Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 58

Manga Bookshelf and MangaBlog RS?
Is Manga Bookshelf and MangaBlog RS?
 * No to Mangablog. I would say yes for Manga Bookshelf since they seem to have experts in manga (Pop culture shock and an editor who has worked with Dark Horse comics). It might be situational, I haven't taken a look at everything though. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Should have checked the archives. Brigid Alverson and MangaBlog were proven RS as contributor to Publishers Weekly, Comic Book Resources here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 39.
 * I guess I also wanted to add the list of people who have been listed here to the Individual section of the Project Online Resources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 43:
 * Amongst them:
 * From the Hooded Ulitarian blog: Noah Berlatsky, Richard Cook, Kinukitty, Ng Suat Tong & Vom Marlowe
 * From the The Comics Journal: Shaenon Garrity, Adam Stephanide, Matthias Wivel, Bill Randal
 * From Pop Culture Shock: Melinds Beasi, Katherine Dacey, Michelle Smith
 * From School Library Journal: Brigid Alverson, Lori Henderson
 * MISC: Johanna Draper Carlson, Katherine Famar, Danielle Leigh. Extremepro (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Devilman
Devilman and Devilman are inappropriate sections, correct? Devilman can be kept as a partial character list, but the rest should be removed per WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think Devilman is an inappropriate section at all. The section isn't overly long and is important to understanding the character.  There is nothing at WP:PLOT that would suggest such a section is inappropriate.  WP:PLOT says that articles on fictional subjects should discuss the reception and significance of the subject in addition to summarizing the plot, and not merely be a plot summary.  While Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction) makes it clear that the majority of an article should not be a plot summary, WP:PLOT is suggesting that when an article is currently just a plot summary, it should be expanded (it says ". . . Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage.").  Nothing on either of those pages gives any reason to remove that section, and it seems necessary to cover the topic fully.  On the other hand, Devilman is problematic, since it takes up a large portion of the article while covering what appear to be mostly minor characters.  I think a character list is important for a fictional work, but that it needs to focus on the main characters.  I don't think just keeping the manga characters and removing the TV characters would necessarily be the right solution, but something needs to be done with that section.  I personally have no idea which characters are major characters, so I wouldn't be able to fix it. Calathan (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is rather inappropriate, for the same reason that listing all of the items in a video game is inappropriate. In particularly, it is overly-weighted in comparison to the reception and real-world effects of the article topic that should be written about. It hardly helps understand the character beyond that he has magical powers. The other thing that should be remembered is that we are writing for the general audience and not the anime-fan, and the general audience will not care what his particular magical abilities are, only that he has them, why he has them, and what he uses them for. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. That section is concise and not overly weighted in comparison to the reception.  Such sections are included even in good-quality articles on super heroes and similar fictional characters (compare the featured article Batman, which has a section detailing his skills, abilities, and equipment).  Furthermore, that information seems obviously of general interest to anyone reading the article.  Fictional super-powered characters are primarily defined by what there super powers are, and that information is essential to such articles.  The article could never be a Good Article or Featured Article without such a section.  The only problem with that section right now is that it is in the form of a list rather than prose, since prose is generally preferable where possible.  Lists of video game items are not a similar situation, since in generally the items in a game are not one of the main defining features, while for super-powered character, the super-powers are one of the main defining features of the character. Calathan (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's take Batman as the counterexample, since you brought the article up. What you didn't mention is that Batman's section is cited by reliable secondary sources which give real-world context and subsequently which inform us of the real weight of the section, which is written mostly from an out-of-universe perspective. On top of that, it's very much in-scope for an article on a character. The article we're considering now is none possesses none of those qualities. That's what makes the section here not in keeping with WP:PLOT, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that sourcing that section is important. When I said the "only problem" with the section was that it was a list, I admit that was hyperbole.  However, I still think that that describing Devilman's powers is essential to having a complete article.  Keep in mind that part of WP:WEIGHT that things should be given due weight, and that WP:PLOT indicates that plot should be a portion of the article.  You seem to be trying to exclude almost all aspects of the plot, even the most essential parts, which would be giving them unduly little weight.  Also, the edits that have been made to the article have made it clear that the current character section is incomplete (for instance, it doesn't list Devilman or any human characters, who seem to be the main characters).  I think that section should probably be totally rewritten.  I believe that describing Devilman's powers in prose under an entry for him in the character section is appropriate.  However, I do not think the section on his powers should just be removed until the improved section can be written.  The description of his powers is useful content that should be incorporated into the improved version of the article, so removing it entirely would be counterproductive in writing an ideal version of the article. Calathan (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, describing his powers in any detail isn't necessary to the article. As for "You seem to be trying to exclude almost all aspects of the plot", that is hyperbole! Since you are now bringing it up, I didn't even comment on what is currently a plot section (aside from the "abilities" section!) of 900 words&mdash;itself on the large side of most plot sections! And nowhere did I argue against describing "essential parts"; I argue against the definition of "essential". The abilities list – not essential. Why not? All the reasons I've already given. I would expect one, maybe two sentences about his "powers" at most, for a proper weighting, and those more likely to describe it from a layman's point of view. "The guy has powers, granted him by a demon. They range from x-type power to y-type power." is enough to get the gist of what the guy can do. Anything else usually leads to (what I would call) "plotcruft" (not necessarily "in-universe-cruft"), as good faith editors start injecting (among other things) "hey, he used this here and here" – hardly essential to the plot as a whole, much less the series as a whole, no? Poor writing usually also follows, with lists like the current version of the article, which sit and stagnate and bring the overall quality of the article down. I have found that a scalpel slicing away bad flesh is a much better way to improve the overall quality of the article, prior to additions (and the bad flesh is very noticeable!). See e.g. the transformation of [ Parkour in popular culture], which went from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkour_in_popular_culture&oldid=443303523 this] to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkour_in_popular_culture&diff=447579107&oldid=443303523 this] to what is now at Parkour. (To be honest, I had good working material there!) But besides that, articles have histories. Talk pages too, if you're really worried that useful content will be lost. --Izno (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is someone completely unfamiliar with a topic allowed to wholesale purge content anyways? I'm curious because I expect some coverage in what would be an FA and the whole dismissive "PLOT" argument is just a red herring. While we can all agree it is far from a perfect article, why not make a list of characters page as done for almost every other anime or manga series to address more in-universe aspects in the appropriate level of detail expected of readers wanting more than a cursory understanding of the topic? While I didn't like that format at first, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:DETAIL with WP:LIST seems to be backing it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Viz Media site restructured for digital manga
This has been brought up a few times in the past but I think the general formula for Viz Media's new pages is this:

From http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?product_id=XXXX

To http://www.viz.com/manga/print/(Name-of-manga)-volume-Y/XXXX

It was raised here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 48) that a bot might be able to update the links if there was a given formula for the change links. Extremepro (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

List of best-selling manga article
Was thinking about creating List of best-selling manga to list the manga series with the highest collected volume sales. But I myself would really only be able to get sources for the sales of the more "popular" shonen series; basically their own articles already have these. So was wondering if other people would help out for the series that haven't had popularity in the West, like Doraemon etc.? Xfansd (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Too subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on that? List of best-selling books, video games, music artists etc. exist, why is manga different? Each entry has to be reliably sourced of course. Xfansd (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If i could contest to those i would, considering that the best selling is subjective. what number would be considering "best-selling"? You would have to consider how long it took to gain that amount of sales.Lucia Black (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Best-selling lists are based on number of copies sold. That's it. Putting in some equation of how long it's been available against how much it's sold would be absurd. As for the cut off point, that depends on the size of the list. For example books has it at 10 million, albums at 20 million. --Mika1h (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You actually can contest to those, it just wouldn't do anything. We are not determining the "best", but simply making a list that informs readers how much each series has sold, and by listing multiple series in a single page it gives them perspective. The serialization years and number of collected volumes can be given, but I don't see why you think it matters how long a series has been running. If one series sold 100 million in 20 volumes and is completed, and another 200 million with 50 volumes and is still in serialization, you can not say "Well that's not fair. The second is longer." We are simply giving the facts. We'll just choose an amount to stop at, say only list series that have sold 10 million or more in three wikitables; 100 mil or more, 50 mil to 99 mil, and 10 mil to 49 mil. Xfansd (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've always contested these type of lists because it makes this encyclopedia want to inform on the most trivial ideas. and to me, the names are misleading, so it doesn't matter if you clarify, the fact that you had to clarify, shows how misleading it really is.Lucia Black (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume English speakers generally know what best-selling means, but anyway each of these types of lists explain stuff like that in the lead paragraph. Xfansd (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the idea but are we going to have it from a worldwide view? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean give sales for just Japan or include worldwide? Hmm, I personally think it would be fine to mix them and use whichever we find. Otherwise it might limit sources. What are other people's opinions on that? I did a little example in my sandbox btw. Xfansd (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what "Best selling" means, but not everyone has the same standard for "best-selling". Mikah1 may not agree that it matters how long it took, but it matters because if a book released a thousand years ago managed to accumulate 5 million dollars, it wouldn't be considered as "best seller".

the name of the list isn't accurate, and misleading to both who are familiar to best sellers and not.Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Brainstorming. This is a nice idea, however we'd first have to establish some ground requirements such as what would be considered a best-seller—namely in terms of quantity sold, total money earned, hardback or paperback or even digital, between what time-frame. etc. Maybe multiple articles depicting each of these requirements if they fail to merge as a single article. —KirtZ Message 22:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ANd this is what makes the standard subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lucia rather than tossing the idea which sounds similar to Highest grossing films of all time, is there a way you would tweak the title then for it to work? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The general idea is still to find a method of listing based on the consensus of the editors, so i would still be against it. A similar name to "list of anime by episode-count" but i've contested those for years.Lucia Black (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree for all those except having a minimum number of sales for inclusion on this list. Money earned is something totally different and should not be included at all (in a different article, sure go for it). Its rare for manga to be hardcover, but you wont find separate sales for that anyway. I believe there might be separate digital sales figures. That's the thing, some sales might count digital, others might not, some might count worldwide, others might only count Japan, some publishers release updated sales each year others do not. Again, this would only be the number of copies sold that can be sourced, regardless of anything else. I got the idea for this list when I was about to add manga series to List of best-selling books and noticed that it doesn't include "comics", so my sandbox sample and what I envision the list to be is based on that one, which doesn't put any restrictions like the ones KirtZJ suggests. Xfansd (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The list would not be subjective and it is indeed an aspect of a major medium currently lacking clarity and perspective; this article would lend itself to both goals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is subject to the decision and standards of the editor. therefore, "subjective". As KitsZJ said, "however we'd first have to establish some ground requirements such as what would be considered a best-seller—namely in terms of quantity sold, total money earned, hardback or paperback or even digital, between what time-frame. etc. Maybe multiple articles depicting each of these requirements if they fail to merge as a single article."Lucia Black (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "volumes sold" subjective? The only "subjective" aspect would be defining the cut off for inclusion. Things like "money earned" and other methods are not definable records and publishers will always be silent on. You either go with the clear records or you don't do it at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be subjective to establish what would be considered Best-sellers. Sales can be subjective depending on how accurate you want the term "best seller". its completely subjective to even "define" it on our own, which is why knowledgekid is asking if there's another form of renaming it.

I believe we "don't do it all". the accuracy of the list, and the subjectivity is too high, mainly because this is based on research of sales more than anything else. the label "best seller" is one thing to be against it because not all of them are considered as such and some for good reasons (such as the sales don't mean much if, but also note that this is only based on sales, not best sellers. Anything can amount to best sellers if it lives out the sales long enough.

Also i find it incredibly trivial. the same reason why i'm against list articles such as List of anime series by episode count.Lucia Black (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care enough to explain all the reasons why that list is off, but if maintaining them was not an issue would it be different? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I simply believe these list are not encyclopedic. Doing by the number of episodes or the number of sales seems to be something based on personal interest, not notability based on third party sources.Lucia Black (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While I understand your position I'd like to note that the proposed list serves as an indicator of popularity, success and hence cultural value upon which that 2 or 3 books for every man, woman and child has been sold. A listing of longest series by episode count changes weekly. Wikipedia is for the sum of all human knowledge and such a list serves as a defined and accessible meter upon which the medium can be gauged with a mere glance and in a context that does not require any editorializing. If anything, that should be an ideal example of why such a page would be both useful and informative. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not every subject is "notable". therefore, these lists are entirely based on different. And for lists, its just based on how long they are, not whether the subject has been noted before.Lucia Black (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Every subject on such a list is notable though; by its very definition for inclusion and the list itself serves a purpose. Would you object to a taxonomic list for a genus that has 3000 entries? If selling more than 50 million volumes is not "notable" what is? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

THe list is the subject itself, not each piece that makes up the subject. that's what i'm trying to get at. its only highlighting notability through sales, not through other means.Lucia Black (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Break
Just noticed that two sources I planned to use, that have a lot of series, give copies in circulation not number sold 1 and 2. What are the feelings on circulation VS sales? Do we pick one or the other, mix them? If we use circulation we definitely have to use a different title than "Best-selling". Gabriel Yuji has been adding a lot to my sandbox and also suggested adding the magazines and publishers. Thoughts? Xfansd (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tables would get too crowded. I suggest using notes beside the numbers to state circulation or sold and a second note to add what year these numbers were taken from. I also like the green backgrounds for continuing series like the one at List of manga series by volume count. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 20:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the sources use the circulation and the sales number as the same thing, or in fact they are the same thing. I state it since the numbers are the same or very close in different sources; e.g. Glass Mask, and Slam Dunk. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did the green backgrounds and added notes for the numbers that are circulations for the English sources, someone who reads Japanese needs to check over the Japanese sources to see if they specifically say circulation. Since there is now a note/symbol for circulation, we do not really need to make a different one for sales, the reader would know right? And we do not need to make another note for the year the numbers come from because the source for that number has a date? Gabriel, circulation and sales are technically not the same thing; I believe circulation usually refers to the number of copies printed, so that means there can by thousands sitting in some warehouse; sales are the number actually bought by stores/consumers. Some publishers do not treat these differently and we will not always be able to tell, so based on DragonZero's response I think just adding a little symbol next to the ones that are stated as circulations will be fine and not complicate things. Xfansd (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with adding the symbol with explanation. On the music side, RIAJ uses shipment counts for Japanese music albums, although Oricon uses actual sales. The problem I have been seeing on the sales figures for Japanese (and Korean) music beyond the first Oricon month is that they are regularly being updated without any trail of the accumulation of the numbers. Although circulation might be good for runs that are more subscription based, like magazines. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm going to move it to article space in the next couple of days. If no one has any better names it will be List of best-selling manga. Someone who reads Japanese should really check the Jap sources to see if the numbers are sales or circulations. Xfansd (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

List of anime series by episode count
I dunno if this article would into this project's scope, but I looked at the List of anime series by episode count and that list seems rather incomplete/out-of-date, especially series' with episode count lower than 200. I used MyAnimelist's advanced search option to find episode counts. Hei Liebrecht 01:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much work to keep it updated. Someone should chop that list up so it only keeps the top fifty. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to do it but that might lead to edit dispute and I have little experience when it comes to dealing with these situation. Hei Liebrecht 06:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think an edit dispute will happen. There are very little editors in anime manga and the picky ones won't interfere with that page, possibly. Anyways, cutting it down to 50 would make a list no one wants to manage more manageable. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I proposed this on that article's talk page as a formality. Please feel free to leave a comment there. Hei Liebrecht 09:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Live Stream Interview
I'm trying to find interview information for Moyasimon: Tales of Agriculture.

I found these two blog posts with screencaps of the mangaka's livestream. I know the LiveJournal itself is not RS.

The livestream is referenced in ANN. Can the LiveJournal be cited for the livestream screencaps with some interview questions? Extremepro (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's a shame but you'll have to hope someone reliable publishes it. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone with a knowledge of Japanese tell me if this Ustream is an actual radio review of Moyashimon - or just a fan review? Channel owner: しおりのアニメ三昧 Extremepro (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryu's, Hitoshi Doi, and Seiyuu Database's links
If these links are going to be used extensively as external links, shouldn't a template be created so that they will be in a consistent format? 24.149.119.20 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden character list redirect
A discussion here to discuss redirecting the character page to the main article, as I consider it merged already. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the plot covers key differences similar fashion to Fullmetal Alchemist, I can't consider this merged. We just had an AfD and its not even been a 2 days since it was voted for keep. Perhaps find other ways to add references to it.Lucia Black (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I needed to add this but don't discuss this here. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was voted for keep. No offense, but don't you think its WP:GAME to attempt to merge them just because you consider it a redirect? I mean the AfD was "keep" as in, we keep the character list. Its no different from proposing deletion/merge/redirect.Lucia Black (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/Ah! My Goddess (season 1)/archive1
Article still may need improvement after updates were made. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive or Delete WikiProject Anime and manga/Destubification drive
What to do about this? I suggest we just delete it, it isn't worth the archive. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say we archive the project and have it listed under the Departments and work pages heading of our WikiProject template. Since it's such a large category, it would have to be an ongoing effort.
 * To even start this drive, we would have to clearly define what makes a Stub-class article turn into a Start-class article. From WP:ANIME/ASSESS:

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 * I guess during the efforts of this drive, there will be stubs that won't meet WP:GNG - so this drive could also be seen as a deletion spree. Like the first article in this category (1+2=Paradise). Extremepro (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the community has rejected mass deletion and stub or delete is not valid proposition, deleting the drive is best. The stub contest and other events take care of this better than some small AM drive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the original goal was not to have it a drive but an open goal to display in the main page just like WP:VG and WP:SE. So when I agreed to the drive it was to be lasting forever. Plus, mass deletion isn't a violation, just highly discouraged.Lucia Black (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mass deletion is only done under extremely rare circumstances and I only know of two cases in Wikipedia's history. One of them dealing with 6000 algae articles on the grounds that they were placed in entirely wrong taxonomy and could not be fixed. See the whole display at Articles_for_deletion/Anybot's_algae_articles, the other was the mass creation of 10000 articles on Chinese villages with nothing more than "X is a village in China." at its core. There is nothing wrong with stubs, but it is dangerous to associate stubs as being bad and seeking their elimination if only to "improve" the appearance of Wikipedia. Afterall, if that was Wikipedia's intent only GA or FA articles would remain and that would also go straight against the ideology of the project. 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I associate stub articles with series that aren't notable, or needs to prove it urgently. For the most part, not all manga is notable, even in japan. So a mass deletion-drive might be good if a specific range. Such as series that never made it outside of japan and have no sources, or any spin off media to give it lasting relevancy. So the multi-media series (even if not released outside in Japan) would stay, but all those that are simply an anime or manga series that only in japan, would be deleted. It would be nice considering thats most of the stubs and hard to make notable or prove notability.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that your conclusion is illogical and inherently damaging to Wikipedia. If not on the grounds that we do not have the editors to improve or even check all the content that exists in the first place? Show me one person who is active and a native level speaker with access to the museums of the national library; let alone willing to do this crazy task. Making one article good at a time is hard enough and I've got more than enough work to last years. We all do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are other stub events to handle this. Do I just treat this like any AFD? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I'm not in support of a mass deletion drive/spree, rather to take each article on it's own merits. The one-shot or single series articles only in Japan can be notable - with enough Japanese language sources. Extremepro (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quality over Quantity. If a stub can't be improved, then it is not-notable. Permastubs should be removed. No one here needs access to the national library, its not a trump card.


 * I have my ideals, you have yours. Mine is to improve what can be improved. If there's no chance of an article being fixed anytime soon, and it has notability issues, then its best we AfD them and bring it back when we have the information needed to making it notable. Once deleted, doesn't mean it can't be brought back.


 * The only damage I see Chris, is a subjective damage. Removing vast ammount of content? Depends on what's being removed. Well written notable topics? Or scarce articles that don't prove notability.


 * We can't save them all and for good reasons. Proving notability shouldn't even be "that" hard. But again, if we were to do such a drive (removing japanese only, single media manga) then we would have a search of reliable japanese sources.Lucia Black (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all perma-stubs are to be deleted. All winners of the Kodansha Manga Award, Shogakukan Manga Award, Tezuka Osamu Cultural Prize, Manga Taishō, or winners of the following category Category:Anime and manga awards should have articles, but due to their age, and possibly out-of-print status, they will not have more than a lead paragraph and some external links, making them perma-stubs. Extremepro (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All perma-stubs are bad. Why keep articles that aren't notable? A single awward doesn't make a series last. There has to be more than that such as if it ever had a spin-off or adaptation. I think you just want to keep them and excusing yourself (in other words you're in denial).Lucia Black (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just glancing at the stub articles after noticing this discussion. One thing that stood out is that there were some episode lists that are classified as stub class. Shouldn't all of those be changed to "list" class regardless of quality? Calathan (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I was doing.Lucia Black (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We need more sources
most of what we have focus only on news rather than reviews, especially on manga information. it starts to get scarce. I was looking at WP:VG/RLand they appear to have a good format going for them. For magazines, most of them post the series in what series that specific magazine issue covers so it makes it easier for others who are interested in a specific topic, they would be able to find any form of sourcing. this helps greatly in improving even not-so-well known series as well. We should definitely adapt the same format when it comes to references.

On another note, it would also be great to find more mainstream manga reviews of japan. i'm not familiar with what readers follow when it comes to manga. Anime would be good too.Lucia Black (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have this: WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library.
 * We also have this: WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines and the articles that are covered by the specific issue of the magazine is in the "subject archive" of the magazine (most don't have it). Extremepro (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * its not the same setup that WP:VG has it. its much more accesssible by subject. it should be more public on the subject it covers.Lucia Black (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Talking about sources there is a big problem. The archives of Animerica were deleted for some reason.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely a big problem. Also, Ex.org is doing some maintenance and none of their reviews come up. Did anyone archive their work? Well, either way, we're losing sources and I don't know how to determine which are reliable. Is there any reliable sources that review TV series and cover anime/manga? I feel part of the problem is looking for RS that cover anime/manga exclusively.Lucia Black (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With regards to Animerica - Archive.is archived some of the Wayback Machine archives Personally, I like using archive.is as it bypasses the robot.txt document to take a screenshot of the page as well as on-demand archival. Extremepro (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm having a problem with working on Kamille Bidan and Heero Yuy. While I've managed to find Japanese sources that note how popular they are, critical reception has been hard to find. For Kamille I only have some mania.com articles while Wing reviews barely focus on the characters. I've previously managed to work in the reception of other Gundam characters like Amuro Ray, Kira Yamato and Setsuna F. Seiei but I'm stuck with these two.Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The International Best Comics Poll - The Hooded Utilitarian
The Hooded Utilitarian has hosted an international poll on the top 115 comics (arguably more American-centric, with a few manga) here

But what I found interesting was: whilst most of the critics just chose their own 10 best, some of the critics gave reasons to their choice: eg. Matt Thorn: partial contributor listing.

Finally, all the contributors had their credentials listed along with their top 10 lists, maybe we can find more individual RS resources from this massive list of critics. Extremepro (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Finnish site Animeleht.fi RS?
This Finnish site has reviews on it - but I'm not sure whether it can be considered RS. The main reason to question this site is that the publisher's website looks like a forum and this review, if proven RS, could be used to cite the publisher. Extremepro (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The publisher's website has a forum. How is that related to proving RS? --Mika1h (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad wording - I meant if the Finnish review was proven RS, then I can use the review to cite that the book was licensed in Finland and would not have to cite the publisher's forum. Extremepro (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

RFC closed.
The RFC on franchise coverage has been closed. Here's the full summary of the closure. I was going to close this yesterday, but I wanted to give this another read this morning to see if there was any fair way to move forward on how best to approach larger A&M-related articles in the usual case where adaptations follow a manga series. Editors were opposed to implementing either a hard-line "one-article per franchise" or a "one article for each adaptation" rule, which leaves us with consensus to make such splitting or consolidation decisions on a case-by-case basis. I'll note that most editors seem to be in agreement in that for most manga-to-adaptation franchises, a single article usually suffices.

The subsequent challenge was to determine the criteria by which such decisions could be made, or even considered. "Uniqueness" was a term used by some, which while a fair approach, could use some definition. A number of parameters were suggested: Prose size, anime series length, discussion of production for the adapation, the degree of novel content in the anime series compared to the manga, and others. Some of these parameters seem less helpful. For instance, the number of episodes alone seems unhelpful because the studio may simply have a ton of money to create numerous episodes, none of which are substantially novel (e.g. some may be filler/recap episodes). Some may be more instructive though-- differences in major story arcs (i.e. ones worth discussing per the Manual of Style and WP:PLOTSUM and/or significant coverage of the process and news about production of the adaptation.) There was reluctance from editors to agree to any specific metrics on any of these parameters, but I think some principles proposed here are soundly within policy and should be the focus of future discussions in this area:


 * 1) If an adaptation is a substantial reflection of the plot and characters of its respective manga series, it probably does not require a separate article.
 * 2) If a substantial amount of nontrivial and reliably-sourced content can be written about an adaptation that distinguishes it from its respective manga series, a separate article on the adaptation is recommended.

In point #2, nontrivial is meant to refer to things like noncritical differences in plot, as described by many editors here.

I realize this has long been a contentious topic area, and I hope this discussion will be helpful to better organize and present A&M content on Wikipedia for the sake of our readers. Editors are welcome to contact me on my talk page with questions or concerns about this close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope this summarizes the whole thing about franchise coverages here. If there are no objections we should edit WP:MOSANIME to reflect that change. Okay? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't object to this standard. But I hope there's no loopholes.Lucia Black (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

MOSAM cannot contain this as MOSAM is a manual of style, not a notability guideline. It should be listed on the Wikiproject page. The RFC before stated that MOSAM cannot contain such a guideline and the other discussions pointed to WP:POLICY as stating that a manual of style should be strictly a manual of style. Though I think the problem is resolved, the task comes to cleaning, organizing and preparing the data for the content building. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But even if MOSAM is a manual of style, I think the closing summary and new consensus still stands regarding the demerging of articles, therefore the previous RFC consensus is moot and I think we should implement this change as soon as possible. My point on this here is that the two points bolded in the closing should be incorporated somewhere in the article as the points are within policy. Also, the consensus has been determined that "make such splitting or consolidation decisions on a case-by-case basis." If you have problems with the closure, please take it up with I JethroBT on how to present it. I think this RFC discussion has already been settled, therefore I think that the previous RFC is meaningless. I have no problems with mentioning the consensus anywhere. I personally think we should split articles on a case by case basis. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the closure, but the simple fact that we've had 2 RFCs on the matter, including the VPP discussion and lengthy MOSAM discussions about notability being outside the purposes of that page - its the reason why the entire problem began in the first place. I think its entirely backwards to overturn a much more specific and clear cut decision for the purposes of making a manual of style hold notability related matters and not either place them into their own page as suggested prior or to place them on the Wikiproject's page. I'm happy that articles like Dragon Ball Z can exist without being repeated blank and redirected or dropped into userspace to bypass AFDing, despite WP:USERFY. Don't confuse my response on its placement and usage as some disagreement about the end result - after all, it was more than I had hoped for and I am quite pleased by it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand most of your points, Chris, and at least we finally got the dispute resolved when I JethroBT closed the RFC. I was a bit impressed by what he did. We came to some sort of an agreement on this one here. I personally oppose splitting articles if it's just a repetition of the plot and characters from their series, but I support a separate article if there are reliable sources and noncritical differences in the plot summaries.
 * Here are a couple examples using the points that were in the RFC's closing summary: In some cases, if "a substantial amount of nontrivial and reliably-sourced content can be written about an adaptation that distinguishes it from its respective manga series, a separate article on the adaptation is recommended." That's what happened to Dragon Ball Z and Bleach (anime), for example. But in articles like Fullmetal Alchemist, Fairy Tail, and Naruto, for example, the adaptations are "a substantial reflection of the plot and characters of its respective manga series, it probably does not require a separate article." I hope this makes sense of what I'm talking about here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Bleach (anime) is still being disputed. And also bleach is no different from Naruto. Dragon Ball Z is an edge case because english-regions recognize Dragon Ball Z before Dragon Ball alltogether.Lucia Black (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So a multi-billion dollar success is an edge case to you? Why do I even bother with this area... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its an edge case because its success outweights the original. The series can't be divided normally like others where Dragon Ball would cover its manga and anime adaptations. The only reason why we contested to the split is because there's going to be confusion of how to handle the split. Does DBZ contain only the anime? Or the anime and second half of the manga? Its a difficult situation even now.


 * Still, the RfC was raised because of bold splits such as Bleach. So it would be great to analyze the series first, before saying it was well deserved. If Bleach deserves a split, then by default of more popular series, Naruto and One Piece aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I understand where you are coming from with your points and agree with your idea, Lucia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

New discussion
Just thought I'd let everybody know about this discussion I'm having, regarding Dragon Ball ' s continuity. Sarujo (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Post-RfC discussion and issues that need to be covered
So now that we decided to do so, we have a few articles that we need to consider or make an example of


 * Dragon Ball (anime)
 * Bleach (anime) which will be the outcome of the following articles:
 * Naruto
 * One Piece

This is a very serious issue, and i feel it wont die down, until we use the consensus of the RfC to use.Lucia Black (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (anime)
Most of the information is made up entirely of DVD releases and the rest is easily mergable back. its not a strong split at all, even for the new standards that we have.Lucia Black (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge If the only main things are DVD releases than it should be merged back, ignore personal opinions here and think of what would be a greater potential gain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Dragon Ball episodes, List of Dragon Ball Z episodes, and List of Dragon Ball GT episodes. Those are the central anime-focused articles with individual season articles available for details like the DVD releases. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the scope of the article being discussed, as it only covers information on the first Dragon Ball TV series, and not Dragon Ball Z or Dragon Ball GT. There shouldn't be anything in the article that could be merged to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes and List of Dragon Ball GT episodes.  Calathan (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * okay, striking out Z and GT which have their own articles anyway. I'm just thinking of those "List of (title) episodes" which seem to cover box sets and DVD volume bundles just like "List of (title) chapters" articles would cover omnibuses and tankobon/graphic novel volume details. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep separate. The article currently covers a lot of information that seems beyond the scope of an episode list, including an overall plot summary, some production information, information on localization, and information on reception of the anime.  That all seems like useful content, and does not seem to be something that would naturally go in an episode list. Calathan (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Calathan the plot can easily be re-written and the the some production information and information on localization can fit back into the main article. As for reception if it is for a franchise then it would make sense to place to place it all into one place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But the current structure of having it unmerged is more useful, in my opinion. The plot section doesn't need to be rewritten, and the information on production and localization of the anime fits better in an anime specific article than in the main Dragon Ball article.  The reception in the anime article is also just the reception of the anime, not for the franchise as a whole.  Merging just doesn't create something better than what we have now.  Calathan (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong opinion either way as there is only going to be up to a point where these splits can be done. The splits will benefit some articles but not all of them and the percentage I do see being split are low given the reception of our scope in reliable sources (Unless someone here can translate Japanese and look for reliable sources there). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the length of the article giving it subtle appearance of strong notability is due to the long listing. Also, reception, production, localization are very small. Also, plot isn't a main factor if its a direct adaptation.Lucia Black (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh. No. This is HIGHLY disruptive to keep doing this EVERY month. The last merge request was closed a month ago and that was after a deletion request which closed with it being kept. We are not rolling the dice every time. This is a waste of time and a bad-faith WP:GAME issue. Add to it and improve the anime page, merge the episode list TO the Dragon Ball page as suggested prior. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We just had an RfC that relates to this. the reason we're doing this every month, is because you're boldly splitting these articles. Right now, you're trying to game the system by ignoring the RfC consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Dragon_Ball closed as a clear consensus to not merge. You are WP:GAMEing the system and you are constantly doing this. Repeatedly. The RFC was a resounding success, but it has absolutely no impact on this particular matter. We've had 7 months of this. No more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, it was for the very reason that we put all AfD's on hold. in which the one who closed it, was unaware of it. Which is why we have to put the RfC consensus to use. saying it had no affect, is like saying it made no impact, which may i remind you that you are still against the consensus reached in RfC, so you're inconsistent.


 * The RfC had everything to do with these two articles, it was why they were brought up in the first place. and for that reason, we have to re-look at these articles after the consensus of the RfC regardless of the consensus reached prior to the RfC. But we also have to consider that our case by case be consistent.Lucia Black (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lucia, you spit in my eye and you went back on your "friendship" to stab me in the back - you are not trustworthy and you are disruptive. I'll not be a party to this farce any longer. I'll filter your comments out so I don't need to see them anymore. For a full year you've done little else but make drama from "merge", "delete", "deletion campaign", "delete DBZ", "Delete DBZ", "Delete GITS", "Delete" "Delete" "Delete"... The RFC merge closed as keep less than a month ago. It stays and doing this with the people who supported its merging in the first place is disruptive. Those lists of episodes should be integrated into their articles. If you are going to make any discussion - make it on something that matters and not making up accusations of bad-faith and malice and "bold splits" to pages I have no intention of even touching. Lucia, your comments are no longer visible to me; so don't bother responding. I got real work to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt making a specific editor's edits invisible goes inline with wikipedia's standards of civility and working together. Plus, the idea of hiding such is incredibly immature. This isn't about friendship, and stop taking this personally, this was a reasonable thing to do, even if you think we should keep them, we just had an RfC relating to these very articles. an RfC that was made public but the ones who voted to "keep" made no part in the broader consensus of the RfC. So the consensus reached before the RfC can easily be considered LOCALCONSENSUS.


 * I'm merely replying for all those out there, that this isn't gaming the system. This is a reasonable point. Don't complain when things go in favor of merging them.Lucia Black (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep separate Dragon Ball (anime) from Dragon Ball, however Merge List of Dragon Ball episodes into Dragon Ball (anime) - this will work really well with the multi-colour saga-table. Extremepro (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment with 9 seasons, i highly doubt that can be arranged. It seems like it'll lose focus of the article anyways. Plus, the general format is to make less unnecessary articles by splitting off the main episode list, in order to have clean yet concise articles. I dont agree it will work well with the multi-color saga table because the list is far too long.Lucia Black (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep separate - the outcome of the RfC was to discuss separate franchises separately, and for Dragonball (anime) we already have done so in November. That merger discussion took into account all those aspects that were mentioned in the RfC close, so nothing significant seems to have changed. Also, this discussion is extremely well-hidden, with no notifications at the source or target talk page or to the editors who discussed the issue two months ago. I don't think that's an appropriate method of discussing an individual article, much less of re-opening a discussion. Huon (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Separate - Last month the merge RFC closed as a clear consensus to not merge. So it should not done and continuing to repetitively bring this issue up at a smaller venue, in a hidden way, is WP:GAMEing. Lucia's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is disruptive here and further hiding of my responses and edit warring to keep them hidden is evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Huon, Calathan and I all see that this is discussion actually goes against Sven's RFC and the RFC consensus on Dragon Ball's merger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see any battleground behavior here, if you look at the comments it was you who threw the first jabs at Lucia venting on how this is pointless and ect.. if these really is a solid consensus against the merger why not just let the discussion die it's natural death? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

there really is little to no information. rather than seeing this as a challenge to previous discussion, why dont you see it as the "true" consensus because of what happened to RfC. Also, the article is summed up to one to two paragraphs. look at the article for what it is now, most of it easily mergable back into episode of list, the rest is little information that can easily be merged back to the main article. There's simply not alot of information giving it strong notability, and it was fine when it was back with the original. Otherwise, what do we do? split Dragon Ball Z into anime and manga aswell? it doesn't make sense, and no this isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, this is a serious issue that relates to the other articles, more relavent articles that within the same franchise.Lucia Black (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that there should only be one of Dragon Ball (anime) and List of Dragon Ball episodes and thus propose that the list be merged into the anime article. The resulting article would be concise, having all the information, production, controversy and episodes of the anime in one article.


 * However, as per consensus of the RfC, the anime article cannot be merged back into the main article If a substantial amount of nontrivial and reliably-sourced content can be written about an adaptation that distinguishes it from its respective manga series, a separate article on the adaptation is recommended. - The censorship and production sections are such nontrivial and reliably-sourced content that has no relation to the manga as it comments on the anime directly.


 * As for Dragon Ball Z, there is no need to split the article into anime and manga articles as it already been done with List of Dragon Ball Z chapters and List of Dragon Ball Z episodes (season 1) through to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes (season 9) - the list article List of Dragon Ball Z episodes provides a summary of all the releases relating to the Dragon Ball Z anime franchise, which would be too much to merge back into any other article. Extremepro (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's simply not enough of it though. they all range from one to 2 paragraphs. and there are also sections that coenside with manga such as censorship and such. So you can see the inconsistency of using episodes to be split but using them to merge just to keep an article. it wont be the most concise and informative article just being kept. it does little difference being split then being merged.Lucia Black (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bleach (anime) (consequently Naruto, and One Piece)

 * Naruto is broken down into two anime series, Naruto the original series, and Naruto: Shippuden. The episode lists I feel would stay in place while the only other info that could be merged out looks to be again episode release information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I ask because it falls close to both Dragon Ball/Z situation and Bleach for success.Lucia Black (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Stop trying to the game the system Lucia. I am sick of it. I'm not spending more than 10 minutes dealing with this. Wikipedia needs proper coverage and the more time spent talking (uselessly) the less good work could be done. We barely cover the most notable of all works. Here you are actually advocating the reduction and reducing of sourced content because its not "perfect". If you are not going to fix the problems than I'll go to Arbcom and ask for general sanctions on the entire editing space because I am not dealing with whatever made-up problem that pops into your head. Naruto and One Piece are not discussions and never have been - this is just drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One Piece and Naruto never have been a discussion, because you never boldly split them. But, if Bleach anime merits its own article, then by default more popular series such as One piece and Naruto also fall in the same general area. We have to be consistent with the splitting, which is why i brought them in.


 * Let me remind you, that this is due to the consensus of the RfC that put in place, and that RfC was due to your bold splits. So even though Dragon Ball (anime) had consensus to keep, it was before the more significant consensus of the RfC was reached. So there's no gaming the system, i'm simply putting the consensus of the RfC into action. Ignoring it, and act like if it never happened would be gaming the system.Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop making drama for the sake of drama. Do not make issues when there is none. No one's considering doing anything with those articles and I suggest that everyone not act like it has to be split or will be split because something else was. To put Lucia's argument to her classic response WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For a New Year's resolution, I'm going to try and avoid the useless drama that made this year a wash in this space. I suggest everyone seek to avoid such useless drama as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop discussing here if you're not going to provide any useful insight. If you believe One Piece or Naruto are any different than Bleach, then you may say so, but at the moment, i don't see much difference. but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is being against or for an article being deleted based on another article. And here, i'm simply saying that if Bleach indeed does deserve a split, then by default so do Naruto and One Piece, but this is still based on reaching a consensus first. The only one talking about drama is you. There is nothing dramatic about the discussion. I'm simply trying to put the consensus of the RfC to the test. And its not like i'm trying to game the consensus, the consensus of previous RfC was inline with my perspective for the most part on how to deal with splits. So all i'm trying to do, is put the previous consensus to use. that's all.Lucia Black (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless YOU want to split them, this entire discussion is pointless. You have a serious lack of comprehension on even why Dragon Ball and Bleach splits should and were done. I've explained this half a dozen times to you. If you don't have a good reason to split those two articles, do not split them. Stop making drama, and working on making a theoretical-based consensus on "what ifs". And if you are planning on splitting them, now, my answer is a resounding NO. Now everyone, just go back to doing productive things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to split them, but its not about whether I want to split them.this is about what we consider split worthy with our new consensus. I'm not planning on splitting anything, the RfC was what. We should consider worthy of a split. We reached a consensus, now we have to determine here for the bold splts that you have done. However, if bleach merits a bleach, more popular series such as Naruto and One Piece do aswell. You've explained that certain ammount of original episodes merit a split.. well...naruto and one piecedo aswell.

Please stop calling everything drama, I'm not going to humor you anymore. I will collapse this entire discussion with you if you continue. If you don't find this productive, don't get involved.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of in agreement with ChrisGualtieri that this seems like an attempt to game the system by having the same discussion that previously occurred at AFD, but in a location that will draw less attention from people outside the wikiproject. I don't think the RFC resulted in any change that would override the AFD, as it basically decided that such articles should be kept or merged on a case by case basis.  Also, I disagree with the notion that a decision on one series should apply to other series.  I don't think, for instance, that a decision on Bleach should also apply to Naruto or One Piece (for one thing, the "filler" in One Piece generally seems less substantial than in Bleach or Naruto).  Also, the main consideration in splitting things should be whether there is enough good sourced content to write a separate article, which isn't necessarily something that will be true for other series just because it is true for one series.  Calathan (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a way of gaming anything, I can very easily see big articles such as those being split up in the future and rather than waiting for that to happen we should use this as a test on how the RfC has gone before that happens and we get drawn into a mess. It is also very easy to turn this into an RfC if we reach a consensus here for outside input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaming the system would be ignoring the RfC and keeping the consensus reached before we made the RfC (despite the RfC being brought up due to the bold splits anyways). which could be seen as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as previous RfC had more outside view and gave their bits on BLeach (anime) particularly.


 * You have to understand why we even had the RfC in the first place, to know why this discussion is needed.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to note that Fullmetal Alchemist has been split. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 10:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * this is a serious issue that has to be taken care of with a much larger audience. unfortunately, if one person fails a GA for whatever subjective reason, no one will be inclined to bleieve that GAR was nuetral. either way...this is getting bit tiresome.Lucia Black (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - bundling discussions in this way goes against the RfC, which found that different franchises should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. "We do it once, thus we have to do it always" was explicitly rejected. Huon (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That is why this hypothetical discussion on "what-if" and non-issue to decide to split in the future or prevent it is disruptive and useless. Lucia's goal is to find out whether or not it should be split and form a consensus PRIOR to anyone actually wanting to split. This is simply disruptive because no one actually wants to split the articles, the RFC said it must be on a case-by-case basis and make a non-issue into a consensus. Until someone actually wants to split the article this discussion should not happen. Even salted pages are re-created providing the issues have been resolved, there is no ultimate "split or delete" for any article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

this is more about building consensus, but also looking at what did the RfC changed. This has nothing to do with "what-if" situation. Bleach is simply split merely for the fact that ChrisGualtieri has the interest of splitting it. Which means, all he has to do is have the interest of splitting other articles aswell if he personally chooses. But either way, we still need to confirm that if Bleach is even worthy of being kept separately from the manga counter-part first. In fact, it would be gaming the system to make that the previous RfC didn't affect. after all, the previous consensus were not in mind with what the RfC had. it was more in the mentality of having all adaptations separate. And that is why we need to bring it up again, to verify that each case was proper after the consensus of the RfC.
 * Comment - I see that somehow my comment on this has been dismissed as "pointless arguing", so I'll repeat it. I don't think a decision on one series should apply to other series, as the main factor as to whether something should be split or not is if there is enough to write about to have a separate article.  Just because we have a lot of stuff to write about for one series doesn't necessarily mean similar sources will be available for another series, even if those series are of similar length or popularity.  Also, I think the specific series suggested here, Bleach, Naruto, and One Piece, differ in several ways that would make a decision on one not necessarily work for the others (e.g., Naruto has 2 TV series, Naruto and Bleach have long original anime arcs while One Piece has shorter original arcs and instead uses up time by padding out the manga stories, etc.). Calathan (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

i was merely stating that to prove that the previous method of splitting was wrong of chris, and we have to re-look into these. which is what the RfC proved.Lucia Black (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little uncertain which of my comments you are responding to. This doesn't seem to relate to my most recent comment at all.  Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily say how Chris split the article was wrong, and while I agree that the RFC established that we have to discuss whether articles like this should be split in the future, I don't think it invalidated previous discussions. Calathan (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Current RfC supercedes previous discussion, afterall, the RfC was brought up by these bold splits in the first place.Lucia Black (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this goes for article split discussions as well. ChrisGualtieri has not suggested splitting Naruto and/or One Piece, has he? If he does and you disagree, we can have a discussion about whether or not to split those pages. Until and unless he (or someone else) does, this is indeed a "what-if" situation. Also, I strongly disagree with the assessment that ChrisGualtieri's past split was wrong. See WP:Be bold, which would hold even if the merger discussion at Talk:Bleach (manga) were to ultimately find a single article more appropriate.
 * The RfC established a consensus to deal with each franchise on a case-by-case basis. There is no need whatsoever to re-open those cases where such a discussion has already happened. Huon (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's partly why you're not going to look at it that way, simply because you think he was right before hand. Theres already holes in your arguments such as being bold relates to making splits. which would need a more broader consensus when we're dealing with WP:ANIME related articles.


 * but think on this: the RfC was to tackle ideals of what certain editors had in mind, and the main consensus was mainly on the beliefs of each adaptation automatically deserves its own article ESPECIALLY if a certain number of episodes were "original plot".


 * You also have to understand, that the RfC wasn't only to say "all of this is case by case" there was root of it was to find a proper way of figuring it out.


 * Also many discussions were put at a halt because of this RfC. That's something you're all ignoring. So it indeed mattered the outcome of the RfC. ANd lets not forget the RfC although agreed that everything should be seen case by case, it was not said to be seen indiscriminately. And also, we have to be CONSISTENT with it.


 * Me, i'm willing to split as many articles as needed to IF there is a long lasting consensus with how WP:ANIME works, and what the general rules are. But thats simply not the case, and i'm trying to be consistent here. If we all agree Bleach and Dragon Ball can be split, then we would all be more open to a Naruto and One Piece, and work on that. but we have to be consistent.


 * I'm trying to make us work together by being in the same group. but if we have one ideal and the other has one, especially when it comes to splitting articles, every so called case by case will be made by those who just want to abolish the MOS, and those who want to keep it. ANd theres no point denying it, many of you who vote keep have issues with the MOS and choose to rebel against it. this has nothing to do whether ChrisGualtieri makes the first split (and us agreeing to it simply because someone chose to split it) we have to be consistent with the way things work. And bleach, Naruto, and One piece both have around the same coverage for both anime and manga.


 * But this is an issue. i'm seeing editors have other agendas not inline with the MOS, but these are simply on the articles they care about. Not on long-lasting articles. So it is very important we figure out what exactly matters. and how we do it. because this isn't me trying to game the system, this is me trying to end the hidden agendas.Lucia Black (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Would it have been better to discuss the split beforehand? Maybe. Was it wrong to boldly split the articles? Certainly not. Anime and manga articles do not have broader consensus requirements than other parts of Wikipedia, and WP:BOLD doesn't magically cease to apply at the borders of a WikiProject's domain. That's an issue completely independent of whether I agree with the split itself or not, and I haven't commented in the merger discussion at Talk:Bleach (manga) (which indeed was arguably put on hold by the RfC and which would be the appropriate place to discuss the merger).
 * Consistency, however, is overrated. While it's nice to be consistent, there is no need to be so throughout Wikipedia (or throughout a single WikiProject) as long as each individual solution is appropriate to the problem at hand, and I don't think it's beneficial to introduce changes on this order of magnitude merely for consistency's sake.
 * I have no idea what the "rebelling against MOS" comment refers to or how it's relevant to a discussion on content, not style. Huon (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it would have absolutely been better to discuss before splitting, especially for such a high-importance article where many are reading it. But also: bold edits can come and go, problem is trying to justify them after their reverted for being too bold. And yes, there is such a thing about being too bold, is it bad? no. but thats not the issue. the problem is that Chris did not have in mind in the Wikiproject when he did so. and for that reason we are having difficulty, and for that we also had to make na RfC to clear things up to ChrisGualtieri, which if you look at the RfC closure, he is still trying to go against it. So it looks like he knows it goes against his favor, and yet, he still tryingto mkae it look like the RfC wasn't relevant. SO lets not play around anymore, we know what the issue is and it is indeed an issue.


 * Consistency isn't a trend where one can say its "overrated". Its about making sure our edits are proper and appropriate. If one chooses to merged or split for such reasons, by default if another article meets the exact same situation, then by dfefault should be merged or split aswell. THis is why we have MOS and policies.


 * If you're just chiming in Huon in the current splits, you should know the ones voting keep have openly stated that they do not agree with the current MOS. and it is a severe issue if others have their own agenda. And right now, no one who voted keep can deny that there is a group of editors out there that exist and are trying to change the MOS.


 * If you dont care about consistency, you don't care about how articles work, or what they need. all you're doing is chiming on another editor's comment.Lucia Black (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I care quite a bit about what each individual article needs. What I don't care about is consistency for consistency's sake. To me this discussion looks like an attempt to achieve conformity in the face of an RfC whose main result seems to have been a rejection of such centralized conformity; I don't see how "[similar articles] by default should be merged or split" (emphasis mine) complies with "make such splitting or consolidation decisions on a case-by-case basis". If you think it's beneficial to split Naruto or One Piece, make that case at the articles' talk pages. If you think Bleach should be merged again, make the case at the talk page. Explain why doing so would aid the particular article(s); don't just say "we just did something similar someplace else".
 * Also, not agreeing with the MOS (which here likely is WP:MOSAM) does not invalidate a user's opinion on other issues. The relevant guideline here is not a style guide but a content guideline, namely WP:Content forking. Huon (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

THink of it like this, if someone makes a open campaign against a guideline or policy, then by default, any opinion relating to it and trying to use such to gain consensus WILL be seen as an act against the guideline. opinions don't matter here, you have to be inline with wikipedia's standards. even if you dont agree with them. that's why it shows that we all need to be consistent with our "reasoning" when we're doing splits and merges. Which is what i'm trying to bring up. THis is more about how we handle them at a broad scale.

Also, this isn't consistency, for the sake of it, (even though, Wikipedia indeed has that as a principle) this is consistency for the sake of being organized and having our reasons well thought out. otherwise, our RfC (despite being case by case) would've been for naught. There wasn't meant ot be a loophole for the RfC to allow editors to keep the current split/merge discussions. it was so that we can find a clear way to see where we can split and where we can merge.Lucia Black (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of Template:Infobox animanga/Video and Pita-Ten
The producer template for Template:Infobox animanga/Video should be listing the producing companies right (製作)? Raamin at Pita-Ten is arguing it is episode producers (演出), which vary per episode and which he has added onto the infobox based on individual episodes. If we follow his reasoning, there would be 50+ producers at Case Closed (The producers in the infobox is wrong right now). The thing is, these individual producers are usually not noteworthy enough to add. The staff list for the first Code Geass lists both producers Link 1. The second Code Geass only lists the company link 2. If something is decided on, I will edit the document for the template to clarify which producer we should add for infoboxes. Also, there is a debate on how broadcast stations should be presented in the template at Pita-Ten if anyone could lend their opinions. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 11:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think only the Producers as listed in link 1 should be listed on the infobox. In link 2, only the companies should be listed as the source does not state the individuals that are responsible for the production of the entire series. The infobox would be far too crowded otherwise. Extremepro (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I get it, but I want to cement whether it should list company or individuals for project consistency. Most anime don't list individual as producers (only listing studios), forcing a person to skim episodes one by one to find who produced it; which is why I'm pushing towards companies. If some consensus could be formed, I will edit the template's documentation. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to have some light shed on this topic as well. Not really sure if it is the same but there was a somewhat similar debate over here, the only difference is the film template. —KirtZ Message 05:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The producers are important, but typically only ANN really does this with their series spotlights. As most know, many studios work on an anime, and often are rarely credited prominently as seen from the vastly different DBZ art to some more... noticeable cases of bad animation. Key Sakuga work, like studio work, deserves to be sources, but I doubt that it should be entirely in the infobox if more than 3-5 exist for studios. Producers should be in production in prose. Though I'd honestly like to have some form of proper credits defined because many key individual's bios would be actually found, expanded and cited by the sheer virtue of attributing the work done by notable individuals. Generally, if the person involved has a article, they should typically be mentioned for their role in a work of their production - so should it be the same for the work itself to mention the notable figure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that. If an individual producer is notable, he should be in the prose. What I'm hoping for is consensus on whether company or individuals should be noted in the infobox; one of the two. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For where space is limited, companies for large series or complex productions. For shorter productions, the individuals should be acceptable. Doesn't make a clear distinction I know, but this is the difference from Taro to Tenga right? Just relax, have some tea and present a page or two to mull this over to get our bearings straight. Can't part the red sea without finding it first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion from the first two sentences. If there are no objections, I'd like to edit the documentation paraphasing what you said. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, after some thought, I still want to push for some consistency throughout the project. As it stands, it is much easier to list companies as they are often credited on their own websites. It doesn't look like a consensus can be built here. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tokuma Shoten website reorganised
Tokuma Shoten has reorganised its website. Catalog links have been reformatted (http://www.tokuma.jp/bookinfo/(the full isbn of the book)) but it looks like previously listed titles have also been deleted. Affects all Ghibli titles published by the company.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the good thing, it still exist.Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That the company still exists is a good thing but there will be many dead links throughout Wikipedia now. How best to solve those? Update the items Tokuma still lists to their new format and use archived links for the titles that appear to have been deleted? Alternatively substitute all their items for -perhaps more stable- links, such as National Diet Library database, if listed there? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If properly cited, then the links can still be left there as long as you leave a "deadlink" tag on them. We could look over at archive pages and see if someone managed to archive them. but overall, for the series they still release, they should be able to be sourced using the updated links.Lucia Black (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ... for referenced items -in a citation template- with an isbn number already included, is it perhaps possible to run a bot to update the links to the new format?Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * i'm not familiar with bots. sorry.Lucia Black (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, a script/bot would overwrite all existing links and would probably only complicate the process of updating to archived links for those items Tokuma is no longer listing. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is if they are archived. which i hope they are, but i sincerely doubt it.Lucia Black (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The items no longer listed at Tokuma checked so far are on wayback.


 * Why so down ? If the links are of a set pattern they are really easily changed, either by hand or by a scripted run. You just need to use a simple Regex. But how many links are we talking about? It might just be easier to update them by hand if its only a few dozen to a hundred or two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not down. Just heads up post and trying to figure out what the easiest way is to modify the affected links in a case like this. Listed items to new link and no-longer listed items to wayback. New pattern looks like tokuma.jp/bookinfo/isbn number. Don't know how many links total. Not all references have isbn to begin with. Not familiar with scripting either. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Tokuma site is linked less than I expected in Ghibli related articles on Wikipedia. My apologies. Please ignore this thread.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing them up. When its 100+ you can always let an AWB user know or drop a line at the AWB/Tasks page for this sort of thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Akita Shoten and Viz Media website reorganised
The same is happening with the Akita Shoten website and Viz Media website.

For Akita Shoten: it has changed from http://www.akitashoten.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?key=search&isbn=(6DigitNo.) to
 * http://www.akitashoten.co.jp/comics/4253(6DigitNo.) (ie. changed to full ISBN)

For Viz Media to prepare for its digital manga:

From http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?product_id=XXXX

To http://www.viz.com/manga/print/(Name-of-manga)-volume-Y/XXXX

Doing manual checks on some of the articles have shown that the out-of-print manga are not listed using the new website system. Extremepro (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Have a follow up question after all... It looks like the number of Ghibli related Wikipedia articles affected was somewhat lower than I expected, in part, because amazon (com and/or co.jp) is used in references for the Ghibli books published by Tokuma in some of the articles where those books should be found This is probably true not only for updating articles where Tokuma publications should be found but also for articles where Viz or Akita Shoten publications can reasonably be expected. In the explanation for the usage of urls in citations its says: "Do not link to any commercial booksellers, such as Amazon.com". Should those articles be edited to remove amazon references and links? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * From my understanding: use publisher's ref or a reliably sourced website (such as a review from the project's online reliable source subpage) and then use Amazon.com or other commercial booksellers as a last resort. To prevent future linkrot, when adding any references, find an archiveurl on the Wayback archives/Webcite, or archive the website on demand with archive.is (archive.is doesn't work with movable content (flash for example) - Wayback machine works well with them). Extremepro (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Masters' and Doctoral (PhD) thesis RS?
Can Masters' and Doctoral thesis/dissertations be used as RS reviews/sources? I would say that they have been peer reviewed by academics and therefore reliable. Another question is whether they should be given the same weight as peer-reviewed, published journals such as Mechademia? This hasn't been brought up for discussion in the project before. An example would be this ~200 page dissertation Extremepro (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those two need to be peer reviewed, but generally they are valid for statements of opinion and need to be analyzed carefully for assertions. I've found some really bad ones... something not even I would make a mistake on. As this is "American comics", why does it have the Four Immigrants? I do not like the writing: In the next chapter of this dissertation I apply my extension of comics formal analysis to Henry Kiyama’s The Four Immigrants Manga, which appeared as a comic strip in San Francisco in 1904 and was collected as a graphic novel in 1931." Now, I read through that section and I found the premise of it being tied to the 1960's as mentioned in the introduction to be a bit off. There is a bit of a lack of arguments on cultural portrayals and Japanese racism, but given the work's era and nature, it is an interesting piece. Though I think the translation of the text is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the work. Overall, I'd use it, but its not the same as a complete and detailed study. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) RfC
I opened an RfC for Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) on regards if it should be split. Here's the link Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)

Some opinions would be good.Lucia Black (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not all manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography
Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Lolicon Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Episode list for FLC and FLRC
I've submitted List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes for FLC here. Criticism appreciated.

I also sent List of Yozakura Quartet episodes to FLRC here. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bumping. The FLRC is pretty straight forward. Comments would help close it faster. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Improving the Lupin III Character pages.
After watching 75 episodes of Lupin in the last few weeks I've been spending way too much time observing and thinking about the characters and their foibles. I blame all that time I spent rewriting the Lupin III article a few years ago. It seems silly to waste the time I'm watching the series not to add loads of references to the character articles. The problem is that I've not edited wikipedia for over 3 years and the articles are a complete and total mess.

It strikes me that at the very least the Arsène Lupin III article needs to be completely redone and the rest can be done later. However I'm very rusty and I'm finding it hard to make a start. I'm tempted to just scrap the existing article and start again as trying to rewrite it seems rather futile. What I'm looking for is some feedback and hopefully some assistance in doing this. Writing about characters was never something I really did but referencing and adding to an established article I can do as I go along.

Really I'm just looking for any assistance, in any form that anyone can provide. It's not a project I think I can manage on my own but at the same time I can get a lot done with only a small amount of help. Reception information would be a great help. In the mean time, I'll start taking out some of the worst statements from those articles as a start. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm... It's difficult to help you. I would only say you might look for some of the articles in the section "Characters and fictional items" in Good articles/Language and literature. I hope it helps you. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lupin III is heavy series. It has alot of adaptations and some original films.Lucia Black (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One advantage of the series is that because it is mostly episodic, the amount of episodes and specials etc shouldn't make the pages any more complex than smaller franchises. Only 5 characters to talk about. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

Urusei Yatsura
I've started a discussion on the talk page for this article regarding it's rather large culture section. I'd like to split it out from the main article but I'm not sure if thats for the best or going to cause other issues. Without the section (or even with a smaller, better sourced version of it) that article could be a candidate for GA after some work. With it there it presents a significant obstacle to overcome. Any input from editors is welcome.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a marvelous and detailed section, but I believe it would be the target of deletion if separated. Now, the cultural icons seem to come right from the Anime Companion type works which point out various details and other iconography. This is something most people can do, but the problem is that it is like an essay. The text like: "Since being of a mild climate, Japanese have participated in outdoor events from ancient times. These events, "Hanami" (花見) and "Utakai" (歌会) are done in the present and appeared in the manga many times." is really coatracking on a pretty major scale. Urusei Yatsura should not be a "point out cultural details" page so it is best condensed to the basic facts. Do you want to work on this together to get it to be GA? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll probably not work on the article for a few days while waiting for further comments and having a look for sources and ways to improve that section. It was originally the idea to take it to GA after doing that extensive rewrite, and the rest of the article has been well maintained in the time between so it still serves as a good base for a GA run. I'd like to compress the Plot some if possible but the culture section aside it probably only need a few tweaks in general. Of course any assistance in this is welcome. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has said this yet; So, welcome back Dandy Sephy! I started editing again 2 months ago, after a 2 year hiatus. With regards to Urusei Yatsura's GA, the peer review process could be used as a dry-run before GA maybe? Extremepro (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Turns I I had it peer reviewed almost exactly four years ago, so I will take a fresh look at the comments from that and see if any are still relevant. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs a fair amount of work before making GA, but I think it is easily doable, I've just been busy with other side projects. I'm just disappointed in the actual coverage of its other parts. I'm glad everyone is coming back and revitalizing the project. I've been working my butt off to get some things fixed up around here and I've just got too much on my plate to handle it all alone. I have 10 GAs done and the content and books for another 100 or so. I had been trying to bring up the list of all releases for anime and sorting out some of the more notable works. You think we should split up the Urusei Yatsura films to their own pages? There is enough material out there to support this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Beautiful Dreamer has more than enough material available to be able to make a GA article. It`s also significant for a number of reasons (I wonder if there are reliable sources comparing it to Castle of Cagliostro as they both represent the same sort of position within their franchises). The other movies are less significant and can wait, no point making extra work. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Beautiful Dreamer was a high point, but Cagliostro was disliked at first... I doubt there are many sources comparing the two directly. Both have had their rumors though, I decided to finally end that Spielberg matter with Cagliostro by just putting the sources from my research into it. It didn't premier or win (Cavallaro's mess up) at Cannes. It is sad that some of the most notable and important works languish on here. I am so glad to have you back - we've not met before, but cool name Dandy. Shall we work on it together today? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already got a few pages to work on tonight but as this has drifted wide of the original topic I will drop by your talk page later to discuss it in more detail. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Alright, I think this needs to be discussed... what is with the overly long and overly detailed infoboxes that are deeply intruding into articles? I think Doraemon is how we should go instead of those seen on Naruto and Dragon Ball. At the very least, Naruto can drop the 5 OVAs and 1 novel, its pilot chapter and make better use of the "related works" section and condense it down. Large franchise overviews should not be making a habit of detailing all the media in one super infobox. I believe it would be best to limit it to no more than three sections before a "Related works" and for broad overviews to adopt an appearance like that at Star Trek. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this should be case-by-case. It works for Doraemon because it has separate articles for the anime it links to (and by extension, I believe Dragon Ball could easily do the same thing), but most series do not have a separate article for each potential infobox. How would you deal with an article like School Rumble which has 7 boxes: 2 manga, 2 tv series, 2 OVA, and 1 light novel?--  十  八  06:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree we should be doing it case by case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why can't we use the related works section to bring the reader to that exact section of the article in that case? The full details for "School Rumble: Third Semester" should be in the article and not confined only to the infobox. And School Rumble seems to have quite a few issues in need of fixing... like the media which says it is from episode 1, but the file says episode 2. The formatting is weak in places... do we really want to compare how things are done on one article of "FA" quality despite the article being also containing the same problem? I think we should strive for a little more elegance on are "All-in-one" pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not just one but three FA articles we have full infobox information. The info is informative and helps the reader break down what is in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a problem with comparing it to Star Trek is that Trek's works can stand individually from the franchise. You can quite happily ignore one or many of the series or films and not worry about the others (I personally don't dislike Enterprise, but at the same time am quite happy not to count include it when discussing the franchise, and lots of people ignore the movies that aren't 2,4,6,8 or the reboots and Voyager strongly polarises opinion). In the case of manga/anime that isn't really true, interest tends to be on a franchise level and leaves little to no room for each individual aspect having prominence of it's own - there are exceptions to the rule but it's a fairly small percentage. Really though this is the sort of thing that doesn't need a project wide solution, it only affects a few heavy franchises and they are all different so should be treated individually. Really I'd leave them as is unless it's made an issue in GA/FA reviews. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've always been a bit wary of the intrusion. Though this is more cosmetic given the current state of coverage of the project. Better than the rest of the world's Wikipedias, but playing catch up to other sites. Looking professional can come a bit later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Project Recruitment
I realized as a WikiProject, we do not have a welcome template to invite new editors to the project.

Based on Template:Ruswelcome: (For the picture accompanying the welcome, would this be a good image?)

Welcome!
Hello, User, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for /user/ contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

If you are interested in Anime and manga-related topics, you may want to check out the WikiProject Anime and manga and its task forces, the Anime and Manga Portal and the project discussion page. You might even want to add these pages to your watchlist. ~
 * Not bad, it is sorta like the regular welcome template. There is a real need to drum up some interest in the area though. So I like this idea. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How is this one?
Hi, . Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started.


 * I like this one. Extremepro (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ^-^ I fixed the bottom btw, this is based on a welcome by a user in the past I think it flows well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's cute. I like it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is good about it I feel is that it has a custom made feel to it rather than a standard welcome message. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and made the template: Template:Welcome-Anime and manga. How's   as a template shortcut? Extremepro (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems rather large and intrusive to me. If you're going to drop something like that on every newcomer's user page at all I'd suggest reducing the size of the image at the very least. I'd also suggest making a clearer separation/ distinction between the general welcome to Wikipedia and associated suggestion on the one hand and the invitation to this project with associated notes on the other hand.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell is this for?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To welcome new editors with an invitation to join this project. Extremepro (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we need something so big and ugly?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, I know I would feel hurt if someone came along and called something I worked on "ugly". You're more than welcome to object to the invitation(s), but please don't use such unkind words. As for me, I think the second invitation is charming. (If I had to be nit-picky, I'd like to see what look like hypens be replaced with dashes.) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The hyphens sign the notice when the code is posted, they aren't there for separation. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as for it's size that can always be worked out, I do not see a big deal with it and have used this as my standard welcome for new users minus the anime/manga project wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The hypens I was referring to are the ones in the prose: e.g. "You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit". Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Fighter G Gundam for peer review
Mobile Fighter G Gundam is now currently undergoing a peer review. Please come share your thoughts. Thank you. ~ Hibana (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources for release dates
Welcome all new members and welcome back people whom I've never got a chance to meet! I want to ask for some colloboration to fix up the release date issues. I added over 140 citations the other day from a book I have for release dates, but many of our articles are lacking sources for the air dates. Does anyone have knowledge of which websites host release dates and which ones we should be using? Let's pool our resources and fix up this so we can get some FLs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first step should be the websites for the tv stations and production companies for more recent works (anything after 2000 basically so use archive.org as the pages will probably have been moved/deleted), but this will usually prove a dead end. In general finding the air dates or approximate timeframes for the first and last episodes is going to be fairly easy in many cases, but individual episodes in-between are much harder to find reliable sources for by their nature - they aren't considered that important to have their dates tracked. The best sources are generally Newtype issues from the time the episodes ran or the guidebooks for the series in question. Without those it's quite difficult. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anime News Network's news releases can be used as RS for release dates. Primary sources also include the maker's websites such as Seven Seas Entertainment Viz Media and such. I also find myself using amazon as it is a major way to get releases out in the public and it has the ISBN info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I use an archive of infoseek when they use to cover anime schedules (2000 to 2008), and I use Tv Guide for English airdates. For release dates, I started using bookonoffline after weird dates from Amazon from old/unknown releases. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Web Newtype use to list air dates, but I don't think it is up any longer and there were frequent errors over the course of it's one month updates. On top of that, they did keep an archive of their previous listings. Not sure what the current status of Syoboi as a reliable source is, but we use to use that as a reliable source. And sometimes, the official website will have the air dates for the episodes. As for release dates for manga volume. If you are lucky, the publisher's website should have them and should be used above all others. If not, Amazon is your next best alternative. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen Tvdrama-db cited on a few articles after spotting it on the Excel Saga page (specific entry). I'm not sure if this is a contribution based database or not. A search for the author of the site (Furusaki Yasunari) reveals a printed book Terebi Dorama Gensaku Jiten which is available from Amazon Japan and is also a contributor on other culture/drama/anime publications listed on neowing (the Japanese side of CDJapan). For the record Jonathan Clements new Anime History book reveals the Anime Encycopledia used a similar work from the same publisher as part of it's sourcing. However as each book of the books is 14,000yen/$115US/£80+shipping and no previews are available, I'm unwilling to take a chance on them!


 * Searching the archives reveals the site has been brought up twice before. Arguments seem valid for it being a reliable source, and it's already on the list of websites listed on the project portal reference library following those mentions so we should be using it anyway. This makes most of our air dates supportable through RS.

Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Monthly Animage issues include a TV Animation World section. It gives the day of the week on which a series is aired in the covered month. Listings per series include time of broadcast, broadcast station/channel, episode titles, staff credits and a brief summary/review.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The easiest ones seem to be the short OVA and some like Hellsing, Trigun and FLCL are a lot easier than Inuyasha, and FMA. Some of the ones seem to already include details on the articles on where we can find more. I think sourcing each and every date (as they are contestable) is the best practice since it seems every error we have on Wikipedia results in it being repeated everywhere. Let's bang out this list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should prioritize the most popular works for this. I've taken the list from ANN:
 * 1) Fullmetal Alchemist (TV)
 * 2) Death Note (TV)
 * 3) Cowboy Bebop (TV)
 * 4) (The) Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (TV)
 * 5) Elfen Lied (TV)
 * 6) Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV)
 * 7) Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion (TV)
 * 8) Bleach (TV)
 * 9) FLCL (OAV)
 * 10) Naruto (TV)
 * 11) Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 (TV)
 * 12) Samurai Champloo (TV)
 * 13) Trigun (TV)
 * 14) Rurouni Kenshin: Trust & Betrayal (OAV)
 * 15) Full Metal Panic! (TV)
 * 16) Gurren Lagann (TV)
 * 17) Ouran High School Host Club (TV)
 * 18) Fruits Basket (TV)
 * 19) Clannad (TV)
 * 20) Chobits (TV)
 * 21) Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu (TV)
 * 22) Rurouni Kenshin (TV)
 * 23) Hellsing (TV)
 * 24) Azumanga Daioh (TV)
 * 25) Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (TV)
 * 26) Clannad After Story (TV)
 * 27) Fate/stay night (TV)
 * 28) Inuyasha (TV)
 * 29) Mushi-Shi (TV)
 * 30) Claymore (TV)
 * 31) Full Metal Panic! The Second Raid (TV)
 * 32) Darker than Black (TV)
 * 33) Blood+ (TV)
 * 34) Love Hina (TV)
 * 35) Air (TV) - Already Done.
 * 36) Black Lagoon (TV) - Already Done.
 * Code Geass and R2 are done. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just strike em out as we go. There is a lot to check and do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FLCL did have two runs on TV, I'll integrate that into text later, but I know this was on Adult Swim at some point as well. Elfin Lied is now done on the Japanese side, but the NA listings are going to be more difficult. Once everything is cited lets do a FA push and get these taken care of asap. Archive.org has been recently making a habit of citing our sources as they go in, and I've been pulling up some more research books, but they are short on this information. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Champloo's Japanese airing is done and Kenshin did have the OVA air, but that article needs more work. As do quite a few others. The progress so far has been great. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, since an editor mentioned Syoboi above, that website was never used as a reliable source; it was merely used without any formal discussion on its reliability. Unless it can be proven to be a reliable source, I would recommend not citing it as a reference.--  十  八  08:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The information on the website is entered in manually, there is always the chance of an error, but it is verifiable and it doesn't have any reason to be purposely wrong, deceptive or questionable. You can say "oh is this reliable?" when you analyze things for opinion and details, but this is better and very narrow in scope. We avoid Imdb because it is user generated with no oversight. If the data checks out, it should be used and sometimes they are just replacing already known data that 404ed without backup already. By reading the corrections information and noticing proof is required, I do have a feeling this website is accurate and detailed enough to be used for citing the in-between dates for each episode. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the information is user generated/submitted, then is is automatically a no-go as a reliable source. The same reason was given for removing AnimeCons.com as a reliable source, despite AnimeCons.com requiring editorial oversight (verification from a con staffer or the con's webpage) for all submissions. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference, you are not comparing apples to apples. AnimeCons has been used a source in many a scholarly work, so I disagree about it being "unreliable" in general. The different comes from the claim itself - there is no such thing as an unquestionable or infallible source. I've corrected multitudes of errors that A&M's "reliable sources" made. The burden is verifiability and the fact that there is no reasonable assumption the information is wrong. Animecons has a self-serving aspect, which is not the same as Syoboi. Animecons submissions play well to the prominence and community value and hence, business value, of the convention. That is why it is basically under WP:SPS. And the sheer fact that hard numbers are tough to come by in the field, but program information and other details should not be avoided because of the originating domain. That'd be silly. For Syoboi, since you need an official source to "correct it" and the "Air times" are not in any way going to foster capital gains the assumption of accuracy is all that remains. And its pretty easy to take from the TV guide channel and copy it on; and if the dates match the official run times the assumption that the rest being accurate is high. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mater if a source has been used in scholarly works. If it is based on user generated/submitted content it is automatically considered not reliable. Heck, even ANN's encyclopedia has been used as a source in scholarly works, but it far from considered reliable on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate for AnimeCons as I do believe that their editorial oversight over all submissions would have made it a logical exception. But it doesn't mater how accurate the information may be, all of that is meaningless to the reviewers at WP:RSN. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewers at RSN are not familiar with A&M and care little to nothing about the situation. They'll take a blatantly wrong book source over an accurate "lesser" response. You have to evaluate it in the same vein as WP:RSVETTING. Let me break it down for you:

The goal
 * What are we trying to do here?
 * Find out if AnimeCons is a reliable source for convention materials (as a whole).

The material
 * What's the material that the ref supports? - Event dates
 * Is it contentious or contended? - No
 * Does the ref indeed support the material? - It does

The editor
 * Who is the author? - N/A
 * Does the author have a Wikipedia article? - N/A
 * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience? - N/A
 * What else has the author published? - Other details from the convention
 * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works? - The site as a whole is.
 * How does the author make a living? Unknown but is owned by Adequate.com suggesting payment and an incentive to not get fired.
 * What about reputation? Are there any big character markers? - Good standing in the community - no obvious markers to doubt. Requests proof for all inclusions, even if user submitted. User submissions are vetted, but ultimately require a less than official publication or comment for inclusion.
 * '''Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does this person fit? - A reporter unconnected and not a polemicist in any fashion.

The publication
 * What is it?
 * Is it a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, or a magazine (or newspaper) known to have an effective fact-checking operation? - A website with a known and effective fact-checking operation.
 * If not, is there any reason to believe that anyone has checked the author's facts? - By definition, the editor has.
 * What's their circulation? - N/A
 * What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation? - N/A
 * Do they have an agenda? - No
 * What's their business incentive for veracity? - Continued operation - if the site falters or degrades it will result in a loss of business.

Other Summary AnimeCons, by its nature of requiring official sources or staffers is acceptable for non-contentious claims of dates and details that are not self-serving. Editorial control exists, but a weakness exists in the requirement of a staffer, typically a volunteer, being able to submit information which may be accurate or inaccurate. Obvious mistakes would easily be corrected, and while official publications are proper sources, this reduces the effectiveness of the source for attendance records and other specific and detailed information unlikely to be reported or represents an incentive to the convention to report. At the last discussion on Animecons, the website did not match the official convention website, but Animecons correct information came from a squirreled away post that proved to be accurate from the official convention staff member about the convention's cancellation. This shows Animecon's value for non-contentious and routine coverage of its subject topics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the source have standing to address the material? - A fact-requiring website requiring information from the official convention materials or a staff member. The editorial control is someone who does this day-in and day-out over the course of many years.
 * Then I would advice that you post all of that to WP:RSN because it was this discussion that originally got AnimeCons demoted as a reliable source. A second discussion was inconclusive in reestablishing its status. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not "demoted" and Patrick Delahanty was a founder of Anime Boston, he's long been a reputable figure and I still remember what Delahanty did over a decade ago and how it was done. Delahanty's editorial control and vetting are why I'd say it is acceptable for routine, non-contentious claims. Everything needs a balance and this is why I can point out the errors in Cavallaro's work and still cite her in articles. There is no blanket "reliable or unreliable" definition. Print journalism and books are no different. I've always maintained that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Serialization titles
Hello there,

While not a particularly active editor (nor a huge fan of Wikipedia, to be perfectly honest), I do try to improve/correct some articles here and there once in a while, mostly lists and sheer data as I'm not generally confident enough in my English skills (not a native speaker, sorry) to venture beyond that.

A recent altercation with another editor (whom I'll invite to join the potential discussion and voice his opinions while crossing my fingers regarding his conduct) leads me here, as I hope you'll share your views regarding two details in particular when it comes to Wikipedia's lists of volumes (that oddly become "lists of chapters" at the other end of the link? guess that one would be a third detail... er, moving on!).

First up would be the serialization titles...

As I imagine at least some of you know, it's not particularly uncommon for collected volumes/tankôbon to feature some differences from the serialization material. Those can range from text/art corrections to merged, divided or reshuffled episodes. Here, I'd primarily like to talk about changed titles.

I would think (correct me if I'm wrong) that, considering how those lists are named (before the link is clicked, anyway *cough*) and organized (release dates and ISBNs of the original/regular volumes), the titles featured in the actual volumes (as seen in the table of contents, for a convenient basis) should the ones listed, rather than the ones used during the serialization. At the very least, that's how I've been doing it so far, anyway.

Now, are the "old" serialization titles notable? I personally am of the opinion that including them wouldn't do wonders for the overall legibility of the list. Not that I'm not interested in them (hell, I love trivia like that when it comes to series I like), but in the case of series that change titles routinely, this would end up doubling the amount of text, the amount of nihongo templates. And all of that for titles that could only be found on long since out-of-print material.

And that's just for the series I was working on earlier (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, changing pretty much all its episode titles since 1990!). For others, we could be looking at further complications: the merged, divided or reshuffled episodes I was mentioning earlier. After all, and despite how things may look at first glance, City Hunter, Captain Tsubasa and Saint Seiya (for example) weren't originally serialized in particularly long installments: they were your regular 20-page long or so episodes... before those were merged into larger chunks for the volumes. And then, there would also be series like And Yet the Town Moves, that often reshuffle or skip (and renumber) some episodes. So we wouldn't simply have to deal with two separate lists of titles, but also with a fairly important number of notes.

Again, I do find all that quite interesting, personally, but it seems to me going there would mean wandering into "indiscriminate collection of information" territory. Probably better left off to (somewhat hardcore!) fan sites if we want to keep those lists accessible. And of course, good luck verifying all that.

Short version: I believe those articles should list the titles found in the table of contents of the collected volumes they refer to, and specifying "old" serialization titles would be overkill/cumbersome. What do you think? Was this discussed before? And if so, was a consensus reached?

(to quickly go back to that third detail... I also believe it would then be more accurate to call those "lists of volumes", as the links do, but that's another matter) Erigu (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They're "chapters" not "episodes". And notability is not the measure by which information is or is not included within already existing articles. There is no reason to forbid alternate chapter titles in any form. The fact they have been changed in subsequent printings is of note and does not violate WP:NOTIINFO. The information is not "indiscriminate" as it is information on reprintings.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, let's not pretend my personal preference for the term "episode" over "chapter" in this context is either problematic or relevant to the matter at hand.
 * Then, while I may agree that the title changes could be considered of note, when it comes to the reason not to actually list them all, not to include a second (or third, since you also want to include newer titles used in other collections (pocket, deluxe, colorized)) set of titles, I gave several above: notability (I was under the impression that did matter), legibility and verifiability. Erigu (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is a metric by which articles as a whole are considered for inclusion on this project. Not individual pieces of information within articles. Legibility is not a metric on this website outside of the requirements at WP:ACCESS. Verifiability, however, is, and it is very easy to verify that a title has changed from one printing to the next. And because this information can be verified, there is nothing forbidding its inclusion in the lists of chapters. If I can verify that JoJolion chapter 18 was called "trouble with the curve" when it was first published in Ultra Jump's February 2013 issue but it was renamed "『カツアゲロード』 その①" when included in volume 4 of the tankobon, why should "trouble with the curve" be excluded from the article?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the "notability" bit, I guess the issue would be whether or not it makes sense for that particular piece of information to be mentioned in said article. If it is first and foremost about the volumes, I would say it doesn't. If it is first and foremost about the episodes, sure, but that's not what the lists I've seen so far look like to me, and it would prove quite troublesome for a number of "old" series...
 * I'm saying additional/alternate sets of titles (complete with their nihongo template and possibly their notes) would clutter those articles. I find it hard to believe that's not considered a factor and I hope you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it, considering our recent exchanges.
 * As for verifiability, you claim that "it is very easy to verify that a title has changed from one printing to the next". Just to be clear: as specified in the subject, I'm referring to serialization titles. Are you really saying it is very easy to check old (sometimes decades old) serialization magazines? Those go out of print really quickly. In fact, I recall you saying "there's no telling what chapters outside of SBR and JoJolion were called in the magazines if anything." And even in the case of those more recent series, you were relying on a fansite. Erigu (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are taking my comments out of context. I obviously found the updated titles for JoJo's first 3 arcs easily online and in a reliable source (Docomo's e-book store). And the serialization titles of JoJolion can be reliably confirmed by reading Ultra Jump. I said that I used that website as a means of getting the Japanese title in an easy to access (for the most part) format. I have the December 2013 issue with me now which has chapter 26's current title in it. And when volume 7 comes out sometime this year I'll buy it and it will have the updated title within it. I can then use these two reliable sources to show that the title of that chapter used to be one thing but is now another.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "I obviously found the updated titles for JoJo's first 3 arcs easily online and in a reliable source (Docomo's e-book store)." <- Again, I'm not talking about the titles used in other, more recent volume collections (pocket, deluxe or colorized). I'm talking about serialization titles. Hence the subject of this section, above: "serialization titles".
 * As for Ultra Jump issues, like all serialization magazine issues, they quickly go out of print. It's nice that you can use the December 2013 issue to verify the serialization title of the corresponding episode. I bought some issues, myself. The expression "drop in the ocean" comes to mind though. To put it another way, I don't think it's particularly surprising that those articles generally list a bunch of references to the volumes whereas I really don't remember seeing many of those for magazine issues... Erigu (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know why no one bothers with it. I barely understand how cite book works.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd still be interested in other opinions (pretty please?), but in the meantime, I'd like to once again ask Ryulong how exactly he'd deal with adding the serialization titles to the previous parts of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure when he already lists an extra set of titles (those used in more recent collections). "I'm not personally interested in adding them (but I'm really looking forward to reverting you if you dare touch those in the JoJolion article!)" sounds a bit like a cop out to me... And how about the examples I gave above of series that routinely merge or reshuffle episodes when they're collected in volumes? Any concrete ideas as to how those would be handled? Erigu (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing, apparently. Heh. Erigu (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how going "I am not interested in adding content to older series, but I will continue to add this content for the current series" is a cop out.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't. And right there, you didn't once again evade my questions about how one would add serialization titles to all those other series either. Erigu (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there serialization titles going back all the way to Phantom Blood that differ from the original set of chapter titles? If so, then that is problematic and I do not know a proper way to include the information if someone was to go about doing it. Obviously, for the more recent series this is not a problem.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The titles seem to mostly be the same for Parts 1 and 2 (there are some differences here and there according to the the list I found online, but they might be typos... again, serialization titles are quite hard to actually verify!). The very beginning of Part 3 would be a bit problematic though. And even if the titles seem to match between the regular edition and the newer collections after that, I believe there are still some differences here and there (mostly reading/furigana-wise?), at least in Part 3...
 * Then, there would be all those other series that change more than just titles... I see you've just edited the Saint Seiya article, so you've seen how those chapters are obviously longer than the actual serialized episodes. On top of adding a new set of titles, wouldn't that be a mess to explain? Oh, and Kurumada actually seamlessly (well, as seamlessly as someone like him can manage, anyway) edited his short story Shaka into one of those volumes. And the ending was serialized in another (and far less prominent) magazine altogether, making the verification process harder even. Erigu (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it is not required that it be done. If the information is available and someone feels like putting in the effort, then it should be perfectly fine to include the information. There certainly shouldn't be any hardline rule that says it should not be allowed.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 14:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'd agree with the general sentiment (again, I like obscure information, myself), well... I guess I also like order and consistency. And readily verifiable information. And volumes lists to clearly be about the volumes. And articles to not be confusing/cluttered. I personally think this would be opening a little Pandora's box, biting more than we can chew, a slippery slope, etc. Erigu (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's as much a list of volumes as it is a list of chapters. And again, if someone wants to put the effort in, they can. I'm not interested in that. All I plan on doing is keeping the JoJolion chapter list up to date and when a new volume is released then I can combine the old with the new. I don't see how that would be so much of a problem.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like said above, they read more like lists of volumes first and foremost to me. And if you take a look at the lists of references, for example...
 * But yeah, it is weird how they're called "list of chapters" when infoboxes call them "list of volumes". The latter seems more fitting to me... Erigu (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"... no Maki"
And for the second detail...

As can already be seen in some volume lists here and there, it was fairly common practice at some point for Jump Comics (and quite possibly other collections, I'd have to check) to add "no Maki" ("の巻", literally "scroll of...") at the end of their volume and episode titles.

Please note that when I said "at some point", that doesn't mean current reprints of those volumes now omit the "no Maki"s: they're still there decades later. Not always in other collections altogether (deluxe editions, colored editions, etc), but the original/regular collections referred to in our volume lists still use that "old" format for their titles, even nowadays. The "no Maki"s can be found on the covers, in the table of contents, on the title pages, etc. They're also more often than not included when other sources mention those titles, in Japan (an example "with" and "without"... note also how a lot of hits seem derived from our Wikipedia lists, for the latter).

Naturally, that's more of a format and those "no Maki"s don't actually mean anything plot-wise (I certainly wouldn't argue they're worth translating or anything like that!)... That being said, I believe they shouldn't be removed from volume lists, if only for accuracy's sake (although I guess the mere fact they were used at some point and not so much anymore for recent series could also be considered information in itself, to those interested). Like above, I'd argue for sticking as closely as possible to the table of contents of the volumes we're referring to in those lists. Unlike the serialization titles mentioned earlier, this wouldn't really be adding tons of characters or new layers of complexity based on out-of-print (and thus also hard to verify) material.

What do you think?

(thank you for your attention, sorry about the length, and I apologize if this has all been discussed here before... I did look around but couldn't find anything) Erigu (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * の巻 is unnecessary if it is used in every single title of a chapter as it provides no information to the reader.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And like I explained above and argued back when we discussed this, the point would be accuracy (although the mere fact those "no maki" were used at some point and not so much anymore for recent series could also be considered information in itself, to those interested). Erigu (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's used repeatedly across multiple works of fiction and it has no particular importance to that one work of fiction then it is not important to include these two characters nor their romanizations in lists of chapters.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe both our points have been made already, really. Now, if somebody else wants to chime in...? Erigu (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Same as above: I'd really like to hear some (other) opinions. Erigu (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It really depends how the chapters are set up. If their done in a way that says "tales of A" "tales of B" then, it would be necessary to mention "tales of" but if it is "Tales of: A" then there's a clear distinction of separating them. But there are other isseus i find in the method we use.Lucia Black (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no separation, space, specific font or anything like that. It looks just like this: "双首竜の間への巻", the "no Maki" being those two characters at the end. Erigu (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except there are some titles that go "双首竜の間へ!の巻", suggesting that it's an unnecessary suffix.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With Google translation, i'm not getting "tales of" i'm getting "Volume of" instead, how odd. i realize that "no maki" the "no" part makes it literally makes it translate "Tales of X" but it can also be seen as "X's Tale" or "X tale" depending on how its used. Although repeated, its still heavily significant in every title. Its not like we can take it off and the meaning of the title stays the same. Removing It's not like these are numbered either or some way that divides the title. for example if we had "The 5th Tale" "The 6th Tale" "The 7th Tale" etc. We have them as part of every chapter title, so its best we keep them in.Lucia Black (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Translate really shouldn't be trusted so much. In this case, it's the word for "chapter" or "volume". So we are saying every single chapter is titled "Chapter X" when we keep の巻 at the end. It's superfluous if it's included in over 100 chapter titles, particularly if we're not going to translate it because it's so repetitive and redundant.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's part of the title, it's more often than not included when those titles are referenced, and it's more accurate to keep it. Also, note that the accuracy argument is an objective one. Whereas arguing it's "useless" obviously gets you into subjective territory. I'm sure many people would consider all that stuff in the nihongo template "useless", too.
 * (And I can't say I'm terribly impressed by your "it can be found even after an exclamation point therefore it's unnecessary" reasoning. One could just as well argue "wow, they kept those even after exclamation points? Guess they felt pretty strongly about that, then!" You're just leaping to the conclusion you want to reach, there.)
 * That being said, I wouldn't argue it's significant plot-wise. Like I explained earlier, I wouldn't actually translate those "no Maki", for example. But they're there. I guess you could say they're part of the publication history (which Ryulong seems to be defending pretty harshly when it comes to serialization titles that are never reprinted). That's information, even if you don't personally care about it. Erigu (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's the same word repeated over and over and over and over again (which it is for 40 volumes) and that word just means "Chapter" or "Volume" or then it's not important to include that same line of text hundreds of times. And not including an obviously repeated and redundant kanji is not the same as arguing for the inclusion of an alternate set of titles that were used. I have a similar issue when it comes to Super Sentai episodes where there is always a unique word that they use in place of saying "Episode #X" which is used in every single episode title, and that's just to say "Episodes are called [whatever]" at some point in the list article and then not bother to include every single instance of that word when it comes to the episode titles. However, when it comes to the titles of book chapters, there's simply no point to include what is effectively the word "Chapter" in the title of every god damn chapter. It's not less accurate to say a chapter is titled "双首竜の間へ" than it is to say its title is "双首竜の間への巻".— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the "redundant" thing, same as above: just because you find those useless, that doesn't objectively make it so. And keeping them would objectively be more accurate. ["let's remove the "Episode"s from the Star Wars titles!" semi-joke goes here]
 * (and the "no maki" aren't used every single time, as it happens) Erigu (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on how its repeated, not just that its repeated in the first place. The argument in the past that i brought up involved, the naming of the numerical part of the chapter. For example the chapter organization of Maria Holic was "Prayer 01", "Prayer 02", "Prayer 03" even though each chapter had its own title, the numerical part that had its own name did not, because it wasn't part of the title. Example of the exact opposite is hypothetically the chapters are called "1.Beginning stage" "2.Middle stage" "3.Final stage". Even though the word "stage" is repeated we don't remove it because its "part" of the chapter title, not a fancy numerical.Lucia Black (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Every single chapter is titled "ABCの巻", "DEFの巻", "GHIの巻", "JFKの巻", etc. from chapter 1 to chapter 372.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But each time its repeated, its "part" of the title, unlike Maria Holic in which it is only giving name to the the number of the chapter, same for D.gray-man.Lucia Black (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Episodes 1 to 123, actually (plus a brief return for episode 265). I wish I could say I corrected you courtesy of Wikipedia, but that information disappeared when you immediately reverted my edits! :þ Erigu (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was generalizing. And no, it is not "part of the title" Lucia. It's the title, then の巻, for several hundred chapters across several dozen unrelated series.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, now, you were being wrong. It's okay to admit it, once in a while. ^^;
 * Also, simply stating they're not part of the title is a bit short, isn't it? Again, the "no Maki" are more often than not there when those titles are referenced elsewhere. Obviously, quite a lot of people consider them to be part of the titles and aren't so quick to take it upon themselves to excise them. Erigu (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can say they're not part of the title because they're not printed on the same line. It's simply there to say "this is the chapter title".— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except when they are. Come on, Ryulong, same volume, pages 6 (a bunch of times: that's the table of contents), 7, 45, 63, 82, 120 and 177. And the cover(s), naturally. Also, lots of those episode titles have more than "no Maki" printed on separate lines, what would you say that means?
 * Seriously, now... Erigu (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It would actually be more helpful if we saw a table of contents before judging. i've seen various titles doing the same under different circumstances.Lucia Black (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I can say "'の巻' literally means 'Chapter'" to you Lucia. It's inconsequential. It's not like chapter 1 is "First stage" and chapter 2 is "Second stage". Chapter 1 is "fooの巻" and chapter 2 is "barの巻" which literally mean "Chapter foo" and "Chapter bar" and it goes on like this for over a hundred chapters and it is not limited to one series. If we were to use the example I found a link for, it would say "Chapter North Wind and Vikings" and it is not "The North Wind and Viking's Chapter". Also, these chapters (at least with JoJo) are no longer used in reprints.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 14:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That last part isn't true: the current prints still feature the same "no Maki", like I explained in my original post. You're thinking of different collections altogether (colorized or deluxe editions). The regular edition (the one referenced in the article) hasn't changed in that respect. Erigu (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a difficult call, and i believe a table of contents will clarify the intention.Lucia Black (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that they use the original set of titles at all. And Lucia, they're going to be there but that's not the point. Adding の巻 to the end of every chapter title just because that's what was in the book's table of contents is ridiculous. It's two characters being omitted because they're found in every chapter title because they're the Japanese way of saying "this is the chapter title". It's of no consequence to understanding other than being extremely anal about being 110% accurate. Thej apanese rarely use the convention in common usage. Why should we include it when it doesn't tell the reader anything?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, you know that this is stacked against your own subjective reasoning, so why not look for a more objective route. It's still part of the title. It tells the reader plenty. Removing it would be "lying" to the reader of what the title is called. Which is why i sued the example of "1.Beginning stage, middle stage, final stage". even though they would all have "stage" in it, removing them would be "Beginning, middle, final". it just reveals a lot less information. But let me elaborate, even if it used the set up of "chapters" it would have to be separate from the name, in order for it to be deemed irrelevant.


 * SO it doesn't matter if you think the title doesn't tell anything to the reaer, its part of the title. Why fight something so objectively clear with subjective thinking?Lucia Black (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ryulong, I didn't understand what you meant by "I don't think that they use the original set of titles at all". Could you clarify?
 * And it's not so much about adding the "no Maki"s but rather about not removing them. I mean, we are supposed to list the contents of the volumes, in those articles, right?
 * ... Also, I'm not sure what that Google link is supposed to show, to tell you the truth... ^^;
 * (Ryulong, I don't have a scanner or even a camera, myself, but since you posted a page from volume 3 just above, could you show Lucia Black the table of contents?) Erigu (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding me Lucia. I am arguing that の巻 and only の巻 is not necessary to have at the end of chapter titles of several series where it apparently had been used in the late 80s for every single chapter that was released because it literally means "chapter". It is not "lying" to the reader. It is not part of the chapter's title in a manner that has any actual meaning, unlike the use of "stage" in your example. It's just there and it's there for 100 chapters in a row and it is not in common usage in Japan. They just use the part that comes before の巻 because "Wikipediaの巻" would just be "Chapter: Wikipedia".
 * I meant reprints don't use the original set of chapter titles and solely use the new chapter titles. I know this is true for my compilation version of Stardust Crusaders. And I just found that page on the internet a while back when I was looking for a drawing of that character. I do not own any of the older volumes.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm. What is your compilation version of Stardust Crusaders, exactly? I mean, if it uses that title at all, for instance, we're not talking about the regular edition. Could you clarify, or perhaps list an ISBN?
 * As for it "not being in common usage in Japan", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like I showed in my original post, when those titles are referenced elsewhere, the "no Maki" are included more often than not (they're also listed on that site you recommended to me a little while back).
 * Lucia Black, I looked online and found the table of contents from that same volume 3 Ryulong referenced earlier. And here are some other examples (from the same volume) on the top of the one he posted above: . I believe they clearly show we're merely dealing with good old line breaks. His claim that that one page proved the "no Maki" was not part of the title was selective reading. Erigu (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for sharing. On another note, these aren't numbered, so maybe (if the chapter list is numbered) we should remove any numerical on them.Lucia Black (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the numbering (although I'd keep the numbers for the second set of titles, since those newer collections actually have them). Erigu (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the version that came out over the last year, and chapter 1 is "Kujo Jotaro Sono 1", ISBN . And the table of contents shows that usage is constant across the volume, as it would be for any other volumes you can find (up until the first volume that is just Stardust Crusaders). It's just repetetive and redundant to have "の巻" and "no Maki" for each chapter title where this is the case when it's just saying "Fooの巻" and "Barの巻" are "Chapter: Foo" and "Chapter: Bar". And removing the numbering on Wikipedia because they weren't numbered in the original volumes is going way too far.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for the clarification. Well, that's not the regular edition referenced in the Wikipedia list: . Yours is not a reprint, but a new, different edition. Actual reprints of the regular edition still have the same "no Maki"s, even nowadays (and no numbering). Erigu (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So I've been using the word "reprint" wrong. Thank you for clarifying that. However, I do not think that the books have been reprinted. I know the new edition I have has been made for Part 1 and 2, and an additional new edition release (the Jojonium versions) has been released as well, and because those use the "Remix"/"digital full color" versions of the pages, those have the newer titles in them.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assure you the regular edition has been and is still being reprinted! Don't worry about that. ^^
 * Like I'm pretty sure I told you already, those newer collections are available on top of the regular edition. They're not replacing it (and I don't expect them to either... not as long as Shûeisha doesn't abandon paper altogether, anyway!).
 * (in case you're interested, you can tell which reprint you have by looking at the last page of the volume... the volume 3 mentioned above, for example, was first printed in 1988, but the actual copy those pages I linked to above were from is part of the 51st reprint of that volume, in February 2000) Erigu (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's only 14 years old now :P— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular copy I found on the net, yes. I can assure you that you could walk into pretty much any Japanese bookstore and find recent (most likely 2013) reprints of the regular edition. Erigu (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, apan likes to take things off the market as much as they can. You won't believe how many snacks I've found to love only to go back to the store the next week and find out they're gone forever. I would have to go to one of the second hand stores or specialty stores and hope that they have separate copies or full collections available.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can imagine, but in this particular case, I'm 100% positive the regular edition (that includes "old" parts, naturally) is still being printed. Really. You can go ahead and try a bookstore. ^^ Erigu (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's somebody who got a copy of the 75th reprint of volume 13, for example: December 2012. Erigu (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Now we're using some more ovjective reasoning. So if the newer versions contian numbering, then its no problem to have them (so long as they have them in any version). the chapter naming however, should be clarified if the new version actually removes them. But i suggest we keep the naming for stardust crusaders.Lucia Black (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not need to make this a case study on how to edit the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapter lists. And this is getting off topic, but I may as well try to use it in my example. In Japan, it seems, the first chapter in the original printing of Stardust Crusaders was written as "悪霊にとりつかれた男の巻". I believe that because "の巻" is just a phrase that means "chapter", and because it is used in the preceding 100 or so chapters as well as the handful that follow until the chapter titling just changes entirely, it is not necessary to include this information because it's just a somewhat archaic way of indicating the title of that particular chapter.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Point is, they're still there in current printings of the regular edition, which is the one referenced in those lists.
 * As for "removing the numbering"... Well, that wouldn't quite be "removing" if it wasn't there in the first place, would it? ;þ And there are cases where adding numbers instead of sticking to the table of contents would only create problems...
 * But in the case of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, the episodes apparently are numbered in the more recent collections, so I don't have a problem with keeping those, like said above... Erigu (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my soshuhen is numbered and I'm pretty sure my JoJolion volumes are numbered. If anything, I know that the Ultra Jump versions are numbered.
 * But back on the "no maki" stuff, if it's in every chapter title we really don't need to repeat it, particularly if it is simply indicative of a printing by Jump Comics or Shueisha.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And that blade of the immortal list content can probably have the "Act ###" cut out because it's clearly just the chapter numbers.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the JoJonium volumes are numbered, so I wouldn't be surprised if other newer collections were as well, sure.
 * As for the Blade of the Immortal list... Not quite, if you look closely. And then, if you try and number the English list to then compare it with the Japanese one, you'll see what I was getting at (it's also another example of a series that changes some stuff around (titles, numbering, etc) between the serialization and the collected volumes, incidentally)...
 * (pretty sure I already said everything I wanted to regarding the "no maki"... I don't feel the need to repeat myself nor see anything to add at the moment, anyway!) Erigu (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you get the JoJonium volumes? I've been on the fence about them because I heard the green ink bleeds too easily.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been holding out, mostly because of the ink thing. I hear volume 3 is not quite as bad, but eeeeh... If the Shûeisha guys finally come to their senses and the reprints of the first volumes are fixed, I'd be interested. Erigu (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree about removing volume/chapter indicators like ACT. (Initial D), Battle/Trial/Round (various manga), Lesson/Xth period (various school manga), 第2集 but retain if it's essential or integrated into the title like "(whatever) and Vampire" as with List of Rosario + Vampire episodes or "Haruhi Suzumiya Episode 00" or "Team of Four" (Yu Yu Hakusho volume 4 DVD set). Or as a non-anime example, "The One with/where ... " in List of Friends episodes. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * not that i contest to your vote, but the situation is more complicated. its why we keep titles such as Rozen Maiden chapters containing only "Phase 01- Phase 08" or etc. because theres no other title but that one. Here, the "volume/chapter" isn't separated by "第2集" its separated with "の巻" at the very end (and attached) to the chapter title. it's not so easy, but luckily the new versions revised the titles so that they can be numbered, rather than ending with "の巻". So long as they can be verified.Lucia Black (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. The numbering and stylization changes over reprints can be mentioned in the article for sure. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Name of Nanoha's wand
I noticed that someone changed the name of Nanoha's wand from Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha in a few articles, replacing "Raising Heart" with "Raging Heart". The US release of the first TV series used "Raging Heart", while the US release of the second TV series used "Raising Heart". Google translate also tells me that both are possible translations of the kana used. I couldn't find a Japanese source that gave the name in English. Would anyone know of a source that definitely states which is the correct version? I'm guessing "Raising Heart" is correct, since I don't think Geneon would have switched the name unless they were sure they got it wrong in the first season (and also that is what seems to be used on most fan sites), but I would like to find a source before reverting the change. Calathan (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct, it is officially "Raising Heart". For a more detailed explanation and including your assessment see the Wikia. Personally, I too would translate it as "Raging Heart" given my level of Japanese. This was done with quite a lot of series, I'd make a footnote to address the clarification between the Kunrei and Hepburn... as we do use Hepburn on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I will go ahead and revert the changes based on this discussion.  However, the discussion on Romanization methods seems to be original research that we shouldn't mention in the article. Calathan (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore
As discussed here, I suggest a split of Marvel Anime and starting a separate article for the OVA. Marvel Anime is the article created for 4 TV series back in 2010–2011. The OVA isn't directly related to these TV series. It was this discussion that prompted me to do the split; unfortunately it resulted in an edit war. The same would apply to Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher, logically. (in current revision of Marvel Anime the whole content is repeated) Raamin (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cobra (manga)
I have worked on this article for a time, and I think it's very close to GA status. However, I couldn't find (online) sources to confirm the name changes is Manga Entertainment dubbing (e.g "In the Manga Entertainment dub, Lady Armaroid is renamed Andromeda"). I was wondering if someone have an off-line source to corroborate such information. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * i would like to say that the minor issue is that the main characters have their own section, but the anime adaptations are under their name, it should probably be under their own anime subsectoin (level4 header under level 3 header).Lucia Black (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Use primary sources to ref the name changes. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lupin III sub article naming discussion
I've started a discussion at Talk:Lupin III regarding the naming system to use for the series. The is a step towards developing proper sub articles for each of the first 3 series and may affect all Lupin III articles so any inout is welcome. Given the complex nature of the series naming I believe a consensus is necessary before those plans go too far. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

question about saki
I found the source that saki is Yuri anime at ANN. : but I don't know if I can add category:Yuri at Saki article. Is it possible? Thank you. --콩가루 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anime is Yuri. ANN encyclopedia is unreliable anyways. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article's talk page with the same answer, with links. Extremepro (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering for me. --콩가루 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

New version of the "art styles" image?
Hey guys, it's the guy who made the "art styles" image on the anime page here! I'd have to say, I'm quite surprised that my image is still being used, especially since it's out-lived the image I originally created it for (it was originally intended as a counter to a similar image that depicted the "typical art styles" of anime)!

I was thinking I'd like to make a new version of the image, one with better and newer examples. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireaza (talk • contribs) 10:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What art styles image are you talking about? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Fieaza! Sorry, I liked it while it is definitely true, the GAN failed and I've been busy with other things so I never quite got around to going through the media. If you want to do a new image should we go with a collage? I was thinking of doing some illustrations for eyes and figure shapes, but I am terrible at drawing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modernanime.jpg the image, Fireaza? If so, adding newer examples -but also older examples- might be a good idea - the current images all come from roughly the same time period. Perhaps also worth considering including one or more examples from the juxtaposed image you mentioned. Do you have samples of which series or specific images you have in mind? Edit: Do you also have a source in which such a comparison of styles is made, otherwise this might all be considered original research... Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Sailor Moon articles need help
I suggest making Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon active again by recruitment as the pages Sailor Moon (character) and such really need work done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of the issues can be done quickly, they are mostly too much in-universe coverage. FOr one, the table of forms should be removed. its unnecessary to list when exactly a form was introduced. Other than that, not a whole lot needs to be done, just condensing. I'll look into it, because i have been looking over at them for a while. But whether making the Sailor Moon wikiproject active again....its no different from other taskforce we have. we can discuss any sailor moon article here.Lucia Black (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay and thanks for your help =) I would consider making the SM project into a taskforce for us at the very most if it is needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Its an issue i rather not tackle because in the past, previous Sailor Moon wikiproject members were strongly against turning it into a task force. And knowing full well that the wikiproject itself gets to decide, didn't really choose to use any form of valid reasoning. So unless consensus goes for it again, i suggest we just avoid it.Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we understand. Some of its members have long since retired, but we can get rid of the in-universe coverage from Sailor Moon articles and also fancruft as we did back in 2008-2009 or so. I would also like to help work on the Sailor Moon articles myself, being familiar with the series and all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only difficult article is Sailor Moon (character) which has a mess of in-universe, and i think we would need a discussion so that fans don't get enraged when we (possibly) remove possibly an entire section.Lucia Black (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

merging English Adaptations
remember back then, that we got a weak consensus on merging both Sailor Moon (English adaptations) and the original? I believe a 4th time is a charm considering that all the article does is hold all english release and modifications separate from the main article. I believe we should condense, cut out trivial info, and merge it back to the main article, and then choosing to split it again by media.

I've been thinking on why Dragon Ball Z was able to get its own, and i came up with the conclusion that back then, manga was barely known in the west than anime. So anime hits such as Dragon ball Z and Sailor Moon back in the day were more recognized than the manga.

So with that in mind, i believe Sailor Moon falls in the same criteria as Dragon Ball Z and should be able to merge the info (but condense it first) and then split the article by media.Lucia Black (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been advised to move away from content that has a problematic history. Why are you picking these topics right now and why are you citing those particular examples? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you referring to? The long history was due to one specific editor who no longer edits User:Malkinann. the merger for Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (English adaptations) had reached consensus before, but it was weak consensus and not much action or decisions were made on how to approach it, i'm bringing it up again so that we can move things along considering interest has been brought back.Lucia Black (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would get a new consensus first as the last was years old. The only problem with it I can see is that the WP:TOOLONG factor coming into play. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It might need a complete overhaul....but splitting the anime from the manga will serve beneficial. The anime is mainly that needs to be split.Lucia Black (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So the anime would be put into the main sailor moon article or would it be made into a separate article? For the time being I can see the sailor moon English adaptation for the manga being made into a good article while the anime bit is worked on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

it all revolves around the same media though. There's nothing different from the manga in Japan than the manga in the US. only some censoring and name changes. There's no drastic artwork reduction or adding new chapters or taking out old ones (that i know of). It should be back into the main article. and i do believe the anime should have its own article covering both japanese and english version.Lucia Black (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that there are significant differences between the anime and the manga series from the very beginning, two articles covering each isn't out of the question. However, an article covering just the English-language release/broadcasts seems a bit, English/Amera-centric and precludes a WP:WORLDWIDE view. Why are the English-language release/broadcasts significant to deserve its own article while other languages are not? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem is most of the worldwide view is centric to english, so that would be necessary on the main Sailor Moon article, so we can't separate english reception and put it into an english-based article. although there are differences, its centrally the same story, just censored and localized names/places. So the reception in contrast to the original isn't going to be that far off. Still, the organization if off. its trying to lump all english releases into one.Lucia Black (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging Tsukune Aono and Moka Akashiya to List of Rosario + Vampire characters
I have a merge request discussion at List of Rosario + Vampire characters and would appreciate your input. Thanks! -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should be WP:BOLD and just do it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded with an Oppose for Moka, given the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Need help with Japanese
I found images that can help me add the Japanese spelling of the chapters of a manga, but i can't add them in because i can't find these japanese characters. Could someone help me find them?Lucia Black (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the characters you need are simply katana or hiragana, it will be easy since you can copy them from the Wikipedia itself e.g if you need a "あ" or "ア" you can go to A (kana). However, if you are talking about kanji it become harder. I'd suggest to Google the series name (in Japanse of course) along with a number between "第" and "話" e.g "はじめの一歩 第1001話". The fourth source on my search has the kanji "狼 特攻. " which is the same in the print version I own. It worked for me, may work for you... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I attempted that too and not much luck. And yes, the chapters do use kanji.Lucia Black (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be able to help depending on the details. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You may say what series we're talking about. It can facilitate for someone who whants to help you. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is Trigun but i posted it in talk:List of Trigun media. if you could help, thats great00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do this without much trouble. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much appreciated.Lucia Black (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, if anyone else would like any of this sort of thing done, just drop a message on my talk page and I'll get to them when I can. Translating articles isn't practical but titles are easy enough.Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OCR may not work if the text you're working with is on heavily illustrated pages or if the kanji/kana characters are heavily modified for artistic purpose (on [scanned] covers etc ) but OCR may be an option for transcribing Japanese text into a format that can be used with a text editor . As long as the scanned text is sharp enough and individual characters stand out clear enough from the background. A bit of a time consuming process, though, including proof reading the machine transcript. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure he's using another method. either way. its already taken care of.Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know. The suggested method can be used for future projects as well and may also be useful for other editors who may have encountered a similar situation and may not have considered the possibilities of OCR. After scanning and machine transcription - stroke count narrows it down when looking for a specific kanji. An other approach is to identify the radicals within a kanji. The chart at this site makes it possible to "build" a kanji from the recognisable component parts. http://jisho.org/kanji/radicals/ Clicking a radical will reveal some of the most common kanji underneath. By selecting more than one recognisable radical it is possible to further narrow down the choices. edited to add link.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Great Teacher Onizuka characters
I've been working on the parent article a little recently so figured I would de-cruft the character list while I'm there. The problem is that I'm yet to see the 2012 live action adaption and while I can remember much of the events in the manga it's rather vague and many of the names escape me. So while I've removed a lot of stuff from the page already, a look at the page by someone with a more recent experience of the series would be a great help.

If no one can help then I'll work something out. Once the information is condensed I can do a quick rewrite for tone and make it a bit more encyclopaedic. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging Kaito to Gentleman thief
Need some opinions on whether Kaitō (thief) should be merged with Gentleman thief at Talk:Gentleman_thief. Is it useful to keep them split for the anime and manga infobox? Or merge the box? Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Light novels
Opinions about this discussion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

commons:Category:Unidentified cosplay
FYI, lots of precious material to sort and use in there. --Nemo 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, they regularly delete cosplay due to its weird copyright status.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential for Gundam Wing character article
Few months ago, I tried to create an article for Gundam Wing's lead character Heero Yuy here considering the series' popularity in the west. However, the reception section ended up looking pretty small so I didn't create it. Maybe I'm missing a magazine that talks about this character's popularity so it would be great if somebody could help. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

its unfortuante most of this info would be in the newtype magazine thats not really available to westerners.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is that I heard about this series being far mor popular in the west than in the east so I believed there was a lot of reception about him in western magazines.Tintor2 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, i'll take a look, i do have some archives of certain magazine scans (i think all of them are used). but i'll double check. if i dont end up with anything though everyone else is still free to find anything.Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * he seems to be featured in a Newtype magazine and in a Animerica magazine, but i can't find the exact issue, or i have poor eye-sight. but i think we would have to buy it to get the info. Here are the images from magazines that i found:


 * http://aponya.ru/images/a94b7d8cbbecae18781bf9e32e0d422e.jpeg
 * http://static.zerochan.net/Newtype.Magazine.full.50459.jpg
 * http://aponya.ru/images/1d53a2c8f03eef5789ae5dda6ad8e1e0.jpeg

I hope this helps, i'm not so sure where the last one is from. but i'm assuming newtypeLucia Black (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks but what I need about him is critical reception. I think I found enough polls about him.Tintor2 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i didn't really see it in the article but what i was looking at was him being featured in proposed article, so i think it would be a great issue. i'll look into it more.Lucia Black (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

UK Anime Network did a brief commentary on him, and Mania a lot of Gundam Wing reviews. Maybe it helps. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)