Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles/Archive 5

Searching the archives
I've added a search field in the archive box to allow searching of just the archives of this page. Enjoy! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags in the Infobox
The Film project recently changed their guidelines to stop the use of flag icons from the infoboxes of their articles, as it has been found to violate WP:MOSFLAG. This has also started to be carried over into the Television project some, so I thought it might be good if we also looked at whether this change should be made. Should we stop the use of flags in our infoboxes? Personally, I find that they are being overused as is, and clutters infoboxes for English licensors (and Animax airings which just goes crazy with the icons). For example, is the Japanese flag really needed to note that the manga publisher is Japanese which, by definition is a requirement of being a manga? Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree. I've never really seen much purpose for the flags, and they seem to cause a lot of clutter in certain infoboxes. I'd be in favor of simply ceasing to use them.kuwabaratheman (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the list of networks under the Sailor Moon infobox, flags are used as shorthand for countries airing the series. This is tidy-looking, but a little confusing, as you have to mouse over a particular flag to see what country it represents. It makes sense to replace those with the names of the countries. --Masamage ♫ 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The flags do not violate WP:MOSFLAG. In fact, it specifically states they shouldn't be used in infoboxes only in cases where it "makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial". I fail to to see how using them makes the infoboxes unclear, ambiguous, or controversial in any way. The only thing is specifically mentions is that they shouldn't be used in prose within the article. Using them in tables, infoboxes, and the like, is specifically listed as acceptable. I think the flags add interest to the infoboxes, and I see no drawbacks to using them. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be blunt: I like the flags and I wouldn't see removing them as an improvement. But, if a better reason than "some guideline may or may not advise against use of flag icons" can be given, then I'm all ears. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about mine, above? (This reply goes to Nihonjoe as well--I think using them intead of a country's actual name is definitely unclear.) --Masamage ♫ 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think using both would be fine. The flag images are only 30px wide, so the space they use is minimal. I don't find the use of the flags alone to be confusing, though, as I recognize most flags. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Goodraise here -- I don't see how they go against the guideline, and they add to the compactness of the infobox, especially when there are a LOT of licensors. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that this has been discussed before (although that discussion essentially dead-ended). Flagicons are currently the best method for specifying countries in the infobox for a number of reasons: as Quasi points out, they allow the infobox to remain reasonably compact, even when there are a large number of licensors/publishers (Dragon Ball with all those countries written out, anyone?); they ensure that everything lines up in an entirely predictable manner (there's far more to this reason than the superficially apparent ILIKEIT angle); with the implementation of, the flags now link directly to their country articles. In comparison, alternatives suffer from a number of problems: country abbreviations are not necessarily widely known (USA and GBR are fairly obvious, but do you know what KHM is without looking?) and can appear to "merge" with the publisher name (I don't know about you, but to me, "AUS Madman" is a perfectly plausible country name); full country names can be excessively long (imagine what a typical Animax entry would look like), and flag/country name combos would be even longer. I wouldn't mind doing away with the country icons, but at this time, I think we are perfectly justified in using them, and a viable alternative must first be demonstrated. As for the issue of using Japan's flag in the publisher field... that's a good point, and I would ask how we might selectively extend that to some of the other fields (especially the _en ones, since often, English licenses aren't announced for one specific region when there's only one English licensor). 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 09:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which one could also bring up the argument of should the infoboxes contain the other fields for licensors and networks aired? No other media appears to have that much information, which could be seen as indiscriminate (and if people every actually checked the infoboxes in GAs/FAs would cause every one we had to fail because the lists are often just added to by anons without actual checking/sourcing). Perhaps it might be better to look at reducing the boxes to just the original and any English licensor/airings, same as the television, film, and book articles, and leave the prose to note, with sources, others. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You bring up a valid point. Everything found in the info box should also be in the article body. That should be expressly writen into the MoS, as practically all our articles do otherwise. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they should be in the body, and I think they should be in the infobox. The reason most other media don't use them is because anime and manga are one of the few media which tend to be extensively translated all over the world in many different languages. I doubt you could find any other medium which is prolific in that sense. We are dealing with an issue which is unlikely to be encountered elsewhere. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you all get to watch me waffle (and thus probably not say anything substantial). =D AnmaFinotera and Joe both bring up valid points in regards to "other countries" information in the infobox. It is definitely not standard procedure amongst other infoboxes to note this information, but we're definitely not dealing with standard media in that respect. On one hand, if it is decided that this information should be moved out of the infobox entirely, we could probably get away with replacing flagicons with country names (although Animax could still muck that all up for us). On the other hand, if it is kept in the infobox, I think we should take a much more hard-line approach to having everything duplicated - and properly sourced - in the prose. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would favor the second approach (making sure the info is also in the prose). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the first things I do as part of article cleanup is do just that -- as part of constructing a manga/anime releases section (invariably there isn't one, just whatever's in the lead) I copy the licensors down from the infobox. It makes for a good start on what's needed. And then, if I get that far, start working on sourcing them. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters
why go by the name most commonly known, what if its not the official name? like for instance. its almost as if you are asking the fans what name do they know most of the time. like for anime and manga related things like a character introduced as "this name" but then through the entire series is known as "that name" wouldnt it make more sense if you change it to something a bit more productive?Haseo445 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't. The official English name takes precedence over any "most commonly" known one unless it can truly be argued that it that the common is more used through reliable sources. Though it sounds like you are speaking about a different issue, of a character changing names mid-series? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And technically, if there is an official English release, it's going to be using the most commonly used name (except perhaps among we fans who prefer a different name for one reason or another). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. This rule is to decide between the native name (in this case Japanese) and an Eglish translation (for example, when there is an English version of the work), or between two English translations (for example when there are more than one English version of the product). Therefore, per WP:NAME, when naming articles you use the name that is most commonly recognized by English speaking readers. This means, for example, that if the original Japanese name is better known by English speaking readers than the English translation, then you've got to go with the Japanese name. On the other hand, if the English name is better known, then go with that.

