Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 7

Big mess over at the Ghost in the Shell articles
I know a lot of us have our own little side projects and such, and pretty busty, etc. but the Ghost in the Shell article mess made me stop in my vaginal licking[Link title]. A lot of bizarre disambig stubs and over-splitting has been done over time, and some major house sex is needed. See my comments on Talk:Ghost in the Shell, I outlined all the GITS articles I could find there as well. Any help or input would be very much appreciated. -- Ned Scott 09:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER
WP:SPOILER is under dispute and there is discussion of deleting the template. Throw in your 2¢/¥. --Kunzite 14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Character list naming convention
This isn't about individual character articles, but about the nameing convention we used when spliting off the character section from a main article. There are several conventions being used right now: List of characters, Characters of/in ,  characters, and List of characters in . You can see all of them at Category:Manga and anime characters by series

I like for WP:Anime to adopt a single convention with naming these kinds of articles. I have a problem with using the term "List" in the article names, mainly because most of these article aren't just lists, but provide details about each character listed. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up. I would too. Could this also be discussed with the video games project?  Someone who edits video game articles (which cross over into anime) was fond of renaming my "XYZ character" articles to "List of XYZ characters" often breaking all of the redirects that I have.  (He would cite WP:LIST to say that since it's a list, it should have list in the title.)  So, I've started using "List of XYZ" characters" to avoid having 30-40 redirects broken.  I don't care about the naming convention used--just that some fix double redirects when they move a page. --Kunzite 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The question really comes down to, "Are they really lists or are they articles that use a list format?" My personal reaction would be the latter. If they were simply a character lists, then they should have remained on the main articles and not have been split off into a separate articles. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maburaho rewrite
I'm about half way through the rewriting of Maburaho, but there are still several characters that need lots of attention, Dr. Haruaki Akai, Shino Akai, Elizabeth, Karei Hirosaki, Kaori Iba, and Class 2-B. I'm already at the point of being exhausted with the rewrite, despite spending two week on it already. So I'm going to ask for addition support to expand and copyedit the article. Check the talk page to see the list of things I think needs to be done to the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now comes the fun part, going through back issues of Newtype USA and try to pull some of the character and story commentary from the creator and director. The "Critical reception" section also needs a lot of filling out. I already have several links to several reviews. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos
Hi there,

A french user recently took pictures of manhwaga, but unfortunately we don't have articles on them, on none of the Wikipedia. You will find the photos here, in case you need them for new articles: commons:Category:Manhwaga.

GôTô 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do articles exist for them on the French wikipedia? --Kunzite 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think. Okki 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice find, it could be useful...if more people cared more about manhwa at least -_-. On a side note, why do Asian bleach their hair? Park Chul Ho looks like he put straw on his head. lawl. --SeizureDog 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope
I know this was addressed last month but I have gone ahead and added what was discussed as well as some extras in what should and should not be the scope of the wikiproject. Alterations and additions will need to be made to it, especially the ones that I just added myself without discussing first, like Live Action. --Squilibob 10:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't live action adaptions of Anime and Manga be included in the project? Tramps Like Us and PGSM were based off of anime and manga sources...  And we also have stage shows such as the Seramyu, Tenimyu, Bleach (musical), etc... They're almost always derivatives and we're better equiped to handle Japanese-language based articles than WP:TV or WP:Theatre. (Whatever the names are.)  --Kunzite 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well add them to the scope then, like I said, I added it without discussing it first. --Squilibob 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a contradiction: how can visual novels be within the scope if anime video games are not? Visual novels are all games, after all....Or do you mean that computer games are allowed but video games are not? _dk 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think games are part of the project but SeizureDog asked me when I assessed Disgaea: Hour of Darkness why am I assessing it for when it isn't part of the project. --Squilibob 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then some kinda consensus should be made about games....I personally think games can be part of the project too. _dk 03:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disgaea isn't an anime video game, it's a video game that got an anime based off of it. Should we include Final Fantasy, MegaMan, The Legend of Zelda, etc. in the project just because there are animes/manga based off of them? I think not. --SeizureDog 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Going back to what _dk said, if Disgaea was a visual novel, it would be in the project. I think the view of an anime game is too narrow. --Squilibob 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it kinda needs to be narrow. If the definition gets to be too broad, we're going to be reaching too far into the Video Game Wikiproject. I only say that anime games be included due to them being largely ignored by said wikiproject. Visual novels are radically different from normal video games and very similar to normal anime. We should pick them up. RPGs on the other hand are never at a loss for editors. --SeizureDog 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So do we agree that anime games should be included? If there are no objections I will add that into the scope. For the purpose of our wikiproject, I suggest we limit our coverage of games to those that uses CGs as the main type of presentation. (not sprites) _dk 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you talked to the games wp people yet? ~Kylu ( u | t )  07:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but since an article can be managed by more than one wikiproject I don't think it's necessary. _dk 08:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should make sure to put our tag underneath the VG tag on the talk pages though, as they are video games first and anime-ish second. --SeizureDog 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

spoiler tags
Seems some editors from the WikiProject Computer and video games want to remove the spoiler template and usage all together. I thought you guys might want to add your input. See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's different for our project because in some cases there are spoilers in character sections and in other cases there is not. Of course there will be spoilers of some degree under sections called Plot or similarly names sections, but because we generally intergrate many plot details into our character sections, we need some sort of spoiler notice.
 * Some people are using the argument that an encyclopedia shouldn't contain spoiler warnings, but wikipedia isn't a normal encyclopedia. --Squilibob 07:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said! If you could relay this comment on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning it might help ease the anti-spoiler-warning editors a bit. :) -- Ned Scott 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If the two templates do disappear, I don't think it will be much of a loose. But the one thing I think should be avoided is a policy or guideline that limits spoilers in articles, either limiting spoilers to certain sections or limiting spoilers in such a way that we can't provide detailed plot or character summaries. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

More on article assessment
I started taking another stab at the mountain of unassessed articles, when I was once again struck at how hard it is for me to interpret the Version 1.0 criteria for these articles. Looking over TV and media FAs the past two months has given me an idea of what, at the moment at least, the ideal media article contains, so I’m here to share my (very demanding) thoughts. Even though three-fifths of all anime/manga articles have already been assessed, I think this would be useful to discuss. Ultimately, I think the project would benefit from having concise, transparent, if demanding assessment requirements. This would especially be useful for assessors, since they can simply point to the requirement scheme in cases of dispute.

Essential elements of anime and manga series/franchise articles:
 * Character summary
 * Plot summary
 * Critical reception (inside or outside Japan)
 * Production issues (to include, whenever possible, staff, voice actors, music, inspirations/source material)

Desirable elements:
 * Reception inside and outside Japan
 * History of the franchise if relevant
 * International adaptations
 * Influence on later works

Proposed mapping between V1.0 criteria the identified elements:

Apart from plot and character summaries, references would of course be necessary to validate the material for the purpose of assessment. Note that these need not be discrete sections of an article, provided the material is covered in a substantial amount and logically organized.

Perhaps the most radical aspect of this is making character summaries and infoboxes stub elements. I stand by my earlier statement that an infobox is essentially a dictionary definition ("Z is an anime/manga of Y genre by X mangaka/director, distributed by W company over V period.") that tells us nothing about the work itself or why it's important. It's a card-catalogue entry, and is thus useless for someone interested in learning about the work. Character summaries (especially character lists) are little better, insofar as whatever they tell us about the work itself is gleaned only indirectly. For someone interested in learning about a franchise, especially for one who’s seen or read the work, these two elements "may be useless."

Hitherto, I have harped on discussing the work itself, but plot and character summaries do not establish why the work is worth an article in an encyclopedia. Thus even if under separate sections, they only amount to “a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic.” Which is to say, a Start. Only in discussing critical reception and production matters do we get at truly useful information.

I am not proposing that currently assessed articles be immediately re-assessed, although I would like to see that over time. Nor do I have thoughts yet on criteria for character or episode articles. Thoughts are welcome.--Monocrat 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your system. Stubs should be declared on the amount of useful information in an article, excluding lists. I also think that any article that have character descriptions and plot outline of reasonable length and a good lead that can stand on it's own without the rest of the article should be a B-class article instead of Start. Articles with critical and audience receptions, production details, influences and effects, author/director's commentary on the characters or plot, well sourced, and perhaps peer reviewed should qualified as A-class.


 * After working on Maburaho, I've somewhat changed my opinions on what are the most important aspects of an article. A character section and plot details are good places to start of an article, but ultimately, those sections should be supplanted by the other important sections as they are brought into the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Farix. If you have a character summary, plot summary and say, critical reception, then the article just needs some references and then it may qualify as a GA or A Class. The gap between Start and B is too big and between B and GA is too small. If you look at the Grading scheme then a B Class article is an article that has a lot of problems with content.
 * From the discussion now archived, are we going to have to justify each article we are assessing (which I am doing) or are we going to just assess away (would be quicker)? --Squilibob 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like much of this turns on the usefulness of character summaries. Personally, I think a character summary is necessary to understand a show but useless without a plot summary, thus the two are closely linked (such that I imagine they can often be combined). But even taken as separate topics, they fall short of the "majority of the material needed for a completed article" per the Verion 1.0 requirement for B-class. (This follows from Farix' apparent agreement with me on what constitutes an A-class, i.e. complete, article.) To Squilibob: In addition to plot/character summaries, a media Good Article seemingly has to include both reception and production based on GA criterion 3. Now, whether that stringency is applied in practice is another matter, and I'll defer to people more involved with that project. :) Also, my scheme is partly meant to obviate the need to justify assessments, since the proposed criteria, subject to refinement, seem to me logical, transparent, and consistent with broader guidelines. Of course, I wrote them. ;) --Monocrat 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead sections
I've tried to reword the point about the lead sections more strongly. The lead section is the single most important part of any article. However, most leads in anime and manga articles are—to be polite—atrocious, providing only the most basic of information. Instead, the lead section should provide a brief overview of the entire article in roughly four paragraphs that can stand on its own without the rest of the article. Now I'll step down from my little soapbox. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * well.. four paragraphs is the upper limit for longer articles, see: WP:LEAD --Kunzite 02:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem with a lead section is that it is difficult to explain the context of many anime without going into great detail and then try not to add too much redundancy in the remainder of the article. --Squilibob 09:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Anime convention
The template Template:Infobox Anime convention could just as easily apply to any sort of conventions. Shouldn't this be made into a generic template? J I P | Talk 07:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Then stick it on over at pages like E3 and Gen Con. --SeizureDog 08:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the template be renamed, or a new template copy-and-pasted from it? J I P  | Talk 08:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Renamed if possible would be my vote, unless a field that would be specific for anime cons can be thought up. I don't suppose we might need a "Japanese name" field would we? Anyone ever going to make an article for a Japanese-only convention? --SeizureDog 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On the template talk page, User:TheFarix suggests a redirect to the template or a copy-and-pasted template. J I P | Talk 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because the current infobox is stable and in wide use, so there shouldn't be too much mucking with it now unless it is minor. I see that people will want more fields in a general convention infobox, but as they add in these new fields, they could inadvertently break the existing Infobox in the process. Once the development of the new general infobox is finished, then converting the use of the old infobox should be addressed. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

InuYasha
I am requesting some assistance in monitoring InuYasha. There is an anonymous editor who keeps adding external links to several scanlation sites, which are a violation Wikipedia's policies prohibiting the linking to sites with copyvio material. With some assistance, I don't have to worry about violating WP:3RR. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Request an administrator to semi-protect the page. WP:PP, I think. --Kunzite 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I might do that if it happens again. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, since it's only one user that's the problem, you should request that he be banned. Semi-protection is for multiple users doing such a thing. --SeizureDog 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been a different IP each time. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Catagories
Maybe instead of putting the talk page into one of our catagories, we should still put the image on the talk page, but add the article to the catagories. I know it would require more work, but our catagories would be neater.~VNinja~ 01:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you're talking about the article assessment categories? --Squilibob 08:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about assessment, it goes against the general "no metadata in article space" that has been brewing as of late. I wish that we could do hidden categories. --Kunzite 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be a lot more work then it's worth and people will forget to do place the categories on the article when they apply the banner to the talk page. It's much simpler to keep the cats with the banner. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent AFD
Starting earlier today, a group of editors has been targeting character lists for several anime series and video games for deletion. Of the anime series, Pokemon has been the primary focus, but Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, manga or movie only characters has also put up for AfD. I fear that other anime lists may be put up on the copping block soon as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh Userbox
I just made my first userbox, an Azumanga Daioