Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 50

Judge requested move
I've opened up a move request for about whether the article for the Judge manga series should be at Judge (manga) or Judge (OAV). —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The move request is located here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 08:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tokyopop....
All in ANN news title:
 * News: Tokyopop to Close North American Publishing Division (Update 3)

Who is going to archive the whole catalog ?

--KrebMarkt (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a PDF of the Tokyopop catalog? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe TP has a PDF of their catalog. I've started a user subpage here: User:WhiteArcticWolf/Tokyopop. TP has sent an e-mail stating that their site will officially go offline on Tuesday, April 26. Help with archiving would appreciated. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How complete is our listing at Category:Tokyopop titles? Does it have all of the notable ones, or are there still some missing? --Malkinann (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have 29 N titles webcited, it contains their release dates but not their ISBN. I also have a more recent cited webpage of it but it seemed to have stopped working when the shop closed down. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 09:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For information i archived a lot of page alphabetically here. However i doubt i can do it all by myself with so few time remaining. Webcitation limits to 99 pages archive afterward you have to wait 1 hour to archive again. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: Tokyopop flipped the switch near 3000 books/refs removed from internet in mere instant. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They killed it early. I guess we'll have to rely on Amazon for the other release dates. Also, Glass Wings and The Embalmer pages also contain archived TP pages. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's strange, http://blumanga.com/ is still up. --Malkinann (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dororon Enma-kun and Dororon Enma-kun Meeramera
Some days ago I created a small article for Dororon Enma-kun Meeramera, the remake of Dororon Enma-kun. However, when I was about to add more information of the recent episodes of Meeramera, I noticed that List of Dororon Enma-kun episodes already has the episodes there and some text about the series. Should Dororon Enma-kun Meeramera be merged with Dororon Enma-kun or should they be handled separately? Personally, I believe that they should not be together. Jfgslo (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Remakes or re-imaginings of series rarely, if ever, get separate articles. If there's enough content to warrant a separate article, then split it, otherwise they should be merged. The only series I can think of that got a second article was Negima!?, and that's only because it's story is much different from the original content. Other series remakes that have no separate article include Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Dragon Ball Z Kai, Kanon, among others. Considering the content of Meeramera, I believe it could easily be merged into the main Dororon Enma-kun article.--  十  八  19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. As you suggested, I have merged the content of Dororon Enma-kun Meeramera into Dororon Enma-kun. I think I did not omit anything of value. Jfgslo (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue with Gundam SEED sources
While trying to clean up the Gundam SEED character articles starting with Kira Yamato, I couldn't find any interview with the series director or writer. I've searched online but only found blogs without stating where do the interviews come from. Apparently, none of the DVDs have a small coment from the director, and I wonder if anybody knew where to find something like that. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

VNDB (Visual Novel Database)
someone need to write the article about them. --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 05:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a Request section for this. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Animes second season continuation lists
There seems to be no clear guidelines on how to handle them. The anime series Gintama is continued with Gintama' and it will have two episode lists entitled List of Gintama episodes and List of Gintama' episodes. As far as I know, only three other anime series are continued like this; Naruto, The World God Only Knows, and Hayate the Combat Butler. I proposed a split of List of The World God Only Knows episodes into two separate episode lists but it is argued that due to the episode count, they should remain a single list. I'm not sure if that would be the case for Hayate also and would like some insight on those two lists. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 11:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless both seasons are very short (11 to 14 episodes each), I don't see why each season shouldn't have it's own list. And if they are different series within the same franchise, then they should have different lists. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it would be difficult convincing those who oppose this without referencing the guidelines. Perhaps anime episode lists should have a small section on Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) about this. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd be a bit wary of giving blanket approval. Multuple seasons of 20+ 5-minute episodes can and should be on one page. The episode summaries and release/dev info don't warrant seperate pages. I'm looking at Hetalia as an example. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was me, I would have probably separated that list too. Is the episode count not reset? I'm pretty sure World Series reset back to 1 yet the episode list says it is episode 53. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I would propbably demand they'd be remerged because just because they have X number of episodes should not be a hard-and-fast rule they get a new spinout article. Unless there was major production changes, new studios, new team members, new everything basically, then all of that info could easily be covered in the lead and the episode summaries are small enough they don't warrant spinning out an article. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But then there are series like Spice and Wolf, which had a different studio for each season, though both seasons are easily organized into a single article. Discussions of splitting episode lists should be done on a case-by-case basis, and I don't feel a creepy guideline would be helpful in this instance. I'd also be against a split of List of Hayate the Combat Butler episodes.--  十  八  19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hayate is going to have a third season soon. With two seasons, it has reached about 70k bytes and its lead is not even decent. Its going to have to be split sooner or later. I suppose if episode lists number over 100 they should be split. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think something should be done, but I'm not sure what would be a good way to do it. I think the issue of character mutliple character lists for a single series is probably more relevant. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon species
Do we need a fricking article for every one of the 200 pokemons (or about 100 evolutionary lines?) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Pokémon is thataway. — as 208.124.73.15 (talk) (what's this?) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But to answer your question, no we don't "need" it, any more than we "need" an article on toilet paper, Canada, or Windex, as three random examples. What is your actual objection? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need articles on non important pokemon that are not "rare" or play no "significant" role within the series. On the other hand, the three articles you listed have a major role in everyday life.  Those are simply game characters/cartoon! For that reason we don't have a ton of game character floating around Wikipedia... I think. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well toilet paper might be just as useful to some as some types of pokemon. If you think indivisual ones are problematic, take that up with the wikiproject or the various talk pages. Beyond saying the very generic "we don't need 1 article/pokemon, that requires more local consensus. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As an effort to combine threads for easier following, please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pok%C3%A9mon for disucssion of Pokemon notabilities --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note, most individual Pokemon article appeared to have been done well with some possessing a lot of third party sources to pass WP:Notability. I know that some of the editors that are writing them have already made some great video game characters article, so I wouldn't assume bad faith.Tintor2 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, I clearly missed something, because last I checked we once had an article for every Pokemon, then this was consolidated into a few lists, with only a few notable ones, like Pikachu or Charizard. Since when have a large amount of them been recreated? Is this leading to a reemergence of the Pokemon test at AFD?--  十  八  05:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No but it led me to make a huge AFD request for all of the "non notable" ingame characters. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Animeondvd's editor moved to thefandompost
According to this, the creator from AnimeonDVD.com Chris Beveridge moved to the site Fandompost where he continues writing anime or manga reviews like this one. I have never heard of the Fandompost, but would it be considered a reliable source for reviews? Well, maybe it requires discussion in the online reliable sources page. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why he would be less reliable after the move; I've added it to the CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 02:07 1 May 2011 (GMT)

For what's matter there is no new anime/manga review on Mania.com since April 24, 2011. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tono to Issho
Anyone want to help expand Tono to Issho before I move it from my user space? I'm not sure if any of the preview guides touched on this series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As ever, I will point out that my CSE delivers nice results... --Gwern (contribs) 18:36 5 May 2011 (GMT)

FLRC List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
Found here. Still no consensus for delist or keep. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 18:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Gundam SEED Astray mergers
I did the mergings in the Gundam SEED character list as it was discussed in 2009 apparently, leaving only with their own articles Kira Yamato, Athrun Zala, Cagalli Yula Athha, Lacus Clyne and Shinn Asuka after working in reception. However, there is also a List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Astray characters with eight characters lacking reception. I would work in that, but I have no access to the Astray series so I have no knowledge from it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for FPC
I nominated the picture at right at FPC (Link to the Voting). Since the last voting on the original version of this image image got stalled, because it is "to revealing for the mainpage" and used the dutch angle, in nominated this version instead. Maybe you want to take a look at it and correct some misunderstandings, which occurred quite often in other elections with a similar topic. --Niabot (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some archiving issue for airdates
For some reason when using webcitation.org to archive the Adult Swim air dates (from whose premiering anime are Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Bleach and Kekkaishi) now only archives for me the December 2010/February 2011 schedule. Does anybody know if it is an issue from my IP account or from the site? By the way, The Internet Way Back Machine has only Adult Swim schedules from 2009. It could be useful if it could autoarchive the ones from future dates for anime series premiering there, but I am unable to request that. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. When I go to http://webcitation.org/query.php and punch in http://www.adultswim.com/schedule/onair.html I see in the pulldown box 11 archived dates from 2009 through 2011. What's the issue?
 * There's no way to request repeating archives on WebCite's side of things; you have to arrange that yourself. However, I could help you out there - I run on my laptop an archiver daemon which submits URLs to WebCite & IA, so I could add a monthly cron job to add random URLs to the queue. (No guarantees, of course.)
 * As for the IA, yeah, they've been lagging behind a lot. I noticed that they were blowing their supposed 6-month embargo by months and years back in 2010 (one reason I'm big on WebCite now - at least there I can see quickly whether a page is archived or not). As far as I can tell, this is due to their massive switch from their old system to their fancy new one. Hopefully all the data has been collected as usual and will be migrated over eventually. But maybe not, it's not the biggest or well-funded organization around... This wouldn't be a big issue if there were an ArchiveIt account for the WMF we could use, but I have yet to hear hide or hair about that. --Gwern (contribs) 23:38 7 May 2011 (GMT)


 * The problem is that the ones from April and May 2011 actually show airdates from December 2010 and January 2011. I know webcitation has some issues, but the adultswim urls get updated and all the previous information is deleted.Tintor2 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done...
 * The page The Archive

For future archiving, better use the link above. I guess there are some javascript screw-ups in the OnAir page but the schedule image resource is still available if you do some some code source reading.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this within the project's scope?
User:TheFarix keeps reverting my inclusion of the Uncle Yo article in the scope of this project. He points to ANIME - fair, but I think a comedian who specializes in anime/otaku humor and performs mostly at anime conventions falls within the scope, per "Composers, bands and musicians based primarily around anime or manga" and/or "Major aspects of fandom". Thoughts appreciated. PS. Interested editors may also want to voice their opinion at Articles for deletion/Uncle Yo. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 03:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cannot really comment on scope, but if the article is within scope, the WP:ANIME assessment would have been Stub (contains very little content at present), and Low (Mid requires "Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works") per WP:ANIME/ASSESS. G.A.S talk 04:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists of non-english voice actors
The following previous discussions refers:
 * /Archive_4 (2006)
 * WT:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)/Archive_4 (2008)
 * /Archive_9 (2006)
 * /Archive_8 (2006)
 * /Archive_18 (2008)

Am I correct in assuming that the consensus still applies
 * Not to list non-english voice actors on en.wiki?
 * Not to list voice actors except in the list of characters?

If so, what do we do about the following?
 * List of non-Japanese language Fullmetal Alchemist voice actors
 * List of non-Japanese language Naruto voice actors
 * List of non-Japanese language One Piece voice actors
 * List of non-Japanese language Yu-Gi-Oh! GX voice actors

G.A.S talk 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the page names aren't likely search terms, I'd suggest AfDing them as content forks of their respective character lists.  Good raise  23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles nominated to AFD. G.A.S talk 15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at 207.235.163.2's edits
I've noticed 207.235.163.2 adding a lot of anime and manga to the category Category:Children's manga which I don't think belong to that category. I seem to remember someone doing the same thing in the past, but I can't remember if that was a person with an account or another IP address. Regardless, can someone please take a look at this user's edits and try to get them to stop doing this. Calathan (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Spot checking a few, such as Ranma ½ and Ben 10 (TV series), these changes seem to be based entirely on the editor personal views and not those of reliable sources. Article in Category:Children's manga should be those that have been serialized in a children's manga magazine. Shōnen and shōjo manga should not be in this category to begin with. Inclusion of Category:Japanese children's television series should only be done when there is a reliable source verifying the category. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation check
I like someone to double check the Google translations at User:TheFarix/List of Inazuma Eleven episodes. After finishing up the lead, I'm plan on moving the episode list into article space. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hunter × Hunter‎ up for Peer Review
I've got Hunter × Hunter‎ up for Peer Review here. Just as I did with YuYu Hakusho, I've listed it to hopefully get it to GA status. Please come share your thoughts. Thanks, ~ Hibana (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Populating English publisher categories?
Is it possible to use AWB to populate the English publisher categories further, from Category:Manga series? The following companies leap to mind:


 * Category:ADV Manga for ADV Manga
 * Category:Central Park Media for Central Park Media
 * Category:CMX titles for CMX Manga
 * Category:Dark Horse Comics titles for Dark Horse Comics
 * Category:Del Rey Manga for Del Rey Manga
 * Category:Last Gasp titles for Last Gasp
 * Category:Media Blasters for Media Blasters
 * Category:Seven Seas Entertainment titles for Seven Seas Entertainment
 * Category:Tokyopop titles for Tokyopop
 * Category:Viz Media manga for Viz Media (Viz Communications)
 * Category:Yen Press titles for Yen Press

Thanks for any advice or help on this. --Malkinann (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Before we tackle that problem, shouldn't these cats be standardized? Some of them are "Company titles", others "Company manga", and others are just the name of the company. How about we use "Company titles" for all of them?--  十  八  07:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like unnecessary creep before taking on a necessary task - sorting series which have been licensed in English into the relevant licenser's category, so that the categories can be useful. --Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that these cats were originally removed from anime and manga articles do to WP:OVERCAT. It doesn't seem right to add a category for English language licensors and not for other languages. But adding other language licensors would definitely be too much. In fact, I'm sure that it was an earlier consensus to only added an English language cat if the work was originally published by an English language publisher, such as comics that bill themselves as OEL manga. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "It doesn't seem right to add a category for English language licensors and not for other languages." I'm not sure I agree with this. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, presumably readers are most interested if a work is available in English. And conversely, would make it relatively easy to see the works published by a particular publisher without cluttering the publisher's article with an immense list. - JRBrown (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, presumably readers are most interested if a work is available in English." Which is a systemic bias and something we should do our best to minimize, if not outright avoid. Being an English-language Wikipedia only means that the articles are written in English. That doesn't mean that the articles should take an English-language POV by containing information of most interest to English language readers. That's why the notability guidelines aren't limited to just notability in English-language source. To avoid the systemic bias, all licensors categories, regardless of languages, should be listed. But doing so will be over-categorization, so it is much better to list the original publisher(s). —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible, then, to use AWB or similar to automate the categorisation of manga articles into categories by their original publisher? E.g. Category:Shueisha titles, Category:Kodansha titles, etc? Because, while there are hundreds of articles not in an English publisher's category, there are thousands not in a Japanese publisher's category.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why were the categories created in the first place? I seem to recall them being a compromise measure between having the titles published by a company listed in the company's article and not having them listed as such at all? --Malkinann (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Subset
These series are not in an English publisher's category, and neither have they been made into a film, series, or OVA. --Malkinann (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Table put in hidden section— G.A.S talk 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of those have been made into a film, series, or OVA. For instance Ano Ko ni 1000% and Angel Densetsu have OVAs (and probably a bunch more, since I didn't look through the entire list).  You also included things with ONAs, which I'm not sure if you meant to include.  Actually, I'm not quite sure why you listed all these titles.  Are you suggesting these ones could be added to publisher categories first? Calathan (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither Angel Densetsu or Ano Ko ni 1000% are in the category for OVAs (neither even mention an OVA) and thus their articles need cleanup. I'm unsure whether an ONA adaptation counts under WP:BK, as drama CDs do not.  Having an English license (and, by extension, being in one of those publisher categories) is usually a pretty good indicator of meeting WP:BK, in that it is usually a simple matter to find sources.  The nearly 800 articles I listed above need looking over to see if, indeed, they have been licensed in English, or adapted into a sufficiently notable medium, but not added to that category. --Malkinann (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys, there must be some way to automate this. --Malkinann (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Publishers that need an eponymous category
--Malkinann (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Broccoli (company)
 * ComicsOne
 * Digital Manga
 * DrMaster
 * Go! Comi
 * Kodansha USA
 * Studio Ironcat
 * Vertical (company)

Summer Wars
As a reminder, Summer Wars has been listed for a peer review here. I plan to make this a Featured Article and input from project members on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion over defining prequel
Article .hack//G.U., editor Axem Titanium refuses to add the word "prequel" when mentioning .hack//Roots in the related media section due to .hack//roots anime series premiering only months before the video game series (even though anime series ran concurrent to the video game series releases). Despite that, i made it so it can say the word prequel but not exactly confirming an actual prequel. I brought two sources that call it a prequel but still no luck. So i thought it would be best to bring it here and see what others say. Axem Titanium believes it will not be neutral per definition of a prequel meaning it has to release after the given media.

So i decided to bring it up here. Can an anime series premiered two months early yet serialized concurrent to the video game series be considered a "prequel"?

.hack//roots premiered in April 2006, .hack//G.U. premiered in May 2006.

.hack//roots ended in September 2006, .hack//G.U. ended in January 2007.

As you can see the dates are rather close.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In some cases, stating at what time events from a video game or manga happen is enough. I would call it a prologue since it's done at the same time, but that's just an opinion. It may be better to talk with Axem Titanium, but I think it's okay avoiding the word prequel considering the definition "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting".Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but there are sources stating as such, and most commonly referred to as one due to the Video games being the main plot for the .hack franchise. I mean, i find it similar to the japanese translation, english official translation due to reliable source situation. Although doesn't exactly a prequel, there are sources stating it as such. Though the definition you got that was directly from wikipedia. other sources i found don't exactly state it needs to be completed. but lets say for example this was valid. The video game was completed, while the anime was still on going. sure the entire series was ongoing alongside the anime, but it got one completed work alongside it.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of prequels that appeared before the original work finished, but the sources would call it prequel because by the time it was reviewed, all the games had been released. It would be better if you directly discuss it with Axem Titanium.Tintor2 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be done for promotional reasons. For .hack, the series has always been a lil backwards. For example .hack//Link is a manga that came out before the video game, yet inside the manga already confirms it being the adaptation of the game. The most likely case is that the main series is the video games, while anime, light novel, and manga being complimentary.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Track Listing
The soundtrack article for Ergo Proxy apparently got merged into the main article a while back. I was just trying to figure out if it was appropriate to have full track listings for both CD's. I remember reading somewhere that track listings were only appropriate in stand-alone album articles, but I'm unable to find where I read that. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true...alot of media such as films and video games have tracklists alongside the main article, i think if we put it under the tracklist template it would look much nicer and collapse it would be good for now until it could be expanded and more sources added.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate at AfD
It appears like there's a stalemate at AfD discussion of List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. I was wondering if we could get some more opinions so it doesn't end in "No Consensus". -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it ends with no consensus it ends with no consensus, nothing wrong with it, just means the discussion should be moved to the article's talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just that I'm just imagining this article getting re-nominated next week and having to go through seven more days of this. It would be nice to see a clear decision. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added my input if its enough.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It got deleted. I guess I got what I wanted, a firm decision.  I probably couldn't have done much for the article anyway, it was just a mess. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Gundam redirects needed
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Gundam.  Sandstein  18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Should this be moved?
Being (company) to Being Group since they call themselves that on their offical site? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 17:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At the bottom of the page, it says Being, Inc. I'd trust that over the stylized logo at the top.  Good raise  18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Being Group is probably just the name of the site.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it made sense since it was a group of label companies. How about moving it to Being Inc. instead? DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you could find a source that says Being Inc. Usually when adding "inc." its with a coma. You could make it so Being Group redirects to the article too when you move it.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I found a source confirming the company is called Being Group. here. If it seems okay I'm moving it to that. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Group isn't capitalized like "being" is so its highly unlikely its part of the title. However the page says "Being Music Factory Inc." Just like we refer to certain things as a series and include it alongside the name, Being is most likely just trying to disambiguate. The main site does however say "being Inc" without the coma. SO yes, i think it should be moved to Being Inc.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The company was credited as Being Group in the credits of an episode, would this change anything? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple indirect translations
End of Evangelion, Gwern insist to keep multiple translations of the word "気持ち悪い. " ("Kimochi warui.") from other sources that don't directly relate to the article nor the interpretation subsection. Not only that but, the multiple translation seem pretty trivial as all of those translations are too similar to mention the difference.

What is important however, is to mention the given translation that caused the section to rise, (which in this case is "How disgusting" vs "I feel sick"). Can anyone here can give their opinion so we can clear this up?Bread Ninja (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone? I'm getting tired of these trivial things needing consensus. So i rather end this.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You might get more feedback, if you provided a link to where this is being discussed.  Good raise  11:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its been discussed through edit summaries. But knowing this editor for quite a long time, simply talking won't help bring out consensus. So i asked for editors. I provided the link for end of evangelion, in the interpretation section where you can see where exactly what the argument is about, which is excessive translation to "気持ち悪い. " ("Kimochi warui.") from sources not related to the topic of how its used in End of evangelion.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, then what you're doing is basically asking for others to join the edit war, which is something I've seen far too often on this talk page, but never had the nerve to speak out against. If "simply talking" won't help, then what are you expecting us to do? If you have a content dispute, talk to the other person on the article's talk page before you come here. That's the bare minimum of what you should do. Then, if it really is a problem with the other editor's behavior, you can say "I tried my best" and start dealing with the actual problem: the other editor's behavior (if it comes to that and you don't know how, you can ask me for advice or help on my talk page). My problem at the moment, as an uninvolved editor, is that I've only heard one side of the story. I know that Gwern insists on these translations, but I don't know why. Start a discussion, link to it from here, and I'll be glad to participate.  Good raise  13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we just clear it up? I'm basically asking to get consensus right here and now on this discussion. And i know why Gwern wants the translations in, but i simply don't agree.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, leaving aside that this isn't the place to discuss article specific content disputes, I don't see how we're supposed to do that. Do you expect us to search the article's history for Gwern's arguments? Does Gwern even know about this thread? I'm beginning to think that you and I don't agree on what a "consensus" is. Without having heard the other side of the dispute, I'm not consenting to anything, nor should anyone else.  Good raise  23:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Gwern probably does or should considering it would be in the watchlist. Consensus is a number to me. Third party. See what they think. Gwern believes all translations of the word is important simple as that. Regardless, you're not even trying to look at the problem at hand. There have been many many specifics in this page. MANY. Why single this one out? Can you just look at it? this is a no-brainer. Not only will this help but all other articles with similar problems. And that's how everyone should see specific topics in the wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Gwern probably does or should considering it would be in the watchlist." -- That's an assumption you shouldn't make. I have this page watchlisted and I miss most of what's going on here. Other editors of anime and manga related articles may not even care what's being discussed here, and why should they? "Consensus is a number to me." -- Well, it's not to me, it's not seen that way by Consensus, and it's not the way a dictionary would define it either. "you're not even trying to look at the problem at hand." -- The first thing I did was to look at the article. I read the relevant passage and found what I expected, multiple indirect translations of a Japanese phrase. They are fairly similar, which makes me wonder why any intelligent, well-meaning editor would want to have them included, which brings me back to the question you should have sought an answer to before you came here: why? Perhaps there really is no reasoning behind it, but I'd need to hear that from Gwern, not from you, if not in the form of a discussion on the article's talk page, then at least by means of a diff. You say "Its been discussed through edit summaries." I wonder what kind of discussion that may have been, if you don't even know why Gwern wants those translations in the article. "There have been many many specifics in this page. MANY. Why single this one out?" -- WP:SEWAGE. I have silently watched this kind of misbehavior go on for far too long already. I certainly won't make the problem worse by participating in it. "this is a no-brainer." -- If it was, then you wouldn't need our help. Unless, of course, if you're saying that Gwern is being unreasonable, in which case this would be a behavioral issues and should be dealt with as such. It may not be an inviting prospect, but in the long run it's better than edit warring, getting frustrated, and turning here for help, over and over again. "Not only will this help but all other articles with similar problems. And that's how everyone should see specific topics in the wikiproject." -- Well, I don't object to this talk page being used to discuss issues too general for a specific talk page, but clearly that's not the case here. Or am I missing something?  Good raise  02:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This sounds rather Pointy...and this wikiproject doesn't discuss about things already going on in talkpage. Regardless, you don't need to participate, but you don't need to diss the conversation. And yes i am saying Gwern is being unreasonable, i have always thought so the moment my edits were reverted by her. I'm saying, if we discuss about specific problems now, and where they affect articles, we can take care of these things in other articles that may have similar problems if they do.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Pointy? No, what I'm doing is the opposite of being pointy. I'm not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", I'm pointing out that this talk page is used to disrupt Wikipedia. That's right. This talk page has a history of being used by editors to exercise ownership over articles by proxy, calling for backup in edit wars, and the like, instead of following proper consensus building and dispute resolution procedures. And by not speaking out against it for as long as I have, I have allowed newer editors to adopt this misbehavior for themselves. But that only to my defense. Back on topic... Apparently, you haven't been listening to me. If Gwern really is being unreasonable (and on a regular basis, no less), then "clearing up" this dispute here and now by outnumbering them won't do us any good in the long run. They'll simply find something else to be unreasonable about and we'll be back at square one. To solve problems like this for good, the editor's behavior needs to be dealt with, and there really is only one way to do that: follow proper procedures. When you are doing everything right, the other editor's misbehavior (if that's really what it is and not just some misunderstanding) will become apparent. And then, if nothing else helps, can the community take more permanent measures (such as a block or a ban of some sort). I don't mean to point fingers here. I don't want to "diss" some conversation, which, as far as I can tell, hasn't even begun yet. I'm offering my help, dealing with this in the proper way, and if you accept it, I'll go along as far as it takes to solve the problem. However, if you're really only interested in gaining superior numbers over Gwern, then never mind I said anything at all.  Good raise  03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor gwern, is bias for the series "Neon Genesis Evangelion", we have had MANY disputes in the past, and nearly impossible to get through, and yeah, the only way to get through to these articles is by numbers. Often i found the ignore method seem to work in gwerns favor too. If the person ignores it, then no discussion, and no way of getting the edit back. it was until another editor came in to take out few of the many dents those related articles had that things moved on. It shouldn't be like this, but apparently you can't do much unless the person is being uncivil, which in this case, happens rarely and it gets the job done. Consensus is a number to me. and not just a number of people, but number of people with their one reasons that agree with one another. You don't even need my reason to know this is wrong.


