Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 12

Cosmic Era article series facing deletion
Here there is a blanket AfD for probably a good 50-100 Cosmic Era articles. I have objected to this out of principle, saying that one cannot nominate 50 different articles without explaining specifically how each one violates a Wikipedia policy. If this is passed as a delete, it might not bode well for future anime articles. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear case of an don't be a dick violation by the original poster. Those gundam articles are one of the reasons I started editting here, removing them reduces wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's a Wikiproject related directly to these articles. I bet they'll be surprised. :P Kyaa the Catlord 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't active though. At least, I thought the project was shut down. Anyways, see also Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles‎.--SeizureDog 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For some reason, the linking doesn't seem to work. Not sure why either.--SeizureDog 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really think it is overstating the case by implying that if these articles are deleted, other anime articles will be deleted. This particular lot of articles are horrible quality and are in dire need of clean-up. Someone went way overboard with creating entries for every minor character and machine in the series.  If they're not deleted (I see one big no-consensus result for the lot) they'll all need to be trimmed substantially and merged and redirected where necessary.  We'll also need some non-primary references for the entire group. I wish the nominating editor had listed all of them separately ans conducted his deletion debate in a more civil manner. Finally, because someone is a fan of a certain series doesn't mean that that article deserves to be in Wikipedia.  This detailed fan stuff is more suited to Wikibooks, as the Harry Potter fans have shown us with the |Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. --Kunzite 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The gundam articles are mostly just fancruft, and can be merged / trimmed to a hand full of pages and do a lot better job. -- Ned Scott 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's an easy way/tool/bot to go through and nominate multiple articles for deletion I'd like to know it. Because it could talk half a day for one person to go through and list each Gundam article that needs trimming one by one. I tried by best to make it clear that I wanted people to vote on the articles seperately and not together in my nomination. In a sense, it's the same thing, just less hassle for the nominator.--SeizureDog 13:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with kanji/romaji names
I am unable to vizualise kanjis for technical reasons beyond my hability, and would be eternally grateful if someone could help me with the simple task of adding the kanki and romanisation for the names in the character section of Serial Experiments Lain where it is still missing. I believe that's only Taro, Miu Miu, their friend, the Office Worker, and the two MiBs. Thanks for your time!--SidiLemine 12:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing a Miho Iwakura, Reika Yamamoto, Yuri Katō, and Chisa Yomoda. At least, they're listed on the Japanese article. --SeizureDog 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They all seemed like very secondary to me. Miho says two sentences in the whole series, Yuri and Reika are only Alice's supporting crew, and I'm pretty sure Chisa doesn't acheive 15 mn of screen time. Actually, I still have doubts about Taro and the Office Worker, but they play key roles in the plot developpement so I thought it was best to include them.--SidiLemine 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, you can install Japanese language support for Windows XP (ie. the ability to see kanji in your browser) by downloading the file here. ;) I'm yet to find a Linux distro that didn't come with it built in. - Phorque 15:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone offer a little feedback on edits
I've done a bit of edit to Sentou Yousei Yukikaze, and Submarine 707R. I know the latter isn't finished, but it at least has SOMETHING in there now.

--Kschang77 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sentou Yousei Yukikaze needs wikifying. Remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should explain things in an Out-of-universe perspective and should not contain rhetorical questions (for example: "Was it just a mirage, a sign that he's still out there, or was it really him?"). --Squilibob 12:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Things related to anime that we need articles for.

 * Idol club - Those crazy clubs based around a certain hot girl at school.
 * PVC model / PVC figure - A type of model that anime characters often come in. Can end up being really expensive too. There are similar articles that almost seem to be good choices to redirect too, but none seem to actually be quite right.
 * One coin - Small anime figures that randomly come in sealed boxes that you can buy with one coin. Similar to gashapon.
 * Character album - Albums where the voice actors sing songs in-character.
 * Japanese school swimsuit - Those blue, one-piece things seem to have a pretty big fetish around it. I can't figure out why either.
 * Speed lines - The half-assed way of drawing motion.
 * Bloomers needs an image of the kind of bloomers we've grown to know from anime. If someone clicks on a link of bloomers from an anime article for some reason they're going to be grossly misled as to what we're talking about.

I'm sure there are more that need to be done. We need to be sure that all cultural references that pop up in any have at least stubs. I would make them, but I'm hoping someone else knows more about these than me.--SeizureDog 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Image album already has an (extremely small) section on character albums that could be used as a start. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Image album looks like something that needs to be merged into something else. It seems that most "soundtracks" in the West these days are actually just Music Inspired by The Lord of the Rings with songs that never even appeared in what they're supposed to be soundtracks for, which is what it seems like an image album is (in the case of the album I'm referring to, it was songs inspired by the book). Furthermore, I've not seen the term "image album" used and it seems pretty misleading, plus no Japanese trans-wiki link to help verify it. Dunno what to do with that. --SeizureDog 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check here for an example. Image albums are a very specific category of album. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  11:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article about those summer sport shorts they have (bulma or something like that?)--SidiLemine 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Closest we got is Bloomers (clothing). And like I said before, that article is totally misleading if we link to it in our articles. --SeizureDog 14:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you're right. It is not the same thing. This is what Minnie Mouse used to wear. Not anime cuties.

Need help with fanboys at Negima!: Magister Negi Magi
In trying to enforce Wiki-policy, I keep kinding myself getting reverted on this page. The problems: I'm about to revert all of this, but the page as they seem to want it can be seen here. I could use some support here. --SeizureDog 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Someone seems to thing trivia such as "In volume 2, when 2-A is declared first place in the tests classification, a chibi version of Mitsune Konno (Kitsune) from Love Hina can be seen in a certain panel, throwing her tickets in the air, as she usually does when loses a bet." is, "notable".
 * 2) "Fuck" (as quoted in a review) keeps turning into "f***", a clear violation of Wikipedia is not censored.
 * 3) That's of course, when the review is actually in the article. The review is by The Comics Journal, a published magazine and thus one of the few creditable places we can find critical reviews. However, it's negative and fanboys don't like that :/
 * Deppey described the series as creating "simultaneously ... wildly entertaining situations" and extremely disturbing ones. When in doubt, paraphrase? --HKMarks(T/C) 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my two cents. Note that if this fails to produce consensus, the next step in the dispute resolution process is to open up a case at ArbCom. -- RoninBK E TC 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure this is bad enough that mediation needs to be skipped? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Resolving disputes, asking for mediation at a WikiProject satisfies the mediation step -- RoninBK E TC 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TV WikiProject needs your help!
There's some discussion at WT:TV, where I suggested looking at our animanga infoboxes as a solution to shows with lots of different media (TV, movies, games, etc). I thought I'd make a note here incase anyone had any more suggestions or feedback on adapting the animanga infobox system to the TV infobox. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jump Ultimate Stars in need of alot of help
I haven't played the game, but I've noticed the article is a long cluttered mess. It's a video game, and falls under the anime category as well. The biggest problem: the characters list. One long list isn't working and just makes it cluttered and long. Yes, the game has many characters... but so do many other games, they don't have long lists like that. In the table for the characters, there is an "original appearance" section. Not needed either, in my opinion: the article is about the video game, not about the anime and/or magna. If people want to know about those, they can read it on the character article itself. Anyone have any thoughts on what to do about the article? Feel free to post them, or be bold... and fix the table. The cleanup tag has been there since November. RobJ1981 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No comment on most of that, except that you're right that it needs help. The original appearance section, however, is necessary. Not only for those characters which do not have their own articles, but because in a real-world sense, the important thing is not which fictional character is there but rather what real-world franchise they are from. --tjstrf talk 07:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn that's a lot of characters...I totally need to import this game for x-mas. Anyways, I went ahead and did some major and rough splitting of the lists off. --SeizureDog 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. Moving alist from one page and just making it into a new page doesn't solve the problem completely. RobJ1981 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but it's a quick fix. The list certainly can't be turned into prose in any case.--SeizureDog 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured people would revert it, due to them not wanting the article to change. Cluttered lists make the article look horrible. It's basically a guide to characters (and the series they are in) and levels as it is now. There is some other information, but overall... just that. It should be noted: Jump Super Stars suffers from the same problems. Also there is this: Jump Superstars manga: Special Edition. It's an article on a free comic that came out because Jump Super Stars was popular. Many video games have free things: it doesn't make many (or any for that matter) notable for a single article on Wikipedia. A one time manga certainly isn't that notable in the long run. A note on the Jump Super Stars page is all that should be done in this case. RobJ1981 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why anime and manga need to better represented on Wikipedia
Rather than deleting pages, let's talk about this in the discussion page here. Why do specific anime and manga characters or story lines warrant placement in an encyclopedia? I see the need for this page, about manga in general, and certainly one on anime in general, but what makes each character noteworthy to those outside the anime and manga community? Thanks! Uvacss 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a whole lot, and you're not alone in your view. However, less cruft in itself can be "better representation". -- Ned Scott 03:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Storylines/plot summary articles should be moved to WikiBooks. Character articles should be judged on a case by case merit. Characters for anime that last less than 26 episodes probably should be probably be merged into a "Characters from ..." article though.--SeizureDog 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree storylines and plot summary articles don't belong here. This is an encyclopedia not a storyline guide. People assume it's alright, because they see other summaries...so they make one, another person makes one, and the cycle keeps going. Fancruft of summaries needs to stop for anime and manga.RobJ1981 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the most egregious example of cruft, and this may be endemic to TV-show topics, is the creation of articles for each episode of a series, especially when these articles don't provide much more information than the episode-lists. I imagine it's a rare TV episode that is notable enough to have its own article.--Monocrat 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a discrepancy between the title and the question asked. For "better represented", (ie topic), I agree with most of that. There is a need to contain this section from being overwhelmed by fancruft. However, Uvacss asks "Why do specific anime and manga characters or story lines warrant placement in an encyclopedia?" I would not want him, or anyone else, think that there is no valid reason for most (if not all) anime to have their own article in Wikipedia, as I am keen to include most published books, aired TV shows, and featured movies. Just to make that clear: they are all part of contemporary culture. And they will, for the most part, become part of classical culture. As such, I think that some plot overview is necessary to provide context, and explain the nature of the cultural item. Monocrat is right about the creation of episode articles. There may be one day a show that is so popular, deep, controversial and influential that every single episode of it needs its own article. This show has not yet been aired. For now, some TV shows have some very important episodes (South park and Seifield come to mind). Some characters might also be important enough to warrant indepandant articles, but I can't think of anime/manga characters right now (maybe cobra, or Ken? They marked a whole generation worldwide). Also, I'm OK with the idea about the characters of shows with less than 26 eps, but that definitely shouldn't be strict.--SidiLemine 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Monocrat: TV episode articles for every episode are a big problem on Wikipedia. It seems like once they started, they didn't stop. The problem is people wont approve of mass AFDs on any TV show's endless episode articles. It's the whole problem of "this show has episode articles, so any other show must have them". There is a TV wiki, isn't there? Episode guides belong there for all shows. I'm sure there is anime and manga Wikis as well: episode articles should be put on there, not here. RobJ1981 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One solution would be to begin with the shows that have almost empty episode articles, like Planetes or Serial Experiments Lain, it would then create enough precedent that fans have to justify why a particular episode would have to stay.--SidiLemine 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think part of the reason shows like that get small episode articles is the thinking that they have to have them in order for the "List of ___ episodes" to be featured articles.--SeizureDog 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if it would set a good precedent for mass deletion of crufty character articles, I'd be happy to sponsor Excel, Hyatt, Il Palazzo, Kabapu, Gojyou Shiouji and That Man. Seeing them gone would also be a way of atoning for my newbie sins. Apart from purging the Wikipedia of their trivia and speculation, there would be no real loss from getting rid of these articles: the main character-list has been sufficiently cleaned up in my estimation. Throwing it out there.--Monocrat 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no cause for deletion when redirecting will work just as well, you know. If you believe the list does a good enough job, then just point the pages to the list after discussing it with any other active editors on those pages. --tjstrf talk 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I often forget about redirects. I'll keep that in mind. :) --Monocrat 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing that always gets me depressed is the very low number of GA/FA in this project, compared to the number of articles (4500!!). Anything that reduces the number of stubs is welcome. Where shall we start?--SidiLemine 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we have 2 articles sitting in the Good Article Candidates page (Shuffle! and Death Note), so maybe we'll be able to bring the number up some. Plus, Madlax is surely at least a GA article, but he's going straight for FA.--SeizureDog 12:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm currently working on getting Serial Experiments Lain from GA to FA, and Monocrat is on a very good track to make List of Excel Saga media to FL. Once that is done, we might want to get NGE to GA/FA. To me it's the most encyclopedic manga ever, with tons of reviews, scholar work, etc. It will need a radical cleanup, and some warring with the fanboys out there to get all the cruft out, but getting it to GA should be quite easy. To me it's either Neon Genesis Evangelion or Cowboy Bebop (needs refs and deleting of trivia). Any preferences?--SidiLemine 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Shuffle! just passed, so +1 for the GAs. I definately think that we should work on Neon Genesis Evangelion first. It's much more culturally significant than Cowboy Bebop and I think there are probably more resources out there for it. Plus, it's a better article to work with. Bebop has too much that needs to be removed; you'd have to write that entire article from scratch. Evangelion mostly just needs sourcing.--SeizureDog 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done getting Shuffle to GA. --Squilibob 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Breaking indent) SeizureDog, I really have to disagree about the state of NGE. In short, the article suffers from problems of emphasis: too much on fans and cultural-impact and not enough on the series itself. I'm surprised at the skimpy summaries in plot and characters, and I doubt that any 26-episode anime, even NGE, deserves a full page for its plot. If anything needs to be moved sub-articles, it's "Influence" and "Inspiration and symbolism," which currently dominate the article.--Monocrat 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's still relevant, ie, to be moved to other pages, whereas CB has a lot to be simply removed, for causes of OR and triviality. I say we begin by making the page as complete, thorough, sourced and big as possible, and then we see what gets out. --SidiLemine 10:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit That being said, I agree with Monocrat, too. There's a need to inflate a little the in-world sections. When that's done and all the OR has been removed from the others, it should look much better.--SidiLemine 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You just contradicted yourself by calling the plot summary "skimpy", but then complaining about how it has a full page's worth of information. In any case, I was saying that NGE has more to work with. Once we get rid of all the junk we'll still have a decently sized article. CB however, will hardly have anything left. In any case, it's nice that the problem is that we need more in-world information. Generally, we have the exact opposite problem.--SeizureDog 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what Monocrat meant is that the plot doesn't warrant its own article, while the summary presented on the main article is too short. I agree to what SeizureDog says, althought we'll have to see what's left after we get rid of the OR. It might not be much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Fair use image on portal
Hi. This proposal and discussion is relevant to the Animga and Manga Portal: Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals --GunnarRene 14:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples on Project page
I have added some examples on how to use the stub tag and talk page template to better explain them. A lot of users who are new to the project don't pick up on these straight away. --Squilibob 10:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sectional redirects now work
Good news for those who are merging minor characters to list or shared articles, and or any other situation of shared topic. From the Wikipedia Signpost:
 * "Redirects to sections now work, using text such as .  The feature should be used cautiously, because users may be confused by being sent to the middle of a page when clicking an ordinary-looking link, and the redirect notice will be obscured by the jump."

For example, Aoi Housen now redirects to List of Infinite Ryvius characters directly instead of generically to the article. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But for some strange reason it's not working in Safari. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's excellent news. Thank you very much for informing us. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Article naming
I'm a little confused by how WP:Anime articles should be named, you have a brief paragraph on names, but perhaps it could be elaborated on. For an anime or manga released in the US, and popularly known by the US version, should we be using the "common" names (how it is in the US releases), a direct romazation, or something else. Case by case? So, looking at Pokemon articles, we have all English names: (Ash vs Satoshi) On Dragonball, we have a mix, but mostly romazation names (from the manga, not the anime): (Kuririn vs Krillin) Other animes seem to follow other standards. Of course, for anime and manga without a popular US translation (that is, if it's still primarily known in Japanese) then maybe we want to skirt this altogether. I see that you site WP:NAME, but I'm not sure what really you mean. Can someone help me to clarify this section one way or the other? JRP 15:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It means to use the most common name/title used by English-speakers. But on many anime and manga series, the most common usage can't be easily determined. This has lead to edit wars between those who side with the romazatized Japanese-language names and those who interpretation WP:NAME to mean that we should use the official English-language names used by the English-language company that holds the distribution rights to it. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hold the view that the causal non-otaku (English usage) Wikipedia user would use would be the name used. -- Sa mue l C urt is -- TALK  18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple, as sometimes the names change from the manga to the anime, and from one English publication to another. I agree that we should choose a simpler rule, though, because "the most popular one" is a really vague definition. Although I'm not a native English speaker I'd support the official English name over the most common among the fans, and the anime over the manga; I think most readers don't belong to fandom. --Εξαίρετος ([[Image:Noia_64_apps_email.png|20px]]msg) 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS-JA under "Names of companies, products, and organizations," says to honor the current spelling used officially by that party. The anime and manga titles would be the "products" of the distributor, hence why I would advocate and use that precedent. -- RoninBK E TC 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't apply. First, the scope of the example is wide, but the examples provided only deal with use of macrons in romanziations of corporations or institutions.  Second, which company takes precedence?  The company the company that originally produced the product? Or the company that has the US distro contract?  The country that has the S'pore distro contract? --Kunzite 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify my point. The precedence is on whoever owns the copyright on the English translation. I support the "official English translation" in as much as we are dealing with some company's copyrighted material. If the copyright owner dictates how something is supposed to be, that should take precedence over all else. -- RoninBK E TC 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar brouhaha over Naruto articles since the series' fans want to use "real names" (all the characters use Japanese order). We came down to using English order for the reasons Exairetos brought up (use official English name from the anime, since you can't automatically expect a reader to be fan of the series). It's explained a bit in detail here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Going back through that debate, I don't see where an "official" name order was cited as the main reason to convert to Western order, it seems to be the WP:MOS-JA. --Kunzite 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's very complex. I do not support the "official English translation" rule. First of all, I don't think there is such a things as an "official" translation. (Arbitrarily declaring things "official" is a violation of NPOV policies.) These are better defined as "licensed translations."  Multiple companies license series for translation.  On top of that, there are sometime multiple English-language translated versions.  (i.e. mangaka romaization vs. licensed translation; sub vs. dub; manga vs. anime; company 1 vs. company 2; macron long vowels vs. waapuro long vowels vs. no long vowels; r vs. l)
 * Sometimes the licensors get it wrong and we will go with the author's original intentions: The example that I often cite Tessaiga concensus from WP:MOS-JA where Wikipedia ignores a dub mis-transliteration. Should we propogate sloppy translations mistakes? Or should we honor the original intentions of a manga-ka?  I lean toward siding with the intentions of the author and footnote the mistakes.
 * Determining "most popular" is often a problem. To determine popularity, we usually use the google test. Becuase we have fansubs to deal with this makes some series very difficult.  Fan translations may turn out to be more popular than licensed ones. (Though some disupute that and says that licensed names will overtake fan names. No one has given proof.)
 * Third is the consistency problem. The dub name may be more popular for one character, but the mangaka's name may be more popular for a second.  Mixing and matching names should be avoided at all costs.
 * I really don't think we can create a "one size fits all" guideline for this. I was actually the one who cited the WP:NAME example (Use English, unless non-English is more recognized.) We may be able to come up with some sort of "one size fits most" guidelines. --Kunzite 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that a consistent Romanization by the mangaka should trump everything else if he has given one, because he is the author and for his works his statements are The Truth(tm). Of course then you get problems with authors who suck at Romanizing their characters's names, but that's an entire other mess and hopefully won't come up too often. For series where no official translations exist it may be best to just pick one consistent system of Romanization for the set of articles (Wikipedia suggests Hepburn romanization) so that we don't have to bother with problems like inconsistent scanlation qualities. --tjstrf talk 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conflict has said clearly: Wikipedia naming is descriptive not prescriptive. -- Sa mue l C urt is -- TALK  09:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh
Azumanga Daioh is undergoing a peer review. Contributions will be appreciated. --Squilibob 11:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal!
Hey guys.

Normally you would expect someone who is active in this Wikiproject to spur a new project, but I am not. Hopefully that this doesn't deter anyone from my idea. I am proposing a project solely for anime conventions. With the amount that are still popping up and the fact that I am writing a book on these conventions, I figure it would be a great idea to start a project and formally collaborate with others who have an interest in them too.

If anyone is wondering, I have been working in anime cons for six years, and will have by the end of next year staffed at least seventeen. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 06:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It might just be better to make that a sub-project / task-force of this project. That way you could still have a dedicated talk page, to do list, etc, but wouldn't have to start a WikiProject from scratch. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it would be better to create a task-force under WP:Anime then set up a separate WikiProject. WP:Anime has enough "child" projects already and most of them could also be reorganized as task-forces as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Independantly, it could be fun to have a conventions wikiproject, for anime and others.--SidiLemine 17:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is time we start organizing task forces. I can see having one for manga, anime, light novels, visual novels, conventions, seiyu, mangaka, and characters. And that's just off the top of my head. --SeizureDog 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Animes that failed
I had came across this list called List of flops in entertainment and added some bits. How accurate is it to call them a failure considering two of them are listed as they failed in the US and can anybody think of anymore that could be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Too US-centric from my point of view (wtf, Sailor Moon was awful, but it was a hit in 99% of the planet), and the list is pointless anyway; if we were to list all the real flops we'll need a database on its own. --Εξαίρετος ([[Image:Noia_64_apps_email.png|20px]]msg) 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Define failure. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * yea, define failure, a lot of animes are considered failures by some. Hell I went to a panel at AnimeUSA last year dedicated to talking about the worst animes of all time. I think if an anime is a failure its a matter of your opinion. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what a lot of these fanboy types are all like, one is you can't all see the bad side of things no matter what the reality is, well I have dealt with them all before. The easiest way to define one is anime that lost money and overhyped anime that failed to live up to expectation Not to mention, what you all forgot to do is read the top of that page or shall I copy and paste it out for you all to read below...


 * Most of the items listed below are ones that had high expectations, large amounts of money or widespread publicity, but fell far short of success. Obviously, due to the subjective nature of "success" and "meeting expectations", there can be disagreement about what constitutes a "major flop". Plus, lack of success is not always indicative of lack of quality or recognition. For example, one of the biggest film "flops" of the 1960s was the 1962 remake of Mutiny on the Bounty, which nonetheless received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture; even the notorious Heaven's Gate was still nominated for an Oscar in a technical category.


 * ...Wasn't that the case for Sailor Moon and Escaflowne in the US and in Japan for Gundam X as these three was sourced from a book called The Anime Encyclopedia by Jonathan Clements & Helen McCarthy and I only listed them on the fact they lost viewing figure and had early cancellation. Willirennen 03:31, 27 December 2006 (utc)
 * That seems to be a good definition of "flop"; but are you willing to list all the shows that were a flop in the UK, Australia, or Botswana? And that just to list some English speaking countries. I don't think that would be feasible, and in the way it is it just doesn't have a broad view; again, Sailor Moon may have been a flop in the US, but does it matter if it was a success in the other four continents? --Εξαίρετος ([[Image:Noia_64_apps_email.png|20px]]msg) 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that we defined "flop" lets define where it was a flop. The original country, here, Europe, mars? Big O was a flop in Japan but it did well over here. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, where are we going with this again? -- Ned Scott 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

metadata for anime?
Just an idea to throw out there, apply the concept of Persondata to anime articles? Maybe even use the existing infobox to do this. -- Ned Scott 09:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We should use something more like Template:General CVG character, where it seperates out of universe information from in-universe information. Example: Talim.--SeizureDog 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more for the series themselves rather than the characters. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized later that I had misread your point. --SeizureDog 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding metadata to the existing infoboxes would be as simple as adding a  line to anything in the table that is required to be parsed. Most fields look like they will work as is, though the date field would probably work better broken up so that the years are separate. Then categories like Category:Anime of the 2000s could be automatically added like Category:Anime series, etc, anyway. --Squilibob 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The way that WP:PDATA works is that they use a few general values that will pretty much be true for all people. What feilds would we include that would pretty much be true for all works of anime and manga?

Here's PDATA:

I'm thinking we should use generic labels for whatever we can. This way, if metadata is applied to other TV/comic/movie type articles we can have a compatibility system. We should definitely have the first three used in PDATA, Name, alt name, and short description (from WP:PDATA it looks like alt name can have more than one alt name in that parameter). The date part is a bit tricky, since a single article might contain info on an anime and manga that were produced at different times, etc, so not sure if we would have more than one data parameter or just a really generic one. Another possible parameter would be something like "MEDIA" that would say what media the work was published on (anime, manga, game, novel, etc). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 23:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use the infoboxes to generated them, then there shouldn't be a problem renaming a field down the track as only the template pages would need to be changed. So why not use the existing fields as placeholders? Short Description could be used instead of Media since there are no short descriptions in the infobox at present. --Squilibob 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New Notability proposal
I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but a new notability guideline regarding fandom has been proposed. Please weigh in with your thoughts on its talk page. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)