This rule has nothing to do with whether a name is official or not, btw. That's a totally different issue. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm talking about a name thats more commonly used in the series. is the rule applied to the people who watch it to decide which name should be suggested or the series itself? when there are multiple official names, do we ask the fans or contributors which name we should use, or do we see which name is more commonly used in the series?Haseo445 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, per WP:MOS-JA, "Japanese terms should be romanized according to most common usage in English, including unconventional romanization of titles and names by licensees (e.g., Devil Hunter Yohko and Tenjho Tenge)".


 * More details from WP:MOS-JA:


 * 1) . Use the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet;
 * 2) . Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary;
 * 3) . Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;
 * 4) . Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Dutch, or variations); or
 * 5) . If none of the above is available, use the macronned form.


 * To put simple, if there is an official English version of the anime, take the romanizations from that. If there isn't, then try the official website of the anime. If you don't find any romanization there then just use an standard hepburn romanization until an official one appears.


 * EDIT: don't forget we're talking about romanization rules here, not about translations (that's a different issue, which I already addressed in my previous post).Kazu-kun (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

* facepalm* i'm not tlaking about translations, these guys are. i'm saying if there is multiple official names, like lets say in DEATH NOTE: the official name for L is "L lawliet" and "L" which name od we use? the most commonly known in the series or the one that is know to the fans more.Deathberry (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the individual case of Death Note, L's full name should be mentioned when he is first mentioned in the article, but after that, there's really no reason to use his full name - simply referring to him as "L" would suffice. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Character section revision
I've been unhappy with how the current WP:MOS-AM presents the alternatives for how to handle the characters of a series. Here's a proposed rewrite of the first two paragraphs:


 * There are two ways to handle character information for a series:


 * For shorter series, it may be better to include relevant character information in a well-crafted plot summary. This prevents the article from looking like a SparkNotes summary, rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry, and reduces the duplication of incidents in the story summary and the character summary. If you do this, actors/voice actors should be handled with a cast list in the appropriate media section below.
 * For longer series with a large cast, a characters section consisting of brief character outlines may be more appropriate. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story, and should focus on the characterization and role in the story, rather than a recapitulation of plot points the character is involved in. The character section should include actor/voice actor credits (if applicable, see anime voices), rather than a separate cast section.


 * If you go for option 2, keep in mind the following:

And so on. What do people think? Also, should we consider (lower in the section) depreciating a bullet list of characters in favor of definition lists, since that seems to be our current best practice as shown by our higher-ranked series articles? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ETA: I tweaked part of this to make the actors/voice actors part more parallel. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the rewrite. On the list format, not sure. I've seen both bullet and definition, and I thought bullet was the current best practice :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've seen bullets used in a single GA article, nor in any B-class article or character list for a while. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * * cough cough* (and before it was merged to the plot, Tokyo Mew Mew was using bullets) Of course, its not like we have a lot of B or GA series articles at all :( Actually, looking at a lot of them, almost all B are using prose rather than bullets or definition lists. LOL -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be me not looking in the right places, yup. Though I note those are both articles where the character section is a summary of the spinoff list of characters, which presents its own style issues. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also true...looking at the current sets, I think the prose versions really are the nicest over all, but visually, if it has to be a list, I still like bullets, which mirrors what is mostly done in films and TV articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When you says "Length of each entry should" (in the second option), you're encouraging people to use list format, which we shouldn't. We need to emphasize the fact that prose is preferred over list.

Also, in the first option, when you say "cast list in the appropriate media section"... some articles use a "production" section or something similar instead, so we should add that... just something like "in the appropriate media or production section" would do. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "length of each entry" clause is carried over unchanged from the existing guidelines. And in any case, that's talking about the length of each entry in the list, not the length of the series. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's the problem: if you talk about the length of each entry in the list, you're encouraging people to use a list, and we shouldn't do that. We need to add something to make it clear that prose is preferred over a list. I'll go ahead and post my revision:


 * For shorter series, it may be better to include relevant character information in a well-crafted plot summary. This prevents the article from looking like a SparkNotes summary, rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry, and reduces the duplication of incidents in the story summary and the character summary. If you do this, actors/voice actors should be handled with a cast list in the appropriate media or production section below.
 * For longer series with a large cast, a characters section consisting of brief character outlines may be more appropriate. Prose is preferred over a list format; the amount of text dedicated to each character should vary relative to the character's importance to the story, and should focus on the characterization and general role in the story, rather than a recapitulation of specific plot points the character is involved in. The character section should include actor/voice actor credits (if applicable, see anime voices), rather than a separate cast section. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, let's back up a bit here -- when did we decide to promote prose over lists? On what rationale? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was discussed awhile back...might be in the archives now. And based on what's been happening with GA and FA reviews, and PRs, where the bullet lists were less useful than a prose summary if an article has a separate character list (and more in keeping with doing a summary of a main). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My memory was that we agreed to allow prose as an alternative, not to promote it as preferred. This is sounding like a discussion that should be taken to the main project talk, as we're moving past wording and into changing intent. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Media organization
I don't understand why the guidelines state that all the media has to be lumped into one section. I can understand when it comes to franchises that has an anime version airing concurrently with the manga (like Naruto and Bleach to use current examples), but what about franchises like Golgo 13 or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, that had a couple of anime adaptations, but for most part were published independently without any sort of adaptation? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus more on the original media, have a section for the publishing history (or broadcast history if its an anime) and then focus on adaptations in other sub-sections? Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. If theres no adaption, you don't need to mention them. However, even if there is no adaption, there is often some other form of media, such as artbooks, guidebooks etc. Neither of your examples seem like exceptions to the rule. Theres nothing wrong with the Manga section being 3x as long as the anime section, as long as the content justifys it.


 * I'm looking at Golgo at see no reason to have "publication history". All of that can come under manga. Thats the exact content that should be a basis for that section! So far, I'm not seeing any reason to ignore, or change the MOS just to accomodate that page. Golgo is clearly a franchise now, regardless of it not being a weekly show Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that why should we lumped all media equally into one section. I cited Golgo 13 because the manga has a 40-year publication history with over 140 collected volumes. During all those years, there's only been three animated adaptations (the 1980's movie, the Queen Bee OVA, and the 50-episode TV series which ended recently). Its ridiculous to give the same weight to the anime versions when they only have a fraction of the history the manga (the original medium) has. Likewise, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has a 20-year publishing history and it only has two anime adaptations (the thirteen episode OVA series and the Phantom Blood movie).
 * The Manga and Anime Wikiproject is the only Wikiproject that enforces to give equal coverage to all media. The Harry Potter article focus primarily on the books, with a proper sub-section for the film versions, while Star Trek focuses primarily on the TV shows, and they're both multimedia franchises. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In both of these cases, the article focuses mainly on the original (and main) media releases. The section is really more of a formality IMHO, to ensure a uniform layout throughout articles in our scope. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the "equal coverage". As I said, the content will weigh in favor of the manga, simply because there is more to dicsuss. But thats no reason to choose a different layout for the article, especially as you still have to discuss the other media. You won't be giving the same weight to the Anime, because coverage will be smaller to fit with it's smaller "status". I don't see how it's different to only having a paragraph to discuss artbooks or soundtracks in an article while the animne or manga get multiple paragraphs. I would also argue that both of the other projects are vastly different to our own. Either way, at this stage the article doesn't have enough content to suggest that any change will be beneficial. My ideal scenario would be to adapt what is there into the mos layout, and get as much verifiable, detailed content as is appropriate into the manga section. Fillout the anime section with relevant verifiable material, then come back. It will be so much easier to see if there is any benefit to change or making an exception if the article can show us why it should be considered as such. To me, that would be how I would do things. As it stands, it's hard to see how doing it against the MOS is beneficial. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article as a whole is about the primary work. The media section's first section is for the publication/broadcast history and licensing of that work, but when there are adaptations and related works, naming it "manga" or "anime" is clearer than "publication history" (which is a bit misleading for manga since its usually serialized first and most people don't associate publication with serialization even if technically it is). Where a series truly has no adaptations, then there are no sub-headings (such as with Free Collars Kingdom). This is, in part, a reflection of the MoS of Films and Television, and balances better with works that start as anime and manga. I also agree that the MoS as is works fine, and I can't see any benefit to the proposed idea. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion/Question for Listing Voice Actors
I have a question about a suggestion for listing voice actors in Lists. This originally began on the List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, so I'll be using examples from that page since I've already got the code in my clipboard. I bring the question here because in my attempts to discuss this change, we've come across the fact that a) there is not currently any sort of guideline or predefined method you all would prefer a List to be edited outside of comparing other FA and GA, and b) even amongst already existing Lists, the prose isn't particularly consistent across the board (for instance, some articles stress seiyu, while others say Japanese series/English adaptations, etc). I bring this question here in the hopes a real discussion will commence and a consensus/ruling will be made.

Currently, most paragraphs list the actors at the end of paragraphs as such: Rie Kugimiya voices him in Japanese, and Aaron Dismuke in the English adaptation. 1 Yūko Satō voices her in Japanese, and Laura Bailey in English. 2 Kimblee is voiced by Yuji Ueda in the Japanese series, and by Eric Vale in the English adaptation. His voice in the new series is provided by Hiroyuki Yoshino. 3

Also, another way actors are listed: Edward is voiced by Romi Paku and Vic Mignogna in the Japanese and English versions, respectively. 4 Toru Okawa and Travis Willingham voice Mustang in the Japanese and English versions, respectively. 5 An older edit of the List went as follows:6 7 8


 * Zolf J. Kimblee


 * Tim Marcoh


 * Alex Louis Armstrong

Now the underlying question: should voice actors (in the lists) be stated using the tags or in prose on the tail-end of a character's description? The reason I bring this is up is because upon editing the List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, I found a portion of grammatical errors arose when someone attempted to list the voice actors within the article itself. Personally I used the second method above, since I found it to read better than the first option (listing both actors, then both version, respectively). However the problem arose when another editor began reverting the edits back to the first choice. Neither was technically grammatically incorrect, but overall it gave me the idea to suggest a change in listing the voice actors in a consistent matter over all the characters on the list so that they wouldn't be subject to (too much) change. So what are your thoughts (or verdicts?) -- Watemon (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Per established consensus (though agree, it does need to be actually clarified in the MoS), Voice actors should always be listed at the end of the character section if the primary (i.e. first) medium of the series is a written one (manga, light novels, etc). They should only be listed at the start with tags if the series primary work is an animated one (anime series, OVA, film, etc). In the case of Fullmetal Alchemist, its primary medium is the manga series, so the voices go at the end and his reverting was wholly appropriate and correct. For a series like, The Vision of Escaflowne, the primary work is the anime series, so its character list uses the anime voices template under the headers. The reason for this is, like the main article, the character list should focus on the primary work. At the end of a character section, any particularly important notes regarding differences between the primary work and its adaptions are noted, including who provides the voice. There is actually a template now for doing the voices at the end of a section, anime voices2, which can be employed to have it standardized. Beyond that, wording choice is generally left up to the editors, so long as it is consistent. Some like to do "manual" prose to keep it from being too monotonous. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so to clarify: lists whose primary work is animated lists actors using tags at the start; lists whose primary work is written (manga/light novel) should list actors at the end of character description, as a "particularly important note regarding differences between the primary work (manga) and its adaptions". (Do I understand this correctly?) That being said: would you prefer that the listing of actors at the end of the character description be done in prose or as tags (example below)? You say that "wording choice is generally left up to [us]", so I'm only trying to clarify if this is also acceptable. Also, I'm getting the general impression there is a particular preference to keeping everything "in prose", if I'm correct in assuming so, could you please explain it to me so I may better understand the justification? Again, my chief concern is organizational and grammatical consistency. Thanks again. -- Watemon (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

. . . He is also instructed to start a bloody conflict reminiscent of Ishbal. As such, he briefly sides with the country of Drachma, and leads them to slaughter against Briggs's forces. He later breaks the Homunculus Pride out of the dirt dome Hohenheim and the others had trapped him in and confronts Alphonse Elric. After being severely injured in the ensuing fight, it is implied that Kimblee is consumed by Pride's shadow.
 * Zolf J. Kimblee


 * Yes, and they should always be done as prose at the end, not stand alone tags (or can use the anime voices 2 template, but still included at the end of the sentence and not broken out by itself) as the anime voices 2 template produces a full sentence. So for your example, it would be:


 * . . . He is also instructed to start a bloody conflict reminiscent of Ishbal. As such, he briefly sides with the country of Drachma, and leads them to slaughter against Briggs's forces. He later breaks the Homunculus Pride out of the dirt dome Hohenheim and the others had trapped him in and confronts Alphonse Elric. After being severely injured in the ensuing fight, it is implied that Kimblee is consumed by Pride's shadow.


 * Or, the sentence could be written out in regular prose. (that said, someone needs to fix the grammar in anime voices 2...its missing a word or two :P)-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about the ". . . in the Japanese language . . . in the English language." part of the tag. I also suggest the tag be updated to read "version" instead of language (or to read: "as voiced by {1} and {2} in the Japanese and English versions, respectively"<-- I'm partial to the language in this example, flows better). Again, just curious, is there any particular reason the voice actors can't be broken out by themselves? Is it a matter of preference? (again, curiosity). -- Watemon (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording needs fixed. It should be something like the "original Japanese version...English dubbed version." It needs to be made explicit that the voice only changes for the dubbed, not always all "English" versions (which includes the subtitled versions). As they are not broken out by themselves in these causes because it gives undue weight to a secondary version, and just doesn't look as visually pleasing, nor flow well. In general, the bulk of Wikipedia articles should be prose over lists or bullet points. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Alrighty, so how about: "is voiced by {1} and {2} in the original Japanese version and English dubbed version, respectively." Grammar is similar as seen throughout FA and GA lists, and if we update then use the anime voices 2 template it'll create some consistency. Could I/we also create a new template for the special case of Fullmetal Alchemist. We're in the unique position of having two different anime series now. Maybe we could have it read: "is voiced by {1} and {2} in the original Japanese version and English dubbed version of the first series, and {1} (and {2} if a dub is ever made) in the original Japanese version of the 2nd series." Or maybe simply split the sentence, or use two tags. This was a question brought up in the original discussion, just thinking out loud, basically. (also, thanks for being patient enough to answer my questions!) -- Watemon (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FMA is one of those rarer cases where you'll probably just want to go with straight prose, or maybe start a discussion at anime voices 2 about being able to include a show name attribute so it can be used multiple times on the same person, but different adaptations. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah can someone tel me what is so wrong exactly with defining who does what version? --"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with defining who does what version; you're supposed to clarify who does which. What we're discussing are unified ways that can be done within the scope of the anime/manga project. -- Watemon (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ok--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Question on external links
Under the fourth bullet point of External Links it says to "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site", however in the FA Tokyo Mew Mew, there are several links to Anime News Network. Is ANN an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelFire3423 (talk • contribs) 13:27, May 4, 2009


 * Its a back and forth thing on the ANN links. Technically they are separate entries, and there really hasn't been any clear consensus one way or the other whether there should only be one link to the main entry, or one for each individual. I think it would be good to discuss the idea in general, since some other articles have multiple links to official sites that are all under one main official, but one for each season/series/etc. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Chronology categories
I've noticed that some OVAs and book series are being mentioned in multiple "Anime of [year]" categories. I propose that any self-contained series only be a member of the "Anime of [year]" of its beginning, whether a serial, OVA, manga, or whatever.

I also propose that the manga and anime chronologies be separated. They are already very lengthy and they aren't going to be getting any smaller. Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is perfectly valid categorization, and the Manga of [year] categories are used in the same fashion. Individual articles may need attention, but generally, there should be a category for the start of each series. As for separating the chronologies, I'm not sure what you're talking about... Could you clarify, please? ···「ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? Talk to Dinoguy1000 09:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then, I just didn't notice that there were guidelines for such. It appears the guidelines just aren't being followed. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of naming order within this page
Per discussion here I would like MOS-AM to add a paragraph for naming order. Something like: Following the standards set forth by Japanese MoS, characters names should be based upon the era the anime is set in. For those anime set before the Meiji Restoration, names should be family name then personal name. For those set after, including those set in the future, it should be personal name and then family name. For anime set in fantasy worlds, context should be used to determine the relative historic setting. If the setting is timeless or unclear, use first name then family name. 陣 内 Jinnai 09:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For the most part I agree, except the last bit about fantasy worlds. That touches too close to the OR line by using context. If it is not a clearly pre-Meiji series, Western order should be used. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of titles such as Shogun, daimyo, etc. were abolished during the Meiji Restoration. Any anime that uses those kind of references that does not clearly contain contradictions like mecha, cars, etc. should use traditional naming. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this an issue specific to anime and manga? IMO, if it is an issue with Japanese fiction in general, it should be dealt with at WP:MOS-JA.  Good raise  14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because its been brought up a little frequently of late. Its basically a restating of MOS-JA within this MoS, as opposed to a really new issue. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it really was nothing but a restating of MOS-JA, which I'm not convinced it is, then I'd be against the addition, because any editor capable of finding this page should also be able to find MOS-JA. If it were an interpretation of MOS-JA that only mattered for anime and manga, then I'd support the addition, but I don't see how this is an anime and manga specific issue.  Good raise  15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with AnmaFinotera. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the Japanese MoS does not even touch upon fantastical elements, only historical. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, #1) unless the cultural setting is clearly feudal Japan, Japanese titles should not be used. Elsewhere it should probably be the English equivalents. A shogun is a military commander in a specific cultural role, it's not the same as a general in the western sense. Still, the terms are used interchangeably in Japanese parlance: it can refer to a feudal military commander, or to a (ranking) supreme commander of an organized military. (recall that such concepts did not actually exist in feudal Europe, because military titles themselves did not exist, only social titles).
 * Policy should be eschewed wherever it is evident that there is an alternative policy choice that is just as effective. Context and subtle judgment should be employed instead. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I confess I was kinda confused by this discussion because I'm not familiar with Japanese name order conventions. The whole debate seems to me completely superfluous. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that we have had serious arguments about it in the past. The Japanese MoS doesn't deal with fictional worlds, period. It is designed around the real world articles. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could point to MOS-J for modern, futuristic and historical anime and just clarrify what to do when the setting is more hard to define such as Samurai 7 which use historic setting and references, but modern/futuristic technology or the reverse such as Utawarerumono which is set in the future but uses a political, economic and social infrastructure of pre-Tokugawa Japan. Also ones that deal with time travel between the era like Inuyasha and completely fantasy ones Record of the Lodoss War and timeless peices like Mushi-shi (author has said it was suppose to take place in modern times, but feels like it takes place during pre-Meiji). 陣 内 Jinnai 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anything been resolved about this? I brought several real problem articles as actual evidence to support that just going with MOS-J is problematic or has this been addressed there? 陣 内 Jinnai 03:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with character articles
'' ♦♦♦ The following discussion happened elsewhere and was copied here to provide context and spark discussion. This discussion was advertised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga‎. We had a discussion in assement that brought up an issue with character articles that may need to be resolved. ''


 * Allen Walker - Recreated article. ~ Itzjustdrama ?  C 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * C-class. Very close to B-class. Good job so far. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead (using Myōjin Yahiko as a base). Also, I want to make sure I'm interpreting your other comment correctly. I should make the plot overview section a sub-section of character outline? ~ Itzjustdrama ?  C 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'd try to condense as much of the plot section into the character bio rather than a straight merge. I know a few GA characters have a seperate plot section like Sasuke Uchiha, but it doesn't follow the MOS-AM and we don't have any feature articles to go by. For other projects you can see how they do them like Flood (Halo). 陣 内 Jinnai 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's so, the manual of style needs some updating. It says "This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; special attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted".Tintor2 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be. I'd bring that discussion up there though. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

'' ♦♦♦ The above discussion happened elsewhere and was copied here to provide context and spark discussion. ''
 * Quasirandom: The discussion is very blatantly obviously not closed as people are still discussing it here. If the discussion is closed elsewhere, then close it there, not here. You are making no sense with your bizarre edits. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a better way of clearly indicating the above conversation took place elsewhere (on the assessment workpage) and was copied here to provide context and spark the discussion below, I'm open to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to link "elsewhere" to the discussion elsewhere. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there's no actual template for something like that? I can't believe it. There certainly should be if there isn't as the code is hard for people to remember compared to a template name like . 陣 内 Jinnai 06:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is, but for templates of this nature, the template namespace tends to be a real mess because no one cares enough to clean it all up and give it a semblance of order. ;P 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not up on current practice for character articles, to be honest, but the subsections were the concensus decision in the original discussion for the character article guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems there are article like L (Death Note) that follow the video games' characters style. A difference I found is that video game character do not make mention of abilities since that's not important to the games' plot and can be noted to be as a gameguide. Some abilities from anime/manga characters tend to be important for the plot, so they could be noted in a appearances section like "The resurrected Mana was ordered to kill Allen, slicing him through the left eye. Allen's deformed left arm awakened as an anti-akuma weapon, an enormous arm, destroying Mana, and his left eye became cursed, allowing him to see the souls of akuma." Just to give an example.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For another non-video game one that's FA quality there is Tom Swift. That article doesn't lists the character by his incarnations and any other section is either creation or impact/reception. The descriptions are all within the various sections which describe his character without any special not to abilities or the like. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another FA article is Martin Keamy (though that's a TV article) which has a personality section composed of sources from the author and third-party sources.Tintor2 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least it looks like the trend is to not have to many sections/subsections on a character unless they are significantly different in different incantations and they just give an overview for each incarnation. So probably the part on the subsections for "appearance and personality" and "history" should be removed. A phrase could be added "If the character differs significantly in their role or characteristics in their various media appearances, separate subsections should be used to help distinguish these differences." meh. I'm sure someone could write that better. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite an afterthought, but I've realized that television character FA's such as Michael Tritter and Nikki and Paulo include a plot overview under headings titled "Storyline" and "Appearances" respectively. ~ Itzjustdrama  ?  C 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

stab draft
Current text:


 * This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; special attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted (however, do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight).

Draft rewrite:


 * This will generally not have subsections, unless the character differs significantly enough in its various media appearances that subsections can help distinguish them. Other aspects of the character can also be treated in a separate subsection if an encyclopedic treatment suggests it is warranted, based on third-party commentary. Do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight.

Assuming we still want to keep that part about special abilities -- if not, then further rewriting will be needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Maybe we should check some more. I'd rather outright not mention the special abilities and just make it a more generic commentary about other subsections being okay if there is enough significant commentary to support multiple decent paragraphs. ie often there may enough for 1 large paragraph or 2 small paragraphs that would likely be merged in a feature article with other sections. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been checking Sasuke Uchiha and noted that there are not many abilities important to the plot. The few important ones are:
 * He is a ninja prodigy,
 * He has the Sharingan and it evolves along the series unitl becoming the Mangekyo Sharingan,
 * He learns the Chidori and develops several variations.
 * For what I saw it could be merged in an appearances section.Tintor2 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Draft revised. Does that work better? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Closer. I would prefer something that was a bit clearer. Something like:

This will generally not have subsections, unless the character differs significantly enough in their various media appearances that subsections can help distinguish them. Other aspects of the character can also be treated in a separate subsection if encyclopedic treatment suggests it is warranted, based on the amount of reliably sourced commentary.

In order to not place undue weight on any one element it is nessasary to list only the important elements. Long lists like every named attack of the character give more importance to less important attacks. Exhaustive background which chronicle blow-by-blow accounts of the characters history overwhelm the reader with trivial information as well as possibly needlessly spoiling the plot.
 * It could be condensed i suppose. There were some key problems with the former one. First, it did not qualify the amount of information nessasary for a subsection. Also the use of "third-party" sources isn't really nessary here for a secondary section. If the creator talks alot about one of the character's attacks, that should be worthy of note. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. However, I'm seeing that all the important abilities for fictional characters I have seen could be merged in an appearances section. By the way, would that turn appearances in other media into a subsection?Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea looks like "Appearances in other media" would be merged with character info entirely. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, "Appearences in other media" are usually non-canonical appearences -- references and parodies and other demonstrations the character has become part of the common culture. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be a legacy or (Cultural) impact section normally? 陣 内 Jinnai 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if impact sections are preferred since that would make editors add cameos of 2 seconds of characters in another series. As I understand, other media refers to film, ovas novels, etc. as along as it is part from the franchise.Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2-second cameos would qualify as trivial information generally. Maybe mentioning they've appeared in other series is fine, but saying "X had cameo appearances in X, Y as B and Z as C." could be better said as "X has appeared in multiple cameo roles" possibly with "outside X's original franchise". 陣 内 Jinnai 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, I started working in L (Death Note) to work with this new style. Everybody is welcome to help.Tintor2 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
Is there a policy or guideline concerning the use of terms like mangaka and seiyuu over their English equivalents? I don’t see anything on this MOS page, WP:Use English only pertains to proper nouns, and WP:MOS only says when to italicize them. I don’t think these two words are in common use by non-otaku, but they’re not in my dictionary; in fact, I think I’ve only encountered them on Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, mangaka should be rarely used in a series article (its fine on their bios I believe, with nearby explanation). Seiyuu should pretty much never be used in any series article/list, as far as I can tell. In general, the anime voices template is used which does "voiced by" prose instead. Neither are common enough, I think for general use, unlike tankoban or, of course, manga and anime. If either is used in an article, then the same sentence should give a brief summary of what the word means per guidelines (similar to dealing with technical terms or non-standard words - can use, but must explain if can't replace with a more common one). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that Seiyuu is much more common off-wiki then tankoban. Few people refer to volumes of manga as "tankoban" (I would suggest that if you took 100 random manga readers, most people wouldn't know what you were talking about if you said tankoban), however people use seiyuu consistently when speaking of voice actors and/or their works in fandom. Granted, neither have the widespread useage of say, "Otaku" (as much as I loathe the twisting of the actual negative connotation of this word), but Seiyuu is certainly used more freely, and commonly then tankoban (which most people would just call a "volume" - or even a trade paperback). However thats more for other people to decide which is suitable for wiki then myself. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * tankoban is used in the English industry, at the least, while you generally do not see Seiyuu used in press releases and the like (though both are used heavily in reviews, so I'd say Seiyuu is arguably more usable than mangaka. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do official localized credits (on book covers, or at the end of anime episodes) ever credit the authors/voice actors as mangaka/seiyuu? And for what it’s worth, tankoban is new to me, even though I enjoy anime and manga. —Frungi (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's where it gets fun...it depends on the publisher/releaser, the title, etc. For most manga, I do not recall seeing mangaka used, as they are usually modified to use normal US standard credit pages, but on about the author pages and inside cover flaps, some use mangaka, some just use author or artist. I honestly can't answer on anime credits, as I never look at them. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Technical terms and definitions is what you are looking for.  Good raise  05:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers. I asked because nearly every anime and manga article seems to use those words as if they were English, and this bothered me. But surely they’re not technical terms, and are they really jargon? Is there a policy that says to write articles in English, or is that just common sense? —Frungi (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, regardless of how or whether these terms are used in prose, links to the articles are usually still appropriate - for instance, I probably see about a 50/50 split of  versus   in articles. As to popularity/usage, I have no opinion on tankobon vs. seiyuu, but IMHO "mangaka" used in English prose seems like the type of thing plenty of people would label as Wapanese; I actually don't recall seeing it used more than a couple of times off-wiki. 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know. This is all too subjective for my taste. Personally, I would have guessed mangaka to be the least problematic term of the three. But then again, I'm neither a native speaker of English, nor involved in otaku sub-culture aside from this bunch of fanatics.  Good raise  19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * mangaka is imo more prevelent than seiyuu mostly because there is no easy equivalent. Mangaka usually are both manga/comic artist and an author, although sometimes manga artist is used. Seiyuu however is much less used. Japanese voice actor is much more common. In either case these aren't jargon, but foreign words with not quite enough mainstream usage so they should be italicized when they are used. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting translation differences in episode/chapter title lists
This comes out of a recent dispute on List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where Viz's title was different from the directly translated Japanese title. I seem to remember the lists for manga chapter titles such as List of One Piece chapters (1–186) used to include notes about translations where the official translation was inaccurate or differed significantly from the literal Japanese translation, but those were removed a long time ago. Was there any particular reason for removing those notes I guess aside from it making the list look bad aesthetically?

I'm not really arguing for either side; I just want to end the dispute about whether or not to include a translation note in the lists. Geg (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would put such notes at the bottom using a ref tag or something similar. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you're in favor of including such notes?  Good raise  23:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, as I think it's important information (and not WP:OR as some may claim; it's simply a translation). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem I can see is that articles may end up with overly large translation note sections. Geg (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. There are articles with over 200 references at the bottom, so a few translation notes shouldn't be an issue. I doubt most articles will have more than a couple or three. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If its an issue of size and separation for such lists, you can separate notes from references and shrink the default font size slightly. 陣 内 Jinnai 06:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)