 * I been playing the waiting game. There's not much i can do. The only thing i got is that Gwern admits to seeing the NGE articles artistically, more than just informative.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "apparently you can't do much unless the person is being uncivil" -- That's not true. It's a bit more complicated, but it's possible to deal with this kind of thing. Here's what you're gonna do. (I'll help you, but I'm not on your side. We're not ganging up on Gwern.) You'll try your very best to come to a consensus with them. And by that I mean consensus in the literal sense. To do that, you'll follow WP:BRD (and if possible WP:1RR) as closely as you can. While you're doing that, you'll notify me on my talk page, whenever you start a discussion, so I can keep up, as I expect this will stretch out over various pages and I'd most likely miss half of the action if you don't inform me. If Gwern really is unreasonable, these efforts will inevitably fail. At that point, we'll proceed as described at WP:DDE. If you're willing to try this method, be sure to familiarize yourself closely with BRD and WP:DE before we start, and to inform Gwern on their talk page about this thread, because it's not our intention to conspire against them behind their back. All we want, after all, is civilized, undisrupted, and constructive editing. So, are you willing to try this? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  06:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont want to gang up on Gwern, i just want to improve the articles and the only way to do that if i get consensus for every lil thing unfortunately. Sigh...this will take a while. Just so this one editor can change his ways? which in turn will most likely not. This editor is quite experienced and knows the rules well. The problem is Gwern gets bias towards the series, and your rules already ask for "consensus". And thats the only time Gwern stops, when a group of ppl agree, that its the best choice. The reporting issue won't work because Gwern knows when to stop. I just need a group of ppl.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. You don't understand what I'm saying, because you don't know what consensus means. You don't need a group for a consensus. You don't even need to say one word to reach a consensus. Consensus is when all involved parties agree, regardless of whether that's one, two, three, or dozens of editors. Anyway, forget what I suggested above. If you don't believe following proper procedures will work, then there's no point in making you try it. Just stay away from The End of Evangelion and its talk page for a while. Let me try it. You just sit back and watch. Okay? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  08:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not actually true. Consensus states Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes. In short not every party has to agree to achieve a consensus. In this case having a lot more editors agree with a certain position is actually a good idea.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. That is one definition of consensus, but so is mine. You're wrong, however, in regard to this case. Skipping the step of trying to achieve consensus with problem editors, and going for a majority decision right away, allows them to continue their disruptive behavior endlessly, while their victims waste time and energy on canvassing for those repeatedly needed majorities and get ever more frustrated because of it. If I was such an editor, I'd go to discussions like this and encourage other editors to seek majority consensuses as often as possible, because that only works in my favor. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given my opinion to gwern various times, and they are always related thing which is prose and inclusion. which i'm sure this editor will never learn, but then again, knows the rules very well.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some editors can't learn or don't want to learn. The idea is not to educate them, but to identify them, so they can be placed under editing restrictions or even banned, and that will never happen if everyone always sidesteps the issue by scrounging up majorities, whenever they encounter this kind of resistance. If you want to surrender to such tactics, fine. I know the rules too: Gaming the system is strictly forbidden. The community is not stupid. All that needs to be done is to show that an editor is doing just that and action will be taken. I hope, however, that you're wrong about Gwern. And I really wish you'd give this approach a try, because I've got to get quite far out of my way to assume your role in this conflict. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  01:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-omnibus Releases
As I continue to work on Twin Spica now that the series publication is in full swing, I have a question regarding something that came up with the List of Twin Spica chapters. I got a confirmation from Ed Chavez, Vertical's marketing director, via Twitter a few weeks ago stating that manga will be published stateside in 12 volumes total, compared to Japan's 16. Chapter counts in volumes 1–6 match the chapters in the Japanese version. However, volumes 7–12 will have additional chapters to speed up the release. Is there any way to reflect this on the release table? I'm not sure if this problem has come up with other series before. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 05:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Complicated. Maybe you could add a note beside some of the chapters saying "This chapter is part of volume X in the English release". DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 09:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say that the list should still follow the original publication, since the semi-omnibuses are not tankobon volumes.Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, which may be a side question. What constitutes as a tankōbon? Do tankōbon releases have a limitation on the number of pages/chapters per volume? — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From all tankobon I have read, there is normally between 200 pages, although in some cases like Naruto, the volume 43 was considerably longer. As I understand, omnibuses are special editions volumes with wider sizes.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the thing with the Vertical's Spica releases. The dimensions of the pages are the same, only with more pages. The first 6 volumes (in both English and Japanese) have 200 pages. Volume 7 to 10 of the English release is up to 300 pages, and volume 11 is set for 400 pages. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 02:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its fine, keep them in the original Japanese tankobon list and add a little note beside them. I had the same thing happen in List of Case Closed episodes where the English and Japanese season divisions were different. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Status quo ignored
There has been a large discussion in Talk:List of InuYasha characters/Archive 1 some time ago to state what characters should be protagonists in List of InuYasha characters. Because of constant edit war, the article had to be protected until reaching consensus. The consensus was to leave four protagonists (InuYasha, Kagome Higurashi, Miroku and Sango), but now that I check it there are three more. I'll revert that move, but it should be better to keep the article watched just in case.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Confused about guidelines
I'm kind of confused about what parts should the article Mobile Suit Gundam SEED cover. The series' direct sequel, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, has its own article and besides sharing the storyline, they also share various parts of merchandising such as CDs, DVDs, or yonkoma. I thought about it as how Dragon Ball GT should have its own article, but I'm still unsure. Should Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny have its own article or be merged within Gundam SEED? The same issue happens with all of other Gundam's sequels, but I noted that most of them are able to pass notability (there are lots of Destiny reviews, notable sales, won two Anime Grand Prix awards, etc). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What guidelines are you confused about? If both pass notability (WP:N), then whether or not two articles should be merged becomes mostly a question of avoiding content overlap (WP:FORK) and unnecessarily small articles (WP:SIZE, WP:SS). If you're looking for a silver bullet answer for this case, you won't find it in guidelines. Consensus just isn't that strong on these matters. My advice: Try to merge them. If it's a trivial matter to cover both topics in the same article, then they probably should be. If it's difficult to do or feels wrong, then just leave them be. Hope this was helpful, though I doubt I told you anything new. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are no size issues and actually both articles just have similar sizes.Tintor2 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect going nowhere
For some reason, Chiaki Morosawa redirects to Future GPX Cyber Formula although such section gives no information about such person. Shouldn't such redirect be deleted? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It should probably redirect to Mitsuo Fukuda, her husband. From what I understand, she worked on more than just Cyber Formula. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 03:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be turned into an article by using information from ja:両澤千晶, which appears to cite the April 2008 issue of Animage. I find the notion that it "should" be redirected to her husband before being investigated as to whether she herself is notable to be very inappropriate. (see How to Suppress Women's Writing.) --Malkinann (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article is created, shouldn't its content be already sourced? Mitsuo Fukuda's article contains a lot of information that has been unsourced for years (actually two years in a style section, that I removed as it was from April 2009).Tintor2 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * His article on the Japanese Wikipedia, ja:福田己津央, could also be checked for reliability and translated over here, as it contains a few sources that the English page does not. Either way, Chiaki Morosawa's notability and potential for an article should be assessed before the redirect is deleted or switched to being a redirect to her husband. --Malkinann (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, CSE results for 両澤千晶, CSE results for Chiaki Morosawa, CSE results for Morosawa Chiaki. --Malkinann (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By no means did I suggest that she is not notable. I was merely pointing a more appropriate target for redirect that would give context to her work. I did look up her credentials before making the suggestion. Suggesting that I am ignorant is simply bad faith. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 07:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Following WP:BEFORE properly entails a good faith attempt to look for sources and examination of other editions of wikipedia, trying to find out her own notability, before redirection. Redirection to her husband's article without a prior attempt to determine her own notability is inappropriate, as it reduces her to being 'the wife of Mitsuo Fukuda'. --Malkinann (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I know of her independent notability. I don't have the energy to develop her article myself, thus it is up to others to make the assessment. I've made my case and stand by my actions; I have no desire to discuss it further. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 08:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Planning to send List of FLCL episodes to FLRC soon
Is anyone willing to tackle its source issue before I send it? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What source issue? I don't understand your post on the talk page.  "It needs an update to the English air dates after Cartoon Network took down that website. Waybackmachine was unable to receive the source."  Which website is down? --Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean the reference for the English airdates died and it needs to be replaced. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this one? --Malkinann (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)




