Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re character list

I have noticed in the to do list that the character section/list is to be redone. I highly suggest looking at the following article series, esp. the first two articles, as an example. Note the use of the {{tl:Main}} template, and the fact that the main article uses prose, as opposed to a list, for the character section.

Regards, G.A.S 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are old sandboxed character lists here (Main Characters), here (Supporting characters) and here (Villians). Although I have not worked on them myself, and the user has not been active in a long time, they might be worth looking at. G.A.S 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The first one could be a good shell to start a real character list with, though we'll also need to look at doing some merging. It would be a needed first step. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the format used with the Metal Gear Solid series? I believe it is a good example due to the compliance with WP:SS and WP:SIZE. G.A.S 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly like it. It has too many sub-articles which are unlikely to meet WP:FICT, and it doesn't meet the anime/manga MOS formatting. I'd rather we look at anime/manga character lists for guidance than a video game list, as the VG list doesn't really address the issue of differences in versions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What I refer to in particular is the use of {{main}} per WP:SS, and the use of paragraphs in the main article; as well as the outline of the list. I did not actually refer to the subarticles, per se. The main issue with most TV related character lists are the trend to link to subarticles via the section title, not {{main}}; they thus fail following the manual of style. Nor did I actually refer to content, as this is as you say, where anime lists are more applicable. As you also correctly state, character articles, if any, should follow WP:MOS-ANIME. Regards, G.A.S 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well yes, I'd agree we shouldn't be linking headers but should use main, and certainly prefer paragraphs to lists and/or that indent thing some lists use. :P Sorry I misunderstood. Two lists I have done some extensive work on that reflect the usual style I follow are List of Blood+ characters and List of Trinity Blood characters. In particular, it shows the handling of the voices not seen in Metal Gear. What do you think? Are those in line with your idea? (sans the excessive non-free on TB, which we're still working on LOL).AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Those lists are about what I have in mind, although we really need external sources as well. The characters sections in those articles are also what I have in mind. Re excessive non-free images: TMM was much, much, worse at some point [1], [2], not to mention all of the other non-free images you probably are aware of. G.A.S 07:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree on outside sources. Those two are still very much WIPs. With TB, the source novels have only recently started being released here, while Blood+ is still airing and Sony doesn't release the DVDs until after the eps have aired (doh). :) Tokyo Mew Mew shouldn't have any of those problems, fortunately. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(←) The AfD has been closed (result - no consensus). I presume that the best approach would be to get a proper list up and running, merging and moving information as necessary. We can decide what to do with it after said proper list has been compiled. G.A.S 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we can start by at least going ahead and cleaning out the minor list to remove the ones we are pretty sure are not going to stay, like the episodic characters. I've been bold and removed the most obvious ones to me if you'd like to take a look and hit anymore (or put any back if you feel they are notable to the series). AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removals, they are not all that important. I believe we should actually move List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew to List of characters in Tokyo Mew Mew, and then add appropriate sections for all major characters. That way there will only be a single article history. G.A.S 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Move done (moved to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters per standard naming convention) :) I've also done a quick and dirty set up of the major characters using the sandbox. The formatting needs to be fixed, and several articles will need to go ahead and be merged here, but that gets us started I think. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To merge: The following articles can also be merged into the character list, they fail WP:FICT: Ringo Akai, Cyniclons. G.A.S 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Added :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: redirected articles

(←) Regarding the redirected articles. The links to those pages should be updated and linked to the video games (etc.) section in the main article. I believe we should try to at least mention these characters in the appropriate section. G.A.S 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Some of the links from the main article are redirected back to the article itself. This should also be fixed. G.A.S 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For the video game characters they do not need mention at all beyond what I believe is already there, that a new mew mew or new enemy was created for the game. We can put in the names if they aren't already there, but that's about all they need. In general, unless the game is notable enough to get its own article, their characters don't warrant a ton of attention and are less than notable. I think I got all of the self-redirecting links on the main article. I've also cleaned up the character section, which just needs to be a shorter quick summary of main points since there is a full list now, and added in the two obviously missing ones :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. (The same would actually go for the episodic characters being mentioned in episode summaries; but if this is to be done – what will we do when there is English and Japanese names?) About the game not being notable – so true – I could not even find enough information on the internet to write a short summary for it in the media list. G.A.S 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Usually, for the episodic characters, we just list the original name, though with the whole Mew Mew power thing, maybe add the dub name in parenthesis with a note in the lead stating that. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: to make it easier for people to find, I've started a discussion at Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Merge Discussion. Please also join in there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters section

Re this edit: I strongly disagree: according to my understanding, WP:MOS-ANIME only requires a list in the main article up to, but excluding the point where List of (series) characters is created. Furthermore, WP:SS is firstly applied for all articles, secondly predates WP:MOS-ANIME, and thirdly, is a editing guideline, as opposed to a manual of style, fouthly, said recommendation is much more neat. Even if a list is given in the main article, I rather an appropriate lead is included for it of 2-4 paragraphs. G.A.S 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected after reviewing some of our scant GA/FA articles. In those, a paragraph seems to be just as acceptable, though I'm not sure how much summary can be done without repeating the plot section. I don't get it, myself. I did the same with another article, but when it went to peer review, that was one of the first thing I was told to change. Though, come to think of it, I used paragraph style in my one FA. Sorry, yesterday was not the best days for me. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I will attempt to rewrite this section in due course, but have to do some research as how to present the information best. I have some ideas in this regard as well. Regards, G.A.S 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Draft
Tokyo Mew Mew's protagonists are Ichigo Momomiya, Mint Aizawa, Lettuce Midorikawa, Pudding Fong, and Zakuro Fujiwara, a group of girls who have been mysteriously "infused" with the DNA of rare animals. Now a part of the "Mew Project", they find out that they have been chosen to protect the Earth: gaining special abilities and a different appearance, they become the group known as Tokyo Mew Mew — magical girls with the power of Red Data Animals. During the story, they receive support and advice from Ryou Shirogane and Keiichiro Akasaka. They are later joined by the mysterious Blue Knight, who pledges to protect Ichigo; and in Tokyo Mew Mew a la mode by Berry Shirayuki.
The main antagonist of the series is Deep Blue, the leader of the aliens. He is joined by Kish, who develops a cruch on Ichigo; Pie and Tart. The aliens all have the ability to use parasites to create monsters (called Chimera Anima) to attempt to defeat the protagonists and take over the Earth. The sequel introduces the Saint Rose Crusaders, which takes control of the remaining Chimera Anima, as the new antagonists.
Other characters include, Masaya Aoyama as Ichigo's crush and boyfriend, Masha, a robot with the ability to detect the aliens' and Chimera Animas' presence; Ichigo's parents, Shintaro and Sakura Momomiya; and Ichigo's friends, Miwa Honjo and Moe Yanagida. The anime series also introduce Mint's grandmother and brother, Lettuce's parents and brother and Pudding's four brothers and sister, while the sequel introduces Tasuku Meguro as Berry's friend and later crus and boyfriend.
End of draft
Please provide comment on the above. I believe it just need sources and tweaking, and should then be ready to go into the main article. I have not included the Japanese text, voice actors or dub names here as it is provided in the list.
Regards,
G.A.S 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Masaya and Masha can be incorporated into the first paragraph, and the rest dropped. We don't need to mention the minor characters in the main article discriptoin, particularly those that aren't even in teh list anymore. Beyond that, probably should mention the SRC are humans rather than aliens and that Deep Blue, though the main enemy, is not really seen until near the end of the manga. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
M+M: I tried to incorporate those two into the first paragraph, but it I could not work out a way to have the text flow.
SRC+DB: I will work that in, but only later.
I do not believe that mentioning minor characters are a bad thing per se, and honestly, I needed some content (1) to show that there are other characters as well (2) to show some differences between the manga and anime (3) to show differences between the original story and the sequel, and (4) a space filler other than the main characters' descriptions or voice actors. I believe we can provide a sentence for these characters in the existing characters' sections in the list. Regards, G.A.S 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have raised the inclusion issue here, to gain the opinion of the larger community, since there seems to be no clear guidance in this regard. Regards, G.A.S 06:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit point

(←) That seems like a waste of time. No advice at this time.

I would rather that we include characters in the list as separate entries where:

  • They help us to understand the main characters, and
  • We can write a description for them that is not limited to their actions in an episode, and
  • They serve a supporting character's role (per that article — but seen in the context of the series as a whole).

This should cancel most, if not all, episodic characters, victim of the day, and monsters of the day out. They can be named, if needed, in the episode summaries; or in the case of characters families, one or two sentences in the main characters' section.

What do you think?

G.A.S 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: The guideline talk page has a new suggestion that I tend to agree with; being for us to add a "Minor Characters" section and list these characters in a bullet list, with a one or two sentence description each (subject to the requirements above). G.A.S 09:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're actually saying the same thing, just differently. Character families should be mentioned in one-two sentences in the main character sections, as is relevant. Episodic characters, etc don't need mentioning at all. That puts the list pretty much where it is now. :P I haven't seen the entire anime, though, so no idea if they made up some other regular characters, but for the manga, we have every character covered already. The only one I can think of not mentioned in their own section are puddings brothers, sisters and monkey which should be covered in her section anyway since they just appear on 2-3 pages. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The following characters appear in two or more episodes, and will happily fit into a minor character section using a bullet list: Miwa Honjo and Moe Yanagida (Only these two comes to mind). Shintaro and Sakura Momomiya, Mint's grandmother, Seiji Aizawa, and Pudding's siblings plays a larger role in the anime and can be mentioned in the characters' sections, but I would argue we mention them in the bullet list as well (As it is easier to provide the Japanese text and/or voice actors there. Pudding's parents, or lack thereof, should only be mentioned in Pudding's section. Any remaining characters are trivial. G.A.S 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Mint's grandmother is never even given a name, so I'd argue she's trivial :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but she does appear in ep. 3, 10, 32, to name a few. G.A.S 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Media section

Re CD's: Some informartion and sources are available here. The sources are provided in the edit history and in the general sources section, but are generally hard to find. G.A.S 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...while normally a CD section doesn't have a table, with fifteen CDs, I'm thinking it might be good here? The one in the sandbox could be adapted nicely to meet that need. What do you think? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I would actually prefer if we can use the information in the sandbox where possible, I wouldn't want it to go to waste:) The section would just need a lead paragraph or two to complete it. Regards, G.A.S 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It also needs format fixing and sourcing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; my sources are mainly recorded in the sandbox's history (Please refer to the diffs, ~7-13 Jul 2007), except for those listed under general sources, i hope it is of use; as for the format, I believe you know what would work best;). Regards, G.A.S 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

WP:BRD: I rewrote the lead paragraph as I felt that it is currently quite difficult to follow, but has the following quite serious issues:

  • It starts with "is a shōjo magical girl manga series"; while this is true, one has to read quite a bit further to discover that the series is also an anime series.
  • The lead mixes the plot details with the real world information. (Refer to WP:WAF#Real-world perspective — this is not recommended, and following all manuals of style is a featured article requirement).
  • I believe the proposed version is better organised:
           Before                                After
[PAR1]     
           ... is a manga...                     ... is a manga ... and an anime ...
           manga serialized date                 manga and anime serialized date
           plot information                      -
           -                                     sequel serialized date
           -                                     video game infomation
[PAR2]     
           anime serialized date                 -
           video game information                -
           -                                     plot information
[PAR3]    
           English version information           English version information
  • Please comment.

G.A.S 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead is currently organized appropriate, per the anime and manga MOS and per lead. We start with the first media which is the manga per "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work." We then give its basic serialization info and a short summary per "At the very least, this should describe the anime or manga, its premise and plot, its author or director, and the English language licensers (if any)." The lead is supposed to include at least a basic plot, if it doesn't it fails WP:LEAD as it is not summarizing the article, and fails the anime/manga MOS (as well as our parent MOS the TV MOS). The plot shouldn't be the sole content of the lead, and it isn't, but a very short synopsis, such as we have here, is extremely appropriate and belongs within the first few statements. Adaptations and the English language version come after the primary information, which not only keeps the intro about the original format, but also better reflects the order of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree:
  • "primarily about the original format": This is still the case, order is different, according to another content criteria.
  • "primarily about the original format": The opening sentence fails WP:LEAD – "The first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence. Readers knowing nothing at all about the article's subject should immediately find the answer to 'What is it?' or 'Who is he/she?'." – currently they get only half the picture.
  • "At the very least...": This does not specify the order that is required.
  • "plot shouldn't... and it isn't": I merely moved the plot content to the second paragraph.
  • "Adaptations and the English language...": I did not change this part.
  • "better reflects the order of the article...": Maybe
  • I merely moved the plot description to have fictional content separate from real world content.
  • Have a look at the following featured articles (all anime and manga related) — the new lead follows these examples much more closely.
Excel Saga (manga and anime series)
Madlax
Serial Experiments Lain
G.A.S 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Excel Saga is the only one applicable here in that it has multiple forms. It was promoted over 2 years ago, making it a bad example to use as it should probably be delisted (I've left a note there to get see if anyone will fix before I send it for delisting). It does not follow the anime and manga MOS at all, and fails LEAD by having citations in the opening paragraphs for no necessary reason. For some more recent examples that have multiple adaptations, we unfortunately have to turn to GA articles as it has been far too long since we had an FA article: X (manga) (still has the issues of citations in the lead) and Tenjho Tenge (has 1 cite in the lead, though it isn't needed).
The current lead for Tokyo Mew Mew does not fail LEAD and far better meets the anime and manga MOS. It immediately declares that Tokyo Mew Mew is a manga series, who wrote it, and when it was serialized. That is the original format. The paragraph then gives the premise, before moving on to talk about the adaptations and sequels. It also follows the standards set by more recent GAs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I still do not agree, but am not going to argue. Mind if we split the first paragraph into two before the plot description starts? That is a distinctively different to the real world information of the rest of the paragraph. ("by Kodansha.\ It focuses on..."). G.A.S 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: WP:LEAD#Citations does not ban citations in the lead, just mentions that it is not necessary (except for controversial items and living persons)> G.A.S 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(<--) This undo-edit refers: This change has been suggested above, and no objection was made. I consider it better style to split the first paragraph like this, and this time I insist on this change to be made. I will only reconsider if a second opinion is obtained. G.A.S 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, but hadn't gotten around to posting an objection. I disagree as I do not believe it needs to be split per my own experiences with anime and television articles and I don't think starting with a short statement before jumping to another paragraph is necessary. So far, it seems we seems to be the only editors here, so it seems we may be at a stale mate. Another editor mentioned having some comments on the article, so I'll see if he'd like to offer a third opinion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I agree on AnmaFinotera's edit, but only because Sailor Moon (a GA) does the same thing. And since I'm here, why don't we discuss the genres and categories? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, accepted. What about the genres and categories do you want to discuss? G.A.S 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, they look good, though I mgiht give it another look. Until it becomes a problem, I'll bring it up for discussion again. However, I'd like to include [[Japan]]ese in the very first sentence (since many manga follow this layout) and check for any overlinking per WP:CONTEXT and perform general fixes. That ok with you two? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That is fine by me: would you mind having a quick look at the lists as well? G.A.S 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The lists look fine. Was there anything in particular you wanted me to see? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes#Another English DVD Release where we also had some disagreements on the format of the episode list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


What I meant was if you would mind having a look at those re. possible overlinking, and if re. general fixes; but since the lists are not complete yet, I did not want you to spend to much time on doing this:). We did have an disagreement as AnmaFinotera said, but I do not regard that as to critical at the moment.
Please consider the following questions –(which I have not raised before) – none of which is critical:
  • Does the episode list spend too much time regarding the 4Kids dub? Per WP:MOS-ANIME information regarding the differences between the original and the dub belongs in the Production section, not in the media section. (At most a slight trimming would be needed)
  • Does the character list spend too much time regarding the series's plot (second paragraph), and original run(s)? This information would usually not be given in the main article's character section, so why is it given here? I believe that the second paragraph could – with minor changes only – be adapted as a "lead" for the protagonists' section; but the opening paragraph would have to be rewritten: rather focus on characters, character design, etc. (Refer to List of Metal Gear Solid characters, although this is not an anime specific article, it is one of the few featured lists for characters that I know of. I believe this is a good example to work from.
Regards, G.A.S 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I've spent some much needed time on the reception section this evening, expanding to include all the RS manga reviews I could find, and what little RS anime reception information was available. I also attempted to cover the 4Kids issues in a neutral tone and to give equal balance to both the angry fans and the show's relative success, as could be sourced. Thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That willl go a long way towards our FA goal; peer review - when we are ready - may prove more input, but I like it. Well done. G.A.S 08:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Reception sections tend to be my weak point, at least to me, so good to hear :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Production

In another item on the to-do list, I worked on the production section some more earlier today, including what information was available in the first volume "making of" type notes. I'm going to go through the rest of the volumes again to see if there are any other notes, particularly about the anime adaptation. Any thoughts on what's there so far though? AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very informative:). I think this part of production is very well covered now. G.A.S 08:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I believe Tokyo Mew Mew may now be at the point that it can go from Start to B class. Per the criteria "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles." I think we meet that. We only have a few bits of unreferenced stuff to fix, with almost all referencable info now in the article.

Thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. The real question is: how far we are from GA class? G.A.S 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that far, of course not counting the months it might actually take for someone to review it </annoyance at Wolf's Rain being there since February and still counting>. I'm tempted to just got the gusto, finish up what needs to be finished, get someone to copyedit, and go straight for FA if possible. We've got decent production and reception sections, I think. Mostly just need to finish the CDs, check referencing, peer review and copy edit, unless you can see other areas that need fixing? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We may probably drop a note at the wikiproject to ask for input... GA does not require a listing at GA review per se. And you are correct. We may skip that part, although a third party review might provide relevant input. G.A.S 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
GA does require listing at GAN to really be valid. Otherwise it will quickly be removed, either by an editor or a bot. B is as high as an article can go without outside review. I'd rather any GA be on the up and up :) I'm thinking once the last tweaks are in, a peer review will be good (which would also include a request at the project for input). Depending on the results of that, skip the GA and go for FA. :PAnmaFinotera (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen articles being promtaoted to GA status at a formal peer review before (Can't remember which one, but I can look it up, if needed (I believe it was an WP:ANIME related article). But you are right, it is better to aim for FA status (Why is it that A class articles are better than GA class, but A class is not as well known, nor gain as much attention?). G.A.S 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had the same question myself (about A class). Never seen the point of it myself. We don't use it in the anime project. I don't think most projects bother with it either since if you're going above GA might as well just go for FA. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like WP:ANIME has a section for A class review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess, but it does not seem to get a lot of attention. G.A.S 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there has been some talk of just dropping A class all together. Should probably be done for the anime/manga project anyway, since it doesn't even appear in our assessment scale :P Its supposed to be higher than GA, but higher than GA should be FA so A is rarely used at all.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Should a paragraph summarizing a la Mode be added to the plot section, perhaps as a subsection or just with a lead in of "In the sequel Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode...? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it in the plot section (as is), as it is a distinctively seperate story for the most part — only one of the original "writers" helped with it, it has new characters, new villians, etc. etc.
You could consider using plot\TMM and plot\TMMalM subsections to give the appropriate plots. (In which case TMMalM should probably only use 2-3 paragraphs (2 books vs. 7 books), with the manga list providing a more complete summary).
The applicable section in the lead should be updated in any case.
G.A.S 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've made an attempt at the plot summary of a La Mode, added as a subsection under plot (in keeping with the MoS suggestions for such a situation). Feel free to copyedit and clean up as needed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I will re-visit the section later. One thing I have observed is the use of "hypnotism"; where I believe "hypnosis" is more correct. The section does not flow nicely yet; I will probably ask a few questions before I can copy edit and clarify the section, but it does seem to cover the plot nicely. Would it be possible to add 1/3 of ccontent to it - it is a little short (Maybe about the SRC each attacking and then fading away into the background)? G.A.S 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the hypnosis and expanded a little. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I have completed the copy editing of the section. G.A.S 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Media section

At long last, I've rewritten and filled out the CDs section (formerly other). Just needs some copyediting, but I think it can be considered done? Anything else to do before the article goes to peer review? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems good (Sorry for the late reply). I have also listed the Peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review. G.A.S 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and welcome back :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Character Section Redux

Per the on-going peer review, the Characters section is pretty redundant to the plot. Thoughts on going back to the more standard bullet list of the mains, or someone want to tackle a rewrite of the section to make it less repetitive?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this comment: "The first paragraph of Characters seems to repeat much of the material from the Plot on the five girls."?
Seems like the problem is only the first paragraph (And probably only the first part: "Tokyo Mew Mew's protagonists ... Red Data Animals.").
If that is indeed the case, I believe that this paragraph can be re-summarised from the list, as it does not seem that the list is repeating the plot.
Do you think this can solve the problem?
G.A.S 05:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It should. Care to give it a whirl? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a half an hour, I will see what I can do. G.A.S 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I am done → Comment please on this? G.A.S 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good. Reads better and more naturally. Any thoughts on doing the rest of that section the same?Having sources in there would be a very good thing when it goes for GA or FA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I could do it, but am out of time right now (Will only have time tonight?). Seems like there is some work left before it is ready for FA, but being good to know that it is close to GA:) It is the best shape the article has ever been in:) G.A.S 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I look forward to it :) They also mentioned it needing more copyediting. I tried doing a bit using that Tony guide. With LoCE practically useless these days, any ideas on getting the whole thing rechecked? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Mind reading the article out loud? This is actually a good start, just comment problem areas for now. There are also good advice at User:AndyZ/Suggestions and Wikipedia:Writing better articles, but I am sure you have looked at them by now. Maybe another participant at WP:ANIME would be willing to look at it as well (But then again, they could have peer reviewed as well)? Chance is, as it seems from Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, articles are only a priority once they are actually candidates for GA or FA class, so there will be little use in asking them yet. I will see later if there are still obvious issues. G.A.S 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they ignore GA noms too. Had one sitting with them for over a month that was a GAN. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have seen copy-editors being approached on their talk page in order to have a FAC pass, but I doubt they appreciate it a lot. But I also think it is not the most thankful work to do, either.
I guess at this stage the most important part would be to get as much external input as possible: Maybe it would be worthwhile to list the article for GAN once this is over, at least we will know if there are further issues before a FAC listing; once it is GA we can list the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, and hope someone looks at it.
We should ask for additional input at WP:ANIME re possible outstanding issues.
G.A.S 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Done with the section. Mind having a look at the references? As always, comment is appreciated. G.A.S 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll bring in the refs this evening. Meanwhile will post a note to the PR to see if that takes care of things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Items for copy editing

From reviewing the article myself, and applying the same standards as when I peer reviewed others' articles, I came to realise that the article is in serious need of a thorough copy edit. I will, for now list the items (or fix them where I can).

The following advice came from the guides listed above.

  • Short paragraphs and short sections usually disrupt the flow of an article (occasionally they can be judiciously used to emphasize an important point). Either merge them into another paragraph/section, expand the section with important information, or simply remove the paragraph/section, taking care that you are not deleting an important fact. Paragraphs of one or two sentences often appear short to our readers.
  • See also User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them.

Other items

  • Some sections may need referencing: Plot
  • Media section may need an introductory paragraph.
  • "The manga series is licensed for English language release by Tokyopop": This should be rewritten in the active voice: "xxx has licensed Tokyopop to release the manga series in English"; but I do not know who has licensed them to do so. (Same issue with the DVDs and 4Kids)
  • "With the basics hammered out, the Tokyo Mew Mew series was approved and the project grew." Refer to wikt:hammer out. Is this what you mean?

Please strike out items when they are fixed, I will likewise list new items above.

G.A.S 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Media section does not need an intro paragraph, per the MoS and existing standards. The plot does not need referencing. The defacto reference is the primary work. Only interpretive statements in plot sections require referencing. For the copyediting, yes, I agree, but finding one is a near impossibility these days. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thus the use of "may" :) I will attempt to copy edit as best I can, but it may take a while. Maybe we should put in a request at LoCE in any case. Also refer to the new comment in the lead paragraph. G.A.S 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User:Mizu onna sango15 to help me copy edit by reviewing the changes and commenting thereon, so I should be able to copy edit the article myself. G.A.S 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job so far, G.A.S, I only had to correct a minor grammatical error or two and the rest look good. Also, per wikt:subsequently's usage notes, it looks like your use of the word is not redundant. Good luck with the second half; let me know when you're ready for me to assist you. :-) Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

I disagree on the suggested rephrasing. All current FLs for episode and chapter lists use similar phrasing. Also, sources rarely say a company licensed a series to so and so (which would not be an accurate phrasing). For active voice, it can just be rewritten as Tokyopop licensed the series for an English language release in North America. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It was just an example; I have not worked it out yet:). I believe your suggestion would work very well. G.A.S 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) I've been trying to catch myself with those passive phrasings (the plague of my writing), but missed it here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have skipped that paragraph for now, but this is a painfully slow process at the moment: I have only managed to copy edit half a paragraph for now. I will continue later. G.A.S 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. All-in-all, the article is not that bad, especially for a B-class article. Are you trying to reach FA? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the eventual goal is FA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(←)Everything above the "characters" section have been completed. I am not going to copy edit the character section, as I have written it (Mizu onna sango15, will you please see if anything needs to be done there); but will continue with the section below it. Once this has been done, we could apply for GA status (for feedback purposes) and then FA status:). G.A.S 10:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

checkY Very nice. I can't really tell you what you're doing wrong here, as everything looks fine at this point. Make certain that problems such as peacock terms, weasel wording, and unnecessary trivia is removed, however (not that I see a lot of this in the article). It is little things like this that can cause many articles to fail GA/FA. Best of luck! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply.
I checked the article against the list of common peacock terms, but the usage of these words are appropriate in all of the cases. The only one that falls in a grey area is "popular" but it is provided in a short quote, and seems to be sourced, so I presume that it is appropriate: at most we could say who consider the songs to be the most popular (I am not sure whether this information is actually available: I presume it is the CD company's opinion).
There is some usage of the passive voice, though I do not believe it constitutes weasel wording in this context, but we are clearing it out as far as possible.
G.A.S 05:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, particularly where it is a direct quotation. Those should be left exactly as said in the source, to be proper quotes. :) (and you are correct, the source doesn't say what determined the songs popularity). I als think a little passive voice is okay, as it sometimes just reads nicer :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. G.A.S 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break

(←)I had a quick review of the rest of the article; and picked up the following issues:

  • It seems that we need to expand the following sections a bit: Manga and Anime: According to WP:SS these sections should be at least twice the daughter article's lead paragraph's length (4 - 6 paragraphs).
  • We need to apply the {{Nihongo}} template to the names "Ringo Akai" and "Gato".
  • The video games section seems uncomfortably short: Can we add review or other information here?
  • The quote seems awkward at its current location: Can we use {{Quote box}} in this case?—"This is useful in articles where you are short on images and want to add some sort of graphic, or you just want to set off an important or interesting quote away from the main text."
  • Alternatively, we should integrate the quote into the text and use an excerpt thereof in a pull quote at the beginning of the section (See {{Cquote}}) or {{Rquote}}).

G.A.S 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the first (and I don't see anything in WP:SS that says that?). The daughter article is a list, so the summaries are quite appropriate and there is really nothing else left to add. They are basically the leads of the lists, sans the opening sentences which would be repetitive. The rest are the chapter/ep summaries They also quote meet the MoS requirements for those sections. For the second, I'll have to find their kanji names again unless you have them somewhere? For the third, that's every last drop of information about both games I could find. I hate that the first is so short compared to the second, but that's all I could find at all since neither is licensed. Changed the qoute to the box...what do you think? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SS#Levels of desired details—"The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the daughter article." It is not mandatory, however. On the second point, I believe they would be here and here(?). On the third point: I like it. G.A.S 07:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From the media list I were to create, I found very little information about the video games myself: We could mention that they were only released in Japanese. The first game has an official site: maybe you could translate something from there [3]. I had little success myself (Maybe the translation utilities got better since then). The role playing description of the second game is somewhat vague—For instance: Does it focus on combat? Storyline-driven arcs? Character development? Nonlinear/linear gameplay? Character experience and levels? 2D or 3D? Does the story decide the character the player uses or does the player decide?
  • Re Anime: Consider something like "Studio Pierrot adapted Tokyo Mew Mew into a fifty-two episode anime series."→" The episodes are directed by Noriyuki Abe and produced by Studio Pierrot. The anime adapts the first seven volumes of its source material over fifty two episodes." (Adding: Director, statement that it is based on the manga) You could also consider adding (although you probably consider it OR or trivia) a statement about the short introduction of each episode, and by who narrates it (old draft).
  • Re Manga: We could add that the first chapter was serialised in Sept 2000, and the last (twenty ninth(?)) in Feb 2003 (Currently the reader might get the impression that each volume was serialised in the magazine, adding amount of chapters)
  • G.A.S 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked the manga section and anime sections. Don't think the intro thing is necessary to mention (and we wouldn't want any borderline OR if gonna go for FA). or the second game...um, its an RPG. That's about all I could find out about it. RPGs are generally story drive, as part of the genre, but no idea on all the rest. The only reason it isn't as short as the other is because Ikumi gave that little bit of information on her developing the characters. :( I've also tried translating the official page for the first game, but the poor translators can't figure out the grammar at all and the resulting stuff doesn't make much sense. Be nice if we had someone in the project who could read Japanese for this stuff :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the online translators: http://www.excite.co.jp/world/english/ (Copy and paste the text into the text box, use the second option in the drop down list, and the button next to the text box to translate) and Babelfish gives the best results. Google translate seems to be having a very hard time:(. If this seems to be an issue when the article is put up as a GAC or FAC we could probably ask someone at the wikiproject to help (User:Nihonjoe might be able to help, she translates from Japanese to English on Wikipedia:Translation).
We should probably check the other languages' Wikipedias again, just to make sure we have covered everything important (to test for "comprehensiveness" (Wikipedia:WIAFA no 1(b)).
G.A.S 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. We seriously have the best, most comprehensive TMM article out there! A few language ones just have stubs, while some others are all plot and character stuff. On plus, however, two of them yielded a few missing official links that I've added to the article (and that will be useful for sourcing the character list). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well done: Consider: After the copy editing has been completed, we are one step nearer to adding the equivalent of {{FAOL}} to some of those talk pages. (That global login will come in quite handy;) ) G.A.S 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done :P Not nearly used in as many Languages' Wikipedia as I would have hoped for. G.A.Stalk 17:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Cool beans (and yeah, gotta love that Global log in :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry about the hiatus, everyone. I've spent the last week or so comparing (and editing it in my sandbox instead of directly to save time) it to some GA articles. So far, it looks like it'll be fine; I'll give it a bit more tweaking and I'm sure it'll do fine. :-) Again, sorry if it seems I've forgotten! Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC).

Its alright, Scartol had some time open up and was able to finish copyediting it for us. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Scartol left some valuable comments below—it seems that there is quite a bit of work left to be done. It would be appreciated if you can provide input (following your research); the peer review only touched on a few items. It would also be appreciated if you can help with the items below. G.A.S 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

I've completed my copyedit of this article, as requested. Let me say that it is very thorough and well-documented. I believe it's close to GA status. I bristle at seeing sources like Amazon used, but I'm not familiar enough with manga/anime articles to suggest a way around this. Kudos to the editors involved for your hard work. Here are some questions and comments I wanted to pose as I did my copyedit.

  • I suggest that the lead follow the structure of the article as a whole. Therefore I recommend that the final lead paragraph focus not on distribution in North America, but rather on reception.
    I've added a paragraph on the reception, but it needs come copyediting. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I cleaned it up. – Scartol • Tok 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm making all of the dashes I see into spaced en dashes, but there's always a possibility that I've missed some. You'll want to check it thoroughly right before sending it to FAC.
    checkY Done Firefox has a quite useful "Highlight all" function to do this. G.A.S 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I recommend moving the details about the Mew Mews other than Ichigo to the "Characters" section. It will be fine to end the first paragraph of "Plot" with "...the remaining Mew Mews."
    I agree with the change, but will discuss it with my fellow editor first. G.A.S 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
     Not done due to characters section being dropped. G.A.S 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Due to Kish's failure in doing eliminating the Mew Mews, Deep Blue puts Kish under temporary house arrest – he later rejoins the fight – and orders two more aliens, Pie and Tart to destroy the Mew Mews. This feels like a very minor point. Insofar as the plot summary for the series should only focus on the major highlights, I recommend removing it.
    checkY Done Reworded, as the arrival of the other two is major, but the rest of that was minor -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For future reference: Unless you are quoting an entire sentence, punctuation goes on the outside of a quotation. ("mew aqua", for example)
  • It looks like the serial comma is sometimes used and sometimes not. You should go through and standardize it.
    checkY Done G.A.S 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Much of the information in "Characters" repeats description from "Plot". I actually recommend removing the "Characters" section completely, since it's really not necessary. I know WP:MANGA advises including it, but as WP:NOVELS points out, the "Characters" section can make an article feel like SporkNotes. =)
Usually, per WP:MOS-AM, this section is a bullet list with brief summaries of the main characters. The article originally used this, but we decided to try a paragraph format instead. Should we go back to a bullet list? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No, no, please don't use a bullet list. I don't generally care for "Characters" sections of any kind; I feel that they're unnecessary when the "Plot" section is done well (as it is here). But if you use a "Characters" section, please leave it as paragraphs. – Scartol • Tok 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done G.A.S 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Whenever you use direct quotations (The Saint Rose Crusaders seek to reshape the "boring grownup world" into a utopia using their "intelligence, philanthropy, and elegance".), you should give a citation to let the reader know where it/they come from.
    checkY Done -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Much of the info in the paragraph which begins "As Tokyo Mew Mew became a viable project..." feels very standard. Isn't this what happens with every manga ever made? I recommend only discussing this sort of standard-process information in passing, focusing instead on the more unique details. (Such as the TMM festival in the next paragraph.)
    Actually, no, most manga are written by a single author, with that mangaka doing all the initial scenario decisions, stories, and the like, before presenting it to their editor for final approval. TMM adds Reiko Yoshida as the series writer, and has her an two other editors doing the main story work with Ikumi then finalizing before going to the final editor for approval and release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I recommend adding a sentence or a phrase indicating that this is not the standard procedure. (Maybe something like: "Unlike most manga, Tokyo Mew Mew was...") – Scartol • Tok 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
checkY Done -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the sentence about Ikumi holding autograph sessions during the festival, since that's a given for someone launching a new manga.
  • Two pieces of theme music were also used for the anime series "My Sweet Heart", performed by Rika Komatsu, was the series opening theme. Confusing. Please clarify.
    checkY Done Done, (I think). I inserted a period after "anime series". G.A.S 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes "chimera anima" is capitalized, and sometimes it is not. You should go through and standardize this. Same for "mew aqua".
    checkY Done G.A.S 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ikumi was asked to name two of the weapons Ringo uses in the game: the Appletick and the Mewberry Rod. This feels really minor – even insignificant. I recommend removing it.
    checkY Done -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The quote box in "Reception" is about the sequel, and it's a pretty unimpressive quote – isn't there something more distinctive and/or representative about why the manga/anime is notable?
    For now I've removed it, but the reworking will need a quick recheck. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the item "through Diamond Comic Distributors" from "Reception", as it seems to be something that should go in "Media". I'll let you place it appropriately.
    Diamond Comic Distributors is the main distributer of comic books and graphic novels. The sales figures were specifically for them, so it doesn't include direct distribution deals with most general bookstores like Barnes and Noble. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Critics praised it for being a modern manga that typifies the magical girl formula, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. I would remove this sentence – jump right to what critics liked about the show, and what they didn't like.
  • Ikumi's free flowing style and character designs... This feels like WP:OR. Can we find a direct quote to more succinctly describe her style, or simply explain it in technical terms? (I have no idea how to give an example of the latter – maybe something like "Ikumi's focus on fluid motion..." or whatever suits the truth.)
    The "free flowing" description comes from the AoD review (ref 58). I added quote marks to note this. Does that help? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. If it's a direct quote, then it definitely needs quote marks. – Scartol • Tok 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's it. Good luck with this article, and please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, from here. Of course, when you nominate it it will receive more suggestions for improval, as in every GA nomination, but as long as you attend to those swiftly (I'll also be glad to help with this) it should do fine. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

Licensing

Whats so unusual about the American dub being licensed for DVD release over the Japanese version?

Most animes in the UK are the american dub and contain the original japanese audio as an extra, however if you heavily edit a series as done here then the original audio will no longer mesh. So they choose the primary local language (English) over releasing the original as a japanese only audio track. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because not all series in the UK use the American dub, with many being redubbed by UK voice actors, and the American dub was used by other countries that usually license the series themselves from Japan and do their own dubbing in their own languages. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Linkage removed

Keep it like this for now, if someone at FAC complains, we can re-add it (we need "Support" more than the links), the discussions are at:

Some other links were also removed:

G.A.S 08:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it's so much better without; sorry I didn't finish the job, but we were all working on the article at the end, so I withdrew to avoid e.c.s. Cheers. TONY (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that it got a little "blue":) It was no problem to complete it. G.A.S 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, G.A.S. It's good to get feedback on this. Dropping the date autoformatting has been surprisingly uncontroversial, and where nominators express an opinion, it's been almost always positive. We still need to deal with the date formatting mess in the citation templates, which is turning out to be much greater than anyone thought (inflexible, prone to lots of glitches because people make typing errors, and our readers out there see these, but we don't). The templates are also uncoordinated. Aargh. TONY (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see the date thing, however I do disagree on the delinking of countries and on DVD and CD. DVD and CD are technical terms, and no, not everyone with a PC knows what they are. In just the last week I've had to explain the difference to someone. There are still plenty of non-tech savvy people who don't get it. For countries, much as it saddens me, we have some seriously ignorant folks in the US who don't have a clue where some countries are or even that they are countries. Swear to God my own cousin, who is in her twenties, thinks we live in the country of North Carolina. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have left an instance of DVD linked. While I understand that folks can be very ignorant, WP:OVERLINK specifically mentions "The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked where, ..., they are unlikely to confused with other locations of the same name, and the linked article would not specifically add to readers' understanding of the topic at hand; ..." (My italics) and "...A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following..."
I doubt that one would follow the links to the countries in this case while reading about an anime series, considering their ignorance in the first place, and these links are "off topic", but having links such as Sailor Moon ("similar to what?") and Gray Wolf ("What is a —?") is useful, they are still "on topic (anime, or specifically relevant iro the characters)".
If we were talking about say, transport, politics, politicians, foreign companies and products, having links to countries become more useful: Hence linking to Japan in the Nakayoshi or manga articles. Refer also to WP:CONTEXT#Example.
As for CD and DVD; I have re-linked CD, but actually doubt its use: these are rather common technical terms and somewhat irrelevant. I expect that someone could type in CD if they want to know the details. (I usually link technical terms when I want to follow them, i.e. on an ad hoc basis when reading through articles.)
About the section CDs: Can't we write it out, or rename the section?
G.A.S 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera: how about the first instance only of CD and DVD, then? Now, about your cousin: I'm amazed—all that tax money for a school system? How about you take her aside and politely but firmly persuade her about nationhood, how the earth is not flat, etc? She can always type "Canada" into the search box if she encounters it in a WP article and doesn't understand it. TONY (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have currently linked only the first instance of CD and DVD. I have also left some questions at the FAC, which I would appreciate being clarified, as I can then try to address the issues. G.A.S 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, my mom and I both weeped at her amazing display of ignorance. The first instance of CD and DVD is fine, and maybe home video (from the number of folks who kept changing it to DVD, seems to be a lot of people who don't know what it means...or I'm just old LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I bet I beat you in age! TONY (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

4Kids Dub Cancellation

An anonymous spokesperson from 4Kids' staff mentioned on their blog that Mew Mew Power was cancelled due to low ratings (http://ncog.fanoozle.com/2009/08/07/qa-with-ncog-%e2%80%93-august-7-2009/#more-82). Someone should include this in the article. 71.146.90.98 (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some random, anonymous blog posting is not a reliable source so it will not be included. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This guy is not "random" or "anonymous". This guy is a representative of 4Kids, known at the "Nameless Cubical Office Guy" or something like that. He manages 4Kids' YouTube channel. There is a link to his blog on their channel. He constantly gives updates about the future of 4Kids on TV and online. I say this guy is pretty reliable. Matty-chan (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, he is a random, anonymous blog. You can't prove he is anyone as he gives no name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
But he does work with 4Kids. Like Matty-chan said, he runs 4Kids' official YouTube channel. 71.146.90.98 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Prove it. He is "Nameless" you can't prove he is anyone or related to 4Kids. And, FYI, the link is now dead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Finnish publisher

Sagatsu Manga publishes the series in Finnish.[4] Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tokyo_Mew_Mew/Archive_4&oldid=1140123807"