring to the dub version. If dub is more of a translation (Newer animes), than something totally different (IE:Sailor Moon) its what ever is more popular. As for titles, its what ever is more common amoung fans. This is all in my veiw btw. Lego3400:  The Sage of Time (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions? 

message: Appears to be completely defunct, considering that there is no activity whatsoever in a collaborative member by project members, and practically every single piece of featured or good content has been written and worked on by non-project members. The large number of members is more or less a large collection of very new editors, many of whom joined as their first action in editing Wikipedia. I've currently tagged it as , but I believe a merge back to WP:ANIME would be appropriate. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could probably be done for Portal:Naruto, which basically did what WP:NARUTO did but at the wrong namespace. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that as well. It's more or less useless given that there's no incentive to keep it updated or maintained, and one of its original purposes, providing an FAQ for vandals who changed "Might Guy" to "Maito Gai" for instance, was never utilized on a wide scale. It can be done away with. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created that FAQ, actually. I might actually merge it back to the original space since User:Sandtiger, the creator of the portal, copy and pasted it from the original space, potentially causing a GFDL violation. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I support moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Naruto taskforce. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is a task force. I'm saying that it isn't needed due to inactivity and lack of usefulness, and should be done away with. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be made into a simplified page that would just help editors find Naruto articles to work on. Like, just list the articles or categories, maybe some show-specific advice, and that's it. Then it wouldn't really need to be maintained. Not sure if it would be useful or not, but Naruto is a surprisingly popular topic on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Surprisingly" how? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe Ned is referring to Naruto is the second-most visited actual article on WP, after Wiki, and seventh overall (see the above thread). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Naruto seems to be doing better than say the Gundam wikiproject (which I believe has no pages even close to GA or FA). - Toothpyx (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Sephirot's first comment again. --Mika1h (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Every single GA and FL was written by editors not part of WP:NARUTO (yours truly and a few other editors), and there was zero contributions to those articles by the task force. Heck, there would have been no one to post that there were any good or featured articles related to Naruto if I hadn't put it on the task force page. Ned Scott's proposal sounds intriguing though, and seems to be a nice solution to our present predicament. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If it is inactive then it probably should go to WP:MfD to have the page deleted. Same could be said for the biography workgroup that never got off the ground. I've already put their banner template up for deletion because it was never used and it can be integrated into the main project's banner if it is really needed. --Farix (Talk) 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Filed for deletion here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NARUTO]] 

message: Possibly stupid thought I'd like to run by people for a sanity check. Would an article listing the longest-running manga be of any use? or at least, pass the being encyclopedic test? It would need some sort of obvious criteria, such as (pulling milestone numbers out of a hat) either have run for at least 25 years or is collected in at least 50 tankobon. This would include, that I know of, Crest of the Royal Family, Glass Mask, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Abu-san, Haguregumo, InuYasha, Doraemon, and, um, the one about the police station with the long title I can never remember. (Some of which series I only learned of this week, I'm embarrassed to say.) (Edit: Actually, Doraemon just misses that criteria. Huh.) (Edit2: Oh, right, also Golgo 13.)
Running that long is in itself something of a notable thing, an acheivement I think worth pointing out. Indeed, the number of manga started in the 70s still running today is pretty remarkable. (Plus, on the purely personal front, it would give me something to point to when a forum n00b claims trumpets about Naruto (or more cluefully InuYasha) being teh longest manga evah doods.) Thoughts? Opinions? Insults? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I would have a hard time seeing that as being a good list (maybe because of the suggested name).  To me, "longest-running manga" would be maybe one or two titles...i.e. the one that has run the longest in terms of years and in terms of length.  It is a notable thing to be mentioned on the individual manga's page, and probably as part of the discussion on manga in general, but not sure on having a whole list.  There would have to be some sourceable criteria for what is considered a long running series in Japan (i.e. how many years before its considered long running there, and how many volumes?) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The guidelines seems too arbitrary. This was the same problem we had with List of anime conventions' original criteria, which was that it must primarily be an anime convention, 2 or more days, at least 2K in attendance (or the largest con in the state/province/country), running for at least 3 years, and already had a Wikipedia article. The only criteria that was kept after the RfC were the first and last ones—and I've already had some editors complain when I removed cons from the list that have no articles. --Farix (Talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) The criterion for such a list would be a bit subjective, and thus provide a possible WP:NPOV violation. Unless there are multiple reliable sources that write up such lists, then I don't think it's plausible. For instance, List of United States business school rankings compiles rankings from multiple sources. Something of the sort would have to be given to provide a set of concrete criteria for the page to be based on. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right -- sanity-checked it is. Though, yeah, the name was wrong -- I should have typed "long-running." —Quasirandom (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Though speaking of long-running, I also just learned of Asari-chan, which lasted 76 volumes and sold over 26 million copies. Man, we've got big holes in our coverage.... —Quasirandom (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think something similar would be a great idea. There are many lists of longest-running TV shows, for instance, beginning with List of longest running TV shows by category and on through List of longest running U.S. broadcast network television series. Clearly there's a way to do this properly. --Masamage ♫ 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of longest-running manga 

message: I've looked all over the internet for a bio on Hidenari Ugaki, but I can't find anything.Kitty53 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sites. Not too much info - Seiyuu info, ANN, Japanese wikilink -Rezumop (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bio for a future article 

message: Hello. I am improving interwiki links of stub templates between jawp and enwp. Although there is Template:Adultgame-stub in jawp, is there any corresponding stub template in enwp? This stub categorizes almost anime/manga-style picture games (it is unsalable to people less than 18 years old). --Nightshadow28 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest thing we have to that is , and seeing as most adult games in Japan (eroge), are visual novels, I think that one can be used in place of the Japanse wiki's adult game stub template.--十八 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will discuss with your information at that wiki. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki of stub template 

message: There are a few editors who have taken an extreme interpretation of the guideline portion of WP:NFC to mean that images are banned from any list or group article regarding characters. This has never had consensus, and directly conflicts with what is allowed per WP:NFCC. When I raised this issue with User:Betacommand, his suggestion was to break WP:FICT and simply split the characters into independent articles, which has no bearing on WP:NFC. I strongly encourage everyone to get involved at WT:NFC. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, his suggestion is to basically undo a lot of the work done lately to clean up the glut of character articles? I've seen that thing running through character articles and I'm surprised it hasn't hit ANI or the like yet.  I think he is completely misinterpreting the NFC.  That said, so far, most of the removals I have seen have been for removing 20-30 images from a character list.  That has been frowned on for awhile now, but courtesy would seem to dictate tagging the pages first and letting the editors have a chance to replace the glut of images with a few good group shots. This out right stripping seems very wrong and heavy handed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, Beta is right about many of these lists, since many of them are just a sentence or three per character. I came across this situation when he removed an image from a section that contained at least three paragraphs worth of text. Some people on the talk page would have us believe that this is going much farther than was indented, being applied to just about any grouping of characters, regardless of how much is being discussed about that character. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another example, . He's removing the handful of images on List of The Big O characters. That's where I very much disagree with him. Policy and guidelines do not support removing those images. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example: List of Maria-sama ga Miteru characters. Those two articles are actually good examples of when to use non-free images for characters. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...actually, I'd say Maria-sama has too many images too.  Many of the characters are repeated in multiple images, so some could be eliminated. :P Its not as bad as some, but probably not the best example of a good use of images in a character list.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, looking at it again I see what you mean. Although, even with eliminating some, Betacommand's line of thought seems to be that even the remaining would not be allowed. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the proble with the marimite list is the caption not presenting the purpose of the pairings of the girls in the show and the art style differences between the animations and the manga. This could improve the rationale for usage on the page and easily make the images meet the reqs. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On this same note, we should still make a good effort to find group shots whenever we can for these kinds of articles. Although, like Kyaa points out, there can be other reasons for some images, such as differences between the anime and manga, or something else. In any case, I'm sure there's many that can be cleaned up, even if just a little bit. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt to ban images from character lists 

message: I don't know if you all knew about this subproject of yours, but it's been nominated for deletion. Personally, as someone who once in a while does something with the Biography project, I wouldn't mind seeing such a group exist. However, as the page is a subpage of your project, I think your opinions should probably carry more weight than my own. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Biography. Alternately, if you would prefer to make it a part of the Biography project, indicate as much on the MfD discussion page and I'll check to see what if anything can be done. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be a joint subproject of (or child of) both this and Biography. And publicized more. (I've spent the last couple weeks creating stubs of mangaka who've won the two major manga awards, and failing to tag per guidelines -- just tagging as part of this project). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Biography]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Sailor-Moon-stub-List}}]] 

message: Is there a quick (or even possible) way for someone who doesn't read Japanese to find and cite the Oricon chart listings? Or is it pretty-much beyond the ken of the English-only? (There's a statement in Yotsuba&! that volume seven reached number one on the Oricon comics chart for the week of 8 October 2007, which I'm trying to find a citation for.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to find any rankings from before December on Oricon's manga rankings page. It's possible there's a site somewhere which archives them, though.　I did a quick search, but didn't find anything which looked like an archive of the charts. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I should have asked this back when the editor first added the statement. *sigh* Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible the chart may be in an issue of Animage released around that time. I know they have charts of some sort for this kind of thing. Newtype]] may have it as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know about Oricon (I'd only heard them used to talk about music before) but ANN and other manga sites usually use the Touhan ranking. They have Yotsuba&! 7 debuting at number 2 on Oct 4th. Doceirias (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you (or someone) give extract an exact URL so I can  it? My Japanese isn't secure enough for me to be sure I'm looking at the right page. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: October 4th Doceirias (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thankee much! —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the Oricon charts? 

message: Would interested parties please add the Tite Kubo article to your watchlist? In the last two and a half years, this article has spent more weeks with bad information than with good, such that this spurious information has been copied all around the web (including to tv.com and even buy.com) as if it were true information. This false information, including statements regarding Bleach's purported rejection by Shueisha and Akira Toriyama's intervention, does not appear in the Japanese Wikipedia article or any reliable biography, but was first added to the English article by an anonymous user in August 2005. There is no reason to believe that it is at all accurate, and less obviously false revisions of this information are still founded on this tainted source. Please help keep this urban legend out of the article, and please help keep users from adding references to this information as printed on fansites and other sites that got it from Wikipedia in the first place. —pfahlstrom (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tite Kubo article and spurious information 

message: The Alice Academy article could use some TLC from the project.  The main article is in pretty bad shape, focusing almost entirely on plot, with almost no information on production or the manga (even though the article should focus on the manga as the source material).  The episode list is hideous and almost pointless in its current form. It's List of Alice Academy characters is in even worse shape, and not only needs clean up, copy editing, and referencing, but also has a ton of individual articles that need to be merged back to the main.  I've started a discussion on the merging on the talk page, starting with one article, but the only person who seems to be editing either article just keeps detagging.  I'd do it myself, but I've already got my hands full with a couple of other problem children. :P Any volunteers? AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, but I couldn't get through the first volume. :P The job probably needs someone at least familiar with (and a little sympathetic with) the series. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice Academy 

message: It appears there is some serious arguing going on over at Talk:List of One Piece characters regarding a massive merge proposal.  I'm working on updating our very out of date Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Merge list, but for the quick and dirty, 48 individual character articles are proposed for merging.  Its pretty heated, especially with the fans, but perhaps some cooler heads and other project folks might want to go in and inject some project guidelines and views to try to get things sorted out and work commenced? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of One Piece characters 

message: Another massive merge suggested is to merge approximately 36 individual character articles into List of characters in Oh My Goddess!.  This one seems to have consensus already on the talk page, since it came about via an AfD, however no one has started the work.  Volunteers? :-P AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The characters are merged, but the entries need to be cleaned up. I know nothing of the series, so I just used what was available. TTN (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of characters in Oh My Goddess!

message: I would like to get more eyes to review the proposed version of Notability (fiction) beyond what those participating on the current talk page have provided.  This is not to get consensus for it yet, but to make sure there are no major issues with it before going to that step.  Please address any concerns on WT:FICT.  Thank you. --MASEM 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review proposed WP:FICT guideline 

message: Another massive merge suggested is to merge approximately 40 individual character articles of the series Saint Seiya. I asked editors of that page but nobody answered. Help? :-P. Tnak you. Tintor2 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Seiya

message: X (manga) has been a good article nominee for over a month now. Can someone review it?--Nohansen (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination has been put on hold. I think I fixed everything but the plot. This is an action series... an unfinished one at that! It's kinda hard to describe the plot without going into "excessive details of twists and turns in the story". I believe the Plot and Characters sections explain what the series is about pretty well, but the reviewer wants more. Is there someone who can help?--Nohansen (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see what they mean.  The plot section isn't a plot section at all, but a synopsis and borderline teaser.  While we don't need full blow by blow, a longer summary is needed, particularly for such a lengthy series. You mentioned seven story arcs below, but you couldn't tell it was more than a short story from the plot.  Why not try summarizing each completed story arc in paragraph form in the plot. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[X (manga)]]: Good article nominee 

message: Hello, folks! We may need to comb through Shaman King and help rearrange, merge, and consolidate articles. In particular we need to get the character guides, add real world info about characters, and determine which ones keep separate articles. Those that do not make the cut are in a main characters page. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to the pile ... —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do I have to add it to a certain place? Or is this just a figure of speech? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a list on the project page here. I added it for you. Rezumop (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article series to rearranage and cleanup: [[Shaman King]]

message: How Can I Join? Uzumaki Dude (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just start editing. :) --Masamage ♫ 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can join. But please be familiar with the guidelines at WP:MOS-AM and WP:MOS-JP (and WP:MOS in general), and of course it wouldn't hurt to look at WP:WAF either since that's what most anime/manga-related articles fall under.--十八 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I join? 

message: Compare as of now vs. 
the excess plot.  I've reverted 2 additions and left a message on their talk page which is getting ignored.  I wouldn't consider it disruptive unless they keep persisting despite attempts by other editors to keep the plot at a reasonable length without going into too much detail.  The IP's additions however are justification for slapping a  in there and I think the current version of the plot is fine without going into too much detail or getting too long, which is how it has been now for several months.  I'm mentioning this because I get into 3 revert rule territory if I keep reverting the additions and would like some additional eyes on it until this person either wises up or something happens because of their persistence.  BrokenSphereMsg me 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recommend semi-protect. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep that in mind if it becomes a recurring issue.  BrokenSphereMsg me 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just happened to check Vagabond (manga) after visiting Slam Dunk (manga) (since I didn't know they were done by the same mangaka), and found that Vagabond has some serious excess plot issues as well. Just bringing it up in case anyone wants to deal with it.--SeizureDog (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it for multiple issues and added it to the front page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some IP is trying to add excessive plot detail to [[Slam Dunk (manga)]] 

message: Anyone want to take care of :Category:Lupin III television specials by smerging them to List of Lupin III television specials? --Farix (Talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lupin III television specials 

message: The merger of the episode articles into List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes is  nearly complete. The four director's cut episodes are the only things remaining to completely merge. And that is a matter of how best to merge the information about the added scenes. Also, it may be possible to finally push the article to Featured List status by giving it a good intro and information about the various releases. --Farix (Talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes 

message: Can anyone recommend some sources on where to find the Japanese titles for manga chapters?  Some, like Kare Kano, are actually included in each volume, some articles already have them, but then with something like Wolf's Rain they are missing and each chapter/grope has a title, so I'd like to include it in the list, but I can't find them anywhere. Any ideas? AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best source is to find someone with the original manga. Outside of that, some series will have fan pages listing them, but most do not. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga lists and Japanese Titles 

message: Another user has removed the demographic from the Wolf's Rain infobox, saying it only applies only when the manga series is the first work, not ones where the anime came first.  At first I argued, but for now I've let it stand while I come here to find out for sure.  So, is this user correct in that demographics are only for manga first articles? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Demographic refers to the target demographic of the mangazine in which a manga/novel was published. Original anime (not adapted from a previous publication) don't belong to any target demographic. If the anime spanned a manga adaptation it's better to indicate demographic of said manga in the articles' body, as it would be misleading to indicate this in the infobox. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I was looking for views from the project and other editors besides you since you were the one who did the edit, while the issue never came up in the article's Peer Review. :-P AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't believe there is a policy about it either way, but it's one I've often argued. There's a strong tendency to apply demographic terms to everything, even when they really wouldn't be used that way in Japan. I entirely agree with Kazu-kun on the issue, and would strongly recommend that this be incorporated into the project guidelines. Doceirias (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good to set it out, and particularly to include it in the infobox instructions in a clearer format. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The demographic field in the infobox includes any anime and manga where a clear demographic can be identified through reliable sources. Most of the time, it is through the Japanese magazines which we identify most demographics, but its not limited to them. --Farix (Talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We use magazines as sources because publishers are the only ones who set target demographic. Anime producers don't do this, and we cannot use other sources because only the creators can set a target demographic for their products. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that anime producers don't have target demographics, but that they must appeal to a much broader market than a magazine due to the costs involved. There anime that's obviously aimed at young kids, or at teen girls, teen boys, college kids, families, or pornophiles. However, except for the first and latter ones, they generally include things which will appeal to more than just their main audience. Anime demographics are generally far more fuzzy than those used by manga magazines. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they must have a target audience, but if they don't disclose that information, as manga/novel publishers do, we can't do anything about it. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic 

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: User:The Clawed One posted these comments on the MOS page and was redirected to here:
"
I was wondering if anyone here knows of any Japanese sites or magazines or whatnot that could provide reliable secondary sources for the characters of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. Cast interviews, show reviews, bios done by secondary materials. Any help anyone has would be appreciated. The Clawed One (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the magazine archive gets bigger, it will be more and more important to always check the What liks here link, as you will find links back to the archive if there's a particular magazine that has an article about the topic. This article has this issue of Animage with something in it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yu-Gi-Oh! GX - help with reliable secondary sources for the characters of [[Yu-Gi-Oh! GX]]

message: I couldn't see where to list current FACs on the main page, so I'm listing it here. If you are interested in participating in the dsicussion, please come to the discussion. Please note that including reasoning behind your opinion is strongly encouraged, and if you find issues with the article, please bring them up so they can be addressed. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga at FAC 

message: Is there any guidance as to what qualifies as an original airdate?  For example, should episodes or episode lists mention only the original Japanese airdate, or should the original airdate in English dub/sub be mentioned as well (using the AltDate parameter in )?  Astronaut (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For anime episode lists, make sure to use  instead of the regular one.  Its already set up for handling that and the Japanese and english titles.  The original Japanese air date should always be set as OriginalAirDate. If it aired in English, then whatever the first English airdate was would go in FirstEngAirDate.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates 

message: I was going to go about creating some stubs for various works by Osamu Tezuka, but I stopped after I realized that I wasn't sure if they should be under the Japanese or English titles. Many of his works are unlicensed, but still are quite well known by certain English translations (e.g. New Treasure Island). The current standard set by articles such as Marvelous Melmo is to use these, as far as I know, unofficial English titles. Should they be moved to their Japanese titles?--SeizureDog (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tezuka Osamu World is the official Tezuka Productions English site. Maybe we could use the titles they use?...--Nohansen (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osamu Tezuka articles 

message: Just to inform you guys, Loituma Girl is at Good article reassessment in here. --Mika1h (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Loituma Girl]] 

message: Can I please get some guidance on what some general fair use rationales might be for character images? (like in Wikipedia:Use rationale examples, which doesn't cover character artwork)  "Sole depiction of character" is one that's good for when you're not using any other pictures, but are there any others? -Malkinann (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Character images?

message: Ok, I basically did what I could with this list. I'm not sure what more is needed to push it on to featured list. Someone with more experience then I can take a crack at it. Then they can work on List of Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG episodes. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little work on the two incomplete sections, but I've never seen the series so someone else will probably want to take a look at both.  The only other thing I noticed is that some of the summaries are a bit long and need to be tightened up (no more than 10 lines is usually what I hear when I hit FLC). AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That many? I've been trying to limit myself to 2 or at most 3 sentences per episode. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from the FLC's I've been through, and others I've read, 2-3 line summaries are generally considered too short.  The summaries should include all major plot points of the episode, without excessive details.  5-6 lines are generally good, and up to 10 for complex plots. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh. Okay, I'll have to go back and beef up what I've been writing a bit. Though right now I'm working on a slice-of-life series, so there aren't exactly a lot of plot points. Um, when you say "lines" -- how wide is your screen? Or better yet, how many sentences or (roughly) words is that? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh, good point.  I always forget screen width makes a dif. :-P  Check out List of Trinity Blood episodes.  That's one that recently went to FL status where the summaries were modified during the FLC to be not too short and not too long. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  'K discarding the shortest and longest as outliers, those are between 4 and 10 sentences, or 75 and 175 words, or 3 and 6 lines on my screen, each. There's some rules of thumb for ya. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that, I got a little liberal with second season summaries. I did the best I could to leave the ending details out so as not to ruin the series too much. BTW, if you would like, I can expand the first season summaries from the notes I have here at the house. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually episode summaries should include ending details. Wikipedia isn't a spoiler free zone and not mentioning the endings would not be giving a full summary of the episode. It's minor events that can be short summarized or not included. One thing that's helped me, because I am notorious for writing overly long summaries, is to ask myself if each sentence is necessary for understanding the overall events of the episode, or could the reader still know the over all "what happened" without knowing that particular bit. Kind of like when telling a friend what happened on an episode of TV the night before...you usually don't break it down scene by scene :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes]] 

message: Almost every single article for the series JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has been marked as a stub, needing cleanup, needing citations/sources, or has had all of the images deleted due to fair-use rationale issues. Who would be interested in helping out/starting a workgroup with this series?Hatewind (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Workgroup

message: I know I've seen a few anime episodes already use one of these, but I've created three templates that can help with redirection classification.
* - for episode redirections (I would also say this applies to manga volumes, if such did have redirections, but if a new one is needed specifically, that's not a problem to make up.)
* - for fictional character redirections
* - for fictional elements redirections (eg everything but characters).
Each supports an optional parameter that can be used to include the name of the work the episode, character, or element.  Eg:  would classify the redirection into :Category:Naruto episode redirects to lists, and without it, to :Category:Episode redirects to lists.  
What is nice then is that these show/work-specific categories can be added to a general category as to have all related pages together but still indicate which have been redirected.  For example, the aforementioned Naruto episode redirect category could be cateogorized into :Category:Naruto (or an appropriate sub-cat of that). --MASEM 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some useful redirection categorization tools 

message: I've added this to the cleanup lists on the project page, but following through on the AfD result, here's a notice that it's another requiring expert attention. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, much of the Negima related material suffers from large quantities of fancruft.  As for this magic article, it seems better to eliminate the list of "spells" to focus more on series magic abstractly. KyuuA4 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Magic in Negima]] 

message: The general rule of thumb seems to be about 6-10 sentences, or 100-200 words or so, is generally good enough to summarize most manga volumes and anime episodes.  What about light novels, though? Do we have any rule of thumb for those. I'm getting ready to do a media list for Trinity Blood (which has 12 novels all together), and the first RAM novel covers the equivalent of 3-4 anime episodes.  So would 400-700 words be correct (in line with a film plot length), or would most find that too long, particular with the tabular format we usually use? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'd have to see some in action before being able to judge, but I'd probably try to keep it to 400-500 words. Does the Literature Wikiproject have any guidelines for plot summaries of full-sized novels? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no specific guidelines for length of plot summary in the WP:Novels MOS due to the fact that the length and detail of novels can vary greatly. Showers (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Novel summaries 

message: I was about to take a crack at the above article, separating it into three seasons, and making it similar to the format of List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. My main problem is that the English adaptation's use of the episodes is utterly confusing, with episodes switched around there and there, and half of the episodes not even aired (see ANN episode list and modified list). Would a separate List of Cardcaptors episodes be appropriate? It would heavily reduce confusion, and a field in that table can refer to the respective Japanese episode it's representing. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and just noting, this is another possible featured topic. =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comment on if we should do anything with the arc-articles? -- Ned Scott 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect to the appropriate list of when those are done.  Those arc articles are *shudder* to say the least. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't have much of a problem with the arc articles. There's.. I think five of them, that cover 70 episodes worth of information. With some clean up, I could see them as a reasonable amount of plot summary without going too far. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think separating via the three seasons would be preferable. Not only is List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season x) a better title, thirty or so episodes in one list is not excessive. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me as well. :) -- Ned Scott 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that the relationship between Cardcaptor Sakura and Cardcaptors isn't nearly as tangled as, say, Macross and Robotech, I'm wondering if it's possible to do a multi-sort table with columns for the CS and C episode number. If not, it'd probably be better to do separate lists (though with some sort of trackback between episodes of the two versions). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...if Cardcaptors didn't do any episode merging, that could be possible and probably the better solution (since I think really the current Cardcaptors could be merged into Cardcaptor Sakura with some clean up). Its not nearly as hideous as what was done to Tokyo Mew Mew and that article covers both. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC there were a couple of episodes where they 'merged', but it was probably at most two. It's not not nearly as changed as some fans would have you believe, outside of the clear oddities like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what format is preferable? Is it feasible to make a table like Quasirandom is pointing at, or is another episode list appropriate? Personally, I think that separating the two might make it easier on the reader, and easier on us in making the tables themselves. The List of Cardcaptors episodes list can have an added field indicating which Japanese episode they are based on. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be easier to just "separate" them for now, like how we have an article for Cardcaptors outside of CardCaptor Sakura. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes

message: The current exodus of anime/manga-related content to exterior wikis raise a problem: how can we tell other editors to come to the new specialized wikis without upsetting etiquette?
Exactly, is it proper to:
* post, on the talk page of the relevant series, that I am starting a project to create a wiki on that series?
* leave a message on common editors on article(s) related to that series, saying the same?
--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette in the promotion of external wikis 

message: WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live  Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FICT has been revised 

message: There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)