 * I don't think linkrot is a particularly good or even acceptable reason to delist a FL. If that is the only concern, then don't bother with FLRC. Anyways, reference has been updated to Hulu with WebCite archive to prevent future linkrot. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lack of verifiability is a perfectly fine rationale for FLRC nominations. The cause of such a lack is immaterial. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe FL should be thoroughly sourced to retain its title. I got one more for someone to tackle. List of Gunslinger Girl episodes's episode 9 has an unsourced airdate. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 18:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be proactive. Prevent linkrot by using WebCite. Don't leave the work for others months/years from now.— Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if linkrot has occurred, it still has been sourced and its verifiability was checked at the time of the FL promotion, otherwise it would not have been promoted. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not always a safe assumption - in the case of the FLCL list, the airdate source was provided in January 2008, slightly after the promotion to FL in late 2007. Sourcing standards have generally risen over WP's lifespan. I just want a clear rationale for any reassessments, and for people to know about them before-time so that there's a chance that a formal reassessment is not needed.  DragonZero, has the FLCL list improved sufficiently to not need a reassessment? --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its fine now. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) So it's just the English airdate for List of Gunslinger Girl episodes episode 9, then? --Malkinann (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the only problem I see with it. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential FLRC for List of Gunslinger Girl episodes
List of Gunslinger Girl episodes does not have a citation for the English airdate of episode 9 - this is marked with a fact tag. Could someone please find another source for this so that it is fully sourced and won't be in danger of reassessment? --Malkinann (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If Hulu can be used, that is the airdate listed. I was unable to retrieve the March 2 daily schedule from the IFC website in the web archive. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The last dead link in this article is:



which apparently helps to cite "The episodes of the anime series Gunslinger Girl are based on the Gunslinger Girl manga series written and illustrated by Yu Aida. The first series' episodes were directed by Morio Asaka, animated by Madhouse Studios, and produced by Bandai Visual, Marvelous Entertainment, MediaWorks, and Madhouse Studios. It adapts the first two manga volumes of the series over thirteen episodes which aired in Japan from October 8, 2003 to February 19, 2004 on Bandai Channel and Fuji Television." along with and. Does anyone know what the dead link was used to cite, and can anyone find anything to replace it? --Malkinann (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the archive. I'm assuming it was referencing the original work and animation studios information since latter references only mentioned staff members. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 10:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. :) After having looked over this article with a week's distance, it looks like it doesn't need reassessment. --Malkinann (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Separate coverage for anime adaptations
Is there any reason why the anime adaptations of popular manga are only covered in one article? I understand if it's an obscure manga that only had like a short OVA series, but why are the anime adaptations of Dragon Ball (four different TV anime series, one of them being a completely original work) Bleach (which has several anime-exclusive story arcs), Naruto (which has two series, the original and Shippuden) and One Piece, among others, are covered in the same article as the manga versions? Wouldn't it make more sense to have separate coverage for the anime adaptations? Especially when you factor in the fact that some of these anime series had more than one English dub. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't seem to have these limitations. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be difficult to maintain the same quality of writing on multiple articles on similar topics. In a lot of cases, people will always refer to the original media as, well, the original. You might be aware that some circles closely scrutinize differences between adaptations and the original work. If you were to separate these articles into different adaptations, it would be difficult to discuss them in a central location. Furthermore, we try to keep content forking to a minimum. All these single articles are technically franchise articles. For example, main articles of large properties such as Digimon and Pokémon which have well-known anime adaptations discuss the franchise as a whole. But how do we distinguish Bleach from the chemical cleaner? The default disambiguation that is chosen is the original work. The list of Bleach episodes is quite a massive project by itself and would be a more appropriate place to discuss anime-specific information. The Japanese Wikipedia actually has it worse in some respects because they dump everything into giant articles, from plot information to image song albums and numerous trivia. It's unwieldy. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting List of Bleach chapters
Due to weight issues, List of Bleach chapters is in need of a split. However, there is no guideline that states how many volumes should a sublist be composed of. Viz Media collected the first 21 volumes in a single box for release, so it was wondered in Talk:List of Bleach chapters how it should be done. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Most recent featured chapter list?
Am I reading WP:ANIME/NEWS right? It seems like List of Bleach chapters is the most recent featured chapter list? --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anime in a way is easier to get to FL because for many manga, English licensors don't publish them to completion, or the series goes out of print. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 02:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the most recent featured episode list, List of Buso Renkin episodes, also went through various changes constrasting the style from older episode lists. I guess getting FL is getting harder now-a-days.Tintor2 (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Standards are rising, and that's not a recent development. Just a few years back, articles were awarded FA-status, which wouldn't pass as B-class today. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  21:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Hajime no Ippo manga volumes splitting
Could someone finish off the split for me? If not, I'll return in a few hours to finish it. I already did the first split so someone could use it as an example if needed. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 19:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need these articles?

 * List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft
 * List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons

I know Gundam SEED has been in the deletion spotlight lately but looking at these articles as well I see no references, and all WP:PLOT info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What's your WP:BEFORE turned up? --Malkinann (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Summer season
I'm prepping the articles for the upcoming summer season next month, but a few that are throwing me off on what to name them.


 * Ikoku Meiro no Croisée (異国迷路のクロワーゼ) (La croisée dans un labyrinthe étranger) : This series seems to have several variations on its title, Ikoku Meiro no Croisée appears to be the title most widely used by preview sites, but Ikoku Meiro no Kurowāze is a much closer translitration. I have no idea were La croisée dans un labyrinthe étranger came from, but it is the title used by ANN.
 * Manyū Hiken-chō (魔乳秘剣帖) : I'm not sure if the translitration of this title is correct as Google is giving me a different one, Machichi Hiken-jō.
 * Nekogami Yaoyorozu (猫神やおよろず) : Again, Google is giving me a different translitration of Neko-shin Yaoyorozu. And I'm not sure why 猫神 wouldn't transliterate to Neko-kami instead.

—Farix (t &#124; c) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The French(?) from Ikoku Meiro is the subtitle written on the manga. I was unable to get an accurate translation from Google on its meaning. 帖 as a kanji can be read as jō or chō. Perhaps someone else can explain the scenarios when either one is used. On Nekogami, I believe that's a rule within the Japanese, much like shinigami. 神 as a kanji character can also be read as shin. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * クロワーゼ appears to be a transliteration of croisée so I'd go with the first title. The Japanese article for ja:魔乳秘剣帖 lists the reading as Manyū Hiken-chō, so go with that. Similarly, the Japanese article for ja:猫神やおよろず has it read as Nekogami Yaoyorozu.--  十  八  20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Created Ro-Kyu-Bu! and Sacred Seven if anyone wants to expand on them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Television airdates
There is a discussion at Talk:List of Bleach episodes regarding airdates and using the TV Guide episode listing. Maybe a third opinion would be needed for this. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox field shadings
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

FLR for Bleach manga lists
I have nominated List of Bleach manga volumes for FLR after its various moves. Discussion is at Featured list removal candidates/List of Bleach manga volumes/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nihongo templates in other languages
Are there Nihongo1 and Nihongo3 templates for other languages such as Korean? If not, could someone make a Korean version of it or direct me to the right place to ask this. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we need to make a new one to do the same thing. We could just expand the usage to affect other asian languages.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The templates do more than what is obvious. They should not be used for non-Japanese text. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  08:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * [EC] Have you tried asking WikiProject Korea whether there are analogous templates for hangul and hanja? --Malkinann (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Korean and Chinese use different character encoding, thus you can't simply plug in the Korean and Chinese characters into the Nihongo templates. Korean is what you're looking for, but it's not immediately obvious on how to use it as the documentation has not been updated. (I can fix this tomorrow.) Zh is the Chinese equivalent. The less used multilingual template is CJKV. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, I didn't know those existed. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 10:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Two orphan articles
The following two articles were to be merged into List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons but since that was deleted do the two qualify for WP:CSD???


 * ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam
 * ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom Gundam

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making things more complicated than you have to. Remember: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just point the administrator who deleted the list to the AfD of those articles and I'm sure he or she will be delighted to clean up behind themselves. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  17:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think those articles should be speedy deleted, as there was no consensus to delete them in the first AFD, and they were not discussed in the second AFD (other than that I pointed out they existed and were slated for merge). I think they should either be subject to a new AFD, or a discussion should be started somewhere on whether to merge them somewhere else. Calathan (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats what I was thinking, I am wondering if there was another possible merge or redirect target for these two. I suppose I could just inform the admin and have these Speedly deleted but I wanted to ask around first here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Spining-out volumes and chapters lists
Hi all,

I raise again the question on the criterion which make a chapters list spin-out warranted as i observed Ltiler making chapters list on series with less than 5 volumes, the least one being Azumanga Daioh.

You are aware of my reluctance for spin-out articles for the sake of spin-out articles and "fake" encyclopedia growth so i prefer to rely on the project members input on the matter before to take any action.

Thanks.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on how well developed the manga volume information already is. If it is simply a list, it shouldn't be split. If it contains volume summaries, detailed publication information, and etc, then it becomes a little more iffy. But one thing I've also noticed about Ltiler's edits is that s/he is also reassessing several articles and lists as C-class when they are no where close to it. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

IP assessing
IP 117.195.8.82 has been assessing various manga chapters list without actually using the B-Class criteria. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Ltiler, who generally edits from the 117.195.x.x range while logged out. There have been several issues with Ltiler's assessments and other general edits before (such as renaming "Plot" sections to "Story"). —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it really such a grave issue? These assessments land the articles in the Category:Anime and manga articles with incomplete B-Class checklists, which can be checked by anyone.  Some of these articles seem liminal enough to me that the C-class assessment could be accurate, (Hana Kimi, Maid Sama!) even if it's not got the B-class checklist.  Some of these articles were last assessed in 2008.  While standards have risen since then, hopefully the quality of the articles has also risen. --Malkinann (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Evangelion character articles
The articles for the Neon Genesis Evangelion characters are all a mess, really. As the talk pages for the articles all seem inactive, I have decided to bring my case here to gather some input. I have been reworking the Asuka article in order to improve its quality and such using Good Articles like Jack Sparrow and Aang as templates. A lot of work is still required, however. And the other articles for Shinji, Rei, etc. are all in pretty bad shape. These pages do not seem to be edited often and are very rarely improved. I am sure that there are editors in this WikiProject with knowledge of Evangelion that can help to improve these articles.-- Groovy Sandwich  06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, watch for people like Gwern trying to hold off any changes. He has a history with anything Gainax. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * well done on asuka article. But yeah be careful about that (and here i thought i was the only one).Bread Ninja (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had a feeling that there may be some devoted fans who wish to keep every bit of minor information, but such things are detrimental to these articles rather than beneficial. While the Asuka article is not yet in great condition, it could be used as a template for the other character articles. Although it would be a shame if some Evangelion fan were to revert all efforts to improve the articles out of the belief that it is actually harming the articles, as I have seen on many Dragon Ball related articles. I could use some help with the other pages-- Groovy Sandwich  06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fans need to know where to draw the lines. Still, this editor knows better. This looks alot better. I really appreciate what you did. Since this section is about NGE character articles, i think Toji Suzuhara, Ryoji Kaji and Yui Ikari should be merged into the list of characters article. Which also the character list could be reformatted in a less in-universe style.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Asuka article alone is rather concise. Not bad. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree; while they are important in the context of the series, they are not notable enough to warrant their own articles. The same could be done for Gendo Ikari and possibly Kaworu Nagisa. I've been working on the Shinji article and will be focusing on that one for a bit however-- Groovy Sandwich  09:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gendo appears to have some reception, so i didn't think to merge that character yet but he could be. Kaworu i believe is barely notable though. but we'll see...Bread Ninja (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gendo, while important in the series, doesn't hold the same cultural impact as the main characters. His article could be merged with little to no hassle. Kaworu, on the other hand, appeared in one episode and has had about two minutes of screen time in the recent films yet has been extremely popular. This is tricky. I believe his article could be merged but there may be some who say otherwise. A vote would be needed in that case.-- Groovy Sandwich  09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Though he only made a minor appearance in the anime, he has also appeared in other media alot more, plus if there was any development and reception out there, than that would strengthen the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Other media info does not help to pass wp:notability.Tintor2 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does. Its part of promotion and reception and potentially legacy, development is also important. If he only had a minor appearance in one epsidoe, but has major importance in 2 mangas, video games, and film series, i would believe it does help (if sources are found).Bread Ninja (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you meant other media sections. But yeah, if no work is done regarding reception, the article should be merged.Tintor2 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reception should be looked for first. It can be difficult to get reception into these articles at times.  For example, ages ago I added to Kaworu's article a reliable source stating that Kaworu's interactions with Shinji are debated among fans.  I was reading the chapter anyway for something else, and dropped it into Kaworu's article to be helpful.  That spawned this. --Malkinann (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Be careful of original synthesis when writing character articles, such as this sentence" "Asuka's self-confidence (and, correspondingly, her synch ratio and effectiveness as a pilot) begins to dwindle." Although we as viewers may be able to deduce this, sometimes it's not explicitly stated in the media. It would be appropriate to just state that in episode X, this happens. Anything else is up to the reader's deduction. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 21:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've finished reformatting the Shinji, Rei, Asuka, and Misato articles. They're not perfect but they are looking better; they all need more in the concept and reception sections. The Rei article, aside from some issues, looks to be the best of these articles and I'm sure that with work it can easily be improved. I am hesitant about the Gendo and Kaworu articles, as I stated above, I think that they should be merged... But I'll get to that some other time. It seems finding relevant information regarding the characters' impacts is harder than I thought-- Groovy Sandwich  03:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the Kaworu article, even as it is, meets WP:GNG and follows WP:WAF enough to remain as a standalone article. --Malkinann (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, i think Kaworu passes GNG (but barely). Anyways...I'm not so sure about quote boxes. ON Rei Ayanami it clutters a bit. And with Asuka Langley Soryu it's just misplaced. I think they're better to be put in a some simpler form. Quoting them seems unnecessary and could be expanded better in prose within the Creation and Concept sections instead. Plus it seems like it's a bit promoting. I would thing using quote boxes when a certain quote was iconic and given 3rd party review.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've reformatted Kaworu's page as well and will eventually add more references. I get what you're saying regarding the quote boxes and I suppose they are rather superfluous; I admit I added them because they looked nice on other pages. The formatting on Asuka's is a bit off, mostly due to having such a short concept/creation section. I suppose the quotes can be paraphrased and written into the prose of the respective sections instead-- Groovy Sandwich  05:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * MOS:QUOTE recommends using the blockquotes that were in the article before, or using the quote template. I've tried out the quote template, but it doesn't look quite right in these articles. --Malkinann (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's only if we want to use them...i say no...they just take up more space than they should and ruin the flow of the article. Like in the End of evangelion or the main anime page...the problem i have with quotes is it takes so much space for a comment that can be easily summarized...thats why i say we should only use them when a certain quote is iconic.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel the quotes in Asuka and Rei's articles are pithy and would end up being wordier if they were paraphrased. --Malkinann (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really...and even if it did...it gets to the point faster than what quotes actually do...and i'm referring to almost all the quotes used in the NGE articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Wikipe-tan unilaterally turned into a subpage of this WikiProject
See WT:Wikipe-tan. I don't believe that Nikkimaria had the right to do this without consulting the members of this WikiProject first, so I'm letting you know now. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern California conventions
Should the relatively young cons of AM2, and Anime Conji have their own articles? Are the notable enough? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatsune Miku
Just a question without any initial prejudice toward the outcome: Is there a reason Hatsune Miku would not be covered under our scope? It could probably get more editor attention from this circle, which may have additional resources for the article, considering its traffic is off the charts after last night's Anime Expo concert. On another (perhaps related) note, Touhou Project is included within our project. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support addition to WikiProject Anime and manga I have seen panels about Hatsune miku at other anime conventions as well, cant hurt scoping this under our project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - there's an unofficial manga called hatsune mix (i really doubt its doujinshi though.)Bread Ninja (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Just because there's a few manga that use her and other Vocaloid characters doesn't mean she's really within our scope. She hasn't made any significant contributions within anime or manga, and most of her scope is within software, music and video games.--  十  八  04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons as those given by others above. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 05:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. While it's true that Miku and the Vocaloid franchise are, in a strict sense, a music phenomenon, the commercial entities and release aren't the important part - like Touhou, the interest is the entire amateur or doujin scene around the Vocaloids, which is in spirit the anime/manga subculture. The Japanese Music wikiproject doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction (or interest, probably) in that part. --Gwern (contribs) 21:22 7 July 2011 (GMT)

✅ - Project page link added to the article's talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fan translations
If a usually reliable source mentions the existence of a fan translation or links to a fan translation, is it acceptable to use it as a source in an article, saying there is a fan translation? For example, the Red Cross Book, or The Comics Journal's "A Comics Reader's Guide to Manga Scanlations", or cases where an outline is posted of a book. --Malkinann (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a scanlation of just about every manga we have an article on, so the information would be extremely trivial at best. On top of that, there will be neverending arguments as to why Abc can mention the existence of scanlations while Xyz cannot and which scanlations groups/agrigators should be mentioned. Remember, we have an obligation to avoid contributory copyright infringement and mentioning such things may end up promoting them. So its better to keep the lid on this can of worms and refrain from not mention them at all with the exceptions of notable cases where the publisher or studio takes legal actions beyond a C&D letter. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Farix, why are you arguing against a strawman? Malkinnan did not suggest mentioning every scanlation, but only the ones a RS found of interest for any reason they might do so. A RS might do so for many legitimate reasons, and it'd be foolish of us to cut off our noses for some highly abstract vague notion of copyright infringement.
 * It's only contributory infringement if we link straight to something that is a copyvio; see WP:COPYLINK on this. It's not contributory infringement to link to a page which links to a page which... Or at least, it would be fascinating to watch the expression on a judge asked to decide such a case. ('Your honor, the Wikipedia main page on October 23rd 2012 linked to an article on the magazine 2600, which linked to an Ars Technica article on decss, which linked to a site hosting decss. We'd like damages for each page view, which we calculate comes to $15 trillion dollars.') --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 7 July 2011 (GMT)


 * Its still promotional if we link it just to mention that fan-translations exist. And it's mainly trivial. There will always be fan-translations, why mention the existence of them just because a reliable source mentions it? The importance is pretty low.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it 'promotional'? Whose interests are being 'promoted'? Manga Entertainment's? (I have a confession to make, I have secretly cornered the world supply of RCBs and plan to dump them once this sentence in Wikipedia pushes prices sky high!) And to hear you talk about importance, one would think we were giving it more than a single short sentence... No, it's not as important as translations of kimochi warui or comments from voice actors about what they were told lines or scenes meant, but any article is going to have a huge range of pieces of data covering an equally huge range of levels of importance. --Gwern (contribs) 01:34 8 July 2011 (GMT)


 * It's not a piece of data that connects with everything else that makes itreally relevant. it's like "oh btw...fan translations are out there". its promotional to Red cross book itself.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of Maka-Maka (manga), the scanlation was discussed by the editor of Eros Comix, who used it and found the series too tame initially to license. Should this be mentioned there? --Malkinann (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * probably....i think it should mention it subtly though unless more scanlation-related info rises.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The important question is whether the mention constitutes undue weight - it may be better to just make a note of the mention on the article's talk page and revisit the issue after the article has been further developed in other areas (this is speaking generally, without me having looked at the specific article Malkinann linked to). — as 208.124.90.208 (talk) (what's this?) 05:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you'd have to do a case-by-case analysis. In the case where a fan translation becomes an important part of the process toward license consideration or provides additional encyclopedic material (through an RS) that is not already covered without the mention of fan translations, it may be worth including. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help
Could someone fix the table for List of Kudo Shinichi he no Chosenjo episodes, the episodes do not have titles and I could not make the table without that parameter. Thanks DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 10:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there is no episode title? Sometimes for dramas, the title is unlisted on the website but is present on the episode's title card. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking on the Japanese wiki, they list episode titles.--  十  八  20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the episode titles on the episodes and the Japanese wikipedia lists the episodes "subtitle" instead of the "title" of the dramas. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at any episode list on the Japanese wiki; all of them list the title as "subtitle".--  十  八  22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the titles but couldn't find the source for them. I need help with something else also, webcite is unable to archive this site so I'm wondering if there is another way to archive it since YTV will remove it at some point. Also, I need help translating the name for the screenplay in that same link. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Webcite might not work, but Google has a cached page for that website, though I don't know how long it'll last. As for the name, it looks like Takehiko Kanade (奏　建日子).--  十  八  06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Light novel disambiguation
In response to an editors comments at Talk:R-15 (light novels) about a recent page move, I've opened a discussion about the proper disambiguation for light novels at the Book WikiProject. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Romance and Drama as redundant genres of Harem
While I generally trust Farix's edits as helpful and reliable contributions to the community, I simply cannot agree with him for this matter. Farix has reverted my recent edit (along with nine more of my previous edits) to To Heart 2 when I added romantic comedy (he also reverted an addition of romance before) and drama to the infobox's list of genres with the rationale that the genres are redundant when harem is listed. After talking to him on his user talk page, he also removed the genres from the Love Hina and School Rumble articles. I cannot agree with the removal of the drama and romance genres from the said articles, and that harem is a subgenre of romance. I am bringing the matter here for further comments and opinions regarding the issue. -- クラ  ウド  ６６８  23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed those series are romantic comedies, if anything romance should trump harem if what the farix is saying is correct (Romance being harem's parent category). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay to not have redundancy in the infobox genres, but I feel saying harem is wholly representative of both drama and romance is going a bit too far. Harem series don't necessarily have to have a large drama base (To Love Ru comes to mind, as it's mostly comedy based), so drama should be listed with harem wherever applicable. Also, I agree with Cloud in that, at least for the To Heart series, the individual routes are just as important as the harem aspect, so just listing the harem genre seems like you'd be ignoring the singular romance of the separate routes. I've never really liked the harem classification to begin with, and I feel it's pretty vague and unverifiable, along the same lines as ecchi.--  十  八  23:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also would an anime like Inuyasha be properly be considered Harem. I could see it being called romantic but I don't see a lover's triangle as a Harem.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A harem is generally obvious. A lover's triangle, as the harem genre article indicates, is not a harem. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ops I meant to say not considered Harem.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me restate what I've already said on my talk page. That harem is a subgenre of romance is rather obvious. You can't have a harem series without involving romance between the male protagonists and multiple female characters (or the inverse of a female protagonists and multiple male characters). This makes them redundant to each other, and according to the infobox's documentation the more specific harem genre should be listed over the more general romance. Second drama and comedy are opposite genres. Dramas are suppose to be serious through its entirety with the occasional (if any) moments of humor. Comedies are the exact opposite in that they are filled with humorist jokes and situations with the occasional (if any) serious moments. So if an edit insists that a series is both, then they must have a reliable source supporting it. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you can. There have been people who have listed Sayonara, Zetsubou Sensei as harem. It is defiantly not a series about romantic triangles even on a secondary level. 陣 内 Jinnai 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't involve any romance between the protagonists and many characters, then it cannot be called a harem series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Visual novel is a type of work where multiple individual storylines branch off from one basic plot. When you list a visual novel as a harem, it is implied that the entire work is a story where the protagonist becomes involved in multiple relationships with other characters, romantic or otherwise. The problem is that, in the case of romance visual novels, each storyline revolves only around a singular romance with only one character, in which case the story does not qualify as a harem. Listing a visual novel as a harem but not romance neglects these separate storylines, which together quantify as the majority of the visual novel in most cases. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make much sense to me....Bread Ninja (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any visual novels with multiple "girls" is going to have a harem. Even if the player does purse just one of the girls at a time, there will still unrequited love with the other female characters in the main plot. Another aspect of the game play is that the player can also peruse more than one girl, even if the player ends up with just one girl at the end. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the definition of harem for VNs; they are a different media. Games, which VNs are loosely classified as, have gameplay mechanics that change normal litterary genres to be different than they are for linear works. This is true for a "harem" genre which means something completely different for a VN than it does for an anime because of its non-linearity and multiple endings.
 * Also, Zetsubo Sensei has been classified as a "harem" by RSes out there and it does not contain any romantic elements between the main titular character and the female classmates except for gag usage. It is classified by any RS as a romance or romance comedy series. It may be an exception that proves the rule, but it still should not be always seen as harem=romance. 陣  内 Jinnai 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay Here's the 2 sources I found: While both have commonalities, they are both have a lot of exclusivity. One could assume the Ask John one could easily apply the manga, but one requires romance and the other doesn't and both have about the same level of weight. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask John - basically a "harem anime" can be classified as an anime with 1 male ptoagonist surrounded by at least 3 other girls; he specifically excludes love-triangles. It does not require romance, only that they be around the protagonist in the storyline. He gons on to mention some fan assumption ones also.
 * Otaku Encyclopedia, p97 - (paraphrase) A genre of anime, manga and video games that brings a large number of beautiful women around 1 man. Usually a comedy where he stumbles around with several of them and has erotic ecounters before choosing one.

I thought infobox genres were a non-issue, in that we went with whatever genres could be sourced to reliable sources (within reason)? — as 66.116.19.124 (talk) (what's this?) 01:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While the gameplay does allow for pursuing more than one girl, to say that a visual novel is harem because of that is ignoring the separate, independent scenarios. If you can say a visual novel is of the harem genre because of the "common route", then, to give both "halves" of the game fair representation, it should also be called a romance because of the individual routes. Another thing is that it is neither obvious nor demonstrated whether the harem genre is a subgenre of romance. The two sources that Jinnai provided also do not support this claim, and suggest the genre does not require romance to be part of the story. --  クラ  ウド  ６６８  06:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

New episode list article which needs some work
List of The Story of Pollyanna, Girl of Love episodes was just completed, but it needs one or more people to go over it and fix header formatting and wording issues. While Dairi no Kenkyo is very enthusiastic about contributing such lists (see the edit summaries in the history of the article), his wording is not always in compliance with accepted standards for such lists. I did a quick once-over and removed some weird formatting characters and moved the article to the correct title. Thanks for any help. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Absorption of WikiProject Sailor Moon into Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga
There is a proposal about absorbing WikiProject Sailor Moon into WP:ANIME as an inactive work group at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailor Moon. G.A.S talk 04:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just making sure people notice this as JJ98 seems bent on doing this. Please comment over there if you have any thoughts on the issue. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was me, I've posted it myself. No worries. :) JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More eyes would be appreciated here, because I feel this discussion is becoming uncivil. --Malkinann (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kira Yamato
These is a discussion about whether certain events of the series should be mentioned in the article. I think input from a larger number of editors would be useful in reaching concensus. Edward321 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fall 2011
• # Bakuman II (バクマン.) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2)

• # Battle Spirits Heroes (バトルスピリッツ) (Fall 2011, ANNE, ANN])

• # Ben-To (ベン・トー) (October 2011)

• # Boku wa Tomodachi ga Sukunai (僕は友達が少ない) (Fall 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2)

• # Chihayafuru (ちはやふる) (October 2011 ANNE, ANN1, ANN2)

• # Coppelion (コッペリオン) (October 2011)

• # Fate/Zero (October 2011, ANNE, ANN)

• # Future Diary (未来日記) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2)

• # Guilty Crown (ギルティクラウン) (October 2011)

• # Kimi to Boku (君と僕.) (October 2011)

• # Horizon on the Middle of Nowhere (境界線上のホライゾン) (October 2011)

• # Hunter x Hunter second season (Fall 2011, ANNE, ANN)

• # Last Exile: Fam, the Silver Wing (ラストエグザイル-銀翼のファム-) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2, ANN3)

• # Maji de Watashi ni Koishinasai! (真剣で私に恋しなさい！) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2)

• # Mashiroiro Symphony: Love is pure white (ましろ色シンフォニー -Love is pure white-) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN)

• # Mobile Suit Gundam AGE (機動戦士ガンダムAGE <エイジ>) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2, ANN3)

• # Persona 4 (ペルソナ4) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN)

• # Phi Brain: Kami no Puzzle (ファイ・ブレイン 神のパズル) (October 2011)

• # Shakugan no Shana III (灼眼のシャナ) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN)

• # Tamayura: Hitotose (たまゆら ~ hitotose ~) (October 2011, ANNE, ANN1, ANN2)

• # Un-Go (アンゴ) (October 2011)

• # Working'!! (October 2011, ANNE, ANN)

• |undefined

The above list is to show where we currently have gaps in our coverage for the upcoming fall season. This is not a complete list and some of the series names may change by October. At first posting, there are 16 series schedule for October, 7 of which are redlinks. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Created Ben-To, and fixed the link of Maji de Watashi ni Koishinasai!, so now there's 5 red links.--  十  八  06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. I've added missing shows. Note that Chihayafuru is the winner of the 2009 Manga Taishō, so it should already have enough notability for an article. Guilty Crown and Un-Go are the upcoming Noitamina shows. Coppelion can be an interesting article if sources can be found. The anime had been in planning for some time, but because it depicts Japan following a nuclear fallout, it was rumored that the manga author and the anime staff had to postpone production because of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. I'll be taking up Last Exile again to produce quality material after bringing the first series to GA status. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 07:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any conformation that the second season of Squid Girl (Shinryaku!? Ika Musume), which you added to the list, will be out this October? Because so far, I haven't seen anything to confirm that and it looks like it will be a Winter series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Until we get conformation, I'm removing Squid Girl and Boku wa Tomodachi ga Sukunai from the list. I'm also removing Busō Shinki Moon Angel as that will not be televised. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a magazine scan floating around in the first few days of this month indicating that second season starts in October. As far as I know, there are no web sources confirming this outright, but I don't peruse Japanese news sites that often. In the general scheme of things, its original announcement match the time around when most of the fall shows were announced. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Coppelion and Guilty Crown created. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Un-Go created. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything is now bluelinked until the next round of announcements. Does anyone like for me to post the list of upcoming anime TV series or should I just refer everyone to my userpage? —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All of these will need to be marked with Category:Anime of 2011 as well. Good job on creating all the missing articles. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You could probably just start a new discussion every season and point a link to the list(s) to your user page. We can discuss changes here. On a side note, I wonder if it's worth putting a countdown to the next season like WikiProject Olympics for their page. It might be a good reminder for us. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since these all look to be debuing in October should we just call this October 2011? What if new series air in December? AweCo (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because there are a few series that may start as early as the end of September or as late as the beginning of December. But most of the series will begin in October. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yaoi pictures
The German Wikipedia has been working with Animexx to provide good pictures for their articles on shonen-ai and yaoi, and now I'm not quite sure how to rearrange the pictures we have in the yaoi article. I've started a discussion here and would appreciate input. --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Might be good to do Tuxedo Mask and Zoycite since they are a rather old shipped yaoi couple, even though the female-ization of Zoy in the dub didn't let on about this. AweCo (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal conflict
Currently, I'm on my third revert after this edit and I'm wondering if I'm in the wrong here. I've been reverting the section Xyz Monsters back to ''Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game'' as seen in the edit but the user insists the previous version aids users in understanding the context of the plot better. I'm hoping for some advice for this situation. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't add anything. As written, it is just random information with no explanation as to why it is important to the plot. While the Xyz Monsters are an important plot point, how they are summoned in the game is not. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the current section about those monsters were copyedited from a messier version. Should I just remove it? I believe other editors might attempt to re-add that information though.  DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with pronouns
I am currently in a dispute with another user at Talk:Wandering Son on whether to refer to fictional transgendered characters using pronouns that describe their assigned sex or internal gender. We've already gotten a third opinion, but I would like more input from the project about this. There's also a related discussion at WT:MOS on whether the gender-specific clause in MOS:IDENTITY should apply to fictional characters.--  十  八  20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't really have an opinion save I like the latter. It can cause issues since BLP isn't a factor here. I was thinking of Baka and Test where one of the characters constantly refers to themself as a male, but everyone else refers to them as a female. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing the guidelines for LEAD titles
I'm wondering if we should take a cue from WP:VG for LEAD titles and change them to remove repetitious romanji. This would not affect titles in the body of the work. This would only affect series titles.

The way the Mediation came out with, it basically would affect titles like Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where it is part of a larger series and could therefore remove the series title since there would be a link back to Ghost in the Shell which should have the romanji in it on the main page.

It was done because VGs often use long titles, mostly because they use subtitles as part of a larger series. In that regard, I believe the anime/manga would benefit from this as it clears up the LEAD which there are constant attempts at FACs to condense info. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have arguments both for and against the proposal... neutral for now. G.A.S talk 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Argument for: We also provide the romaji and kanji in the infobox; above arguments.
 * Arguments against: I am not sure what we are going to do with the literal translation in the article (makes no sense without original text); this goes against MOS:JP (I.e. having to go to another article for the English/Kanji/Romaji combination... though countered by infobox argument).


 * I believe it's discouraged to use wikilinks on bolded text. The Manual of Style discourages putting links in the boldface reiteration of the title. This gets pointed out in FAC/FLC every time. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FLRC List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4)
nominated List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonZero  (talk • contribs)  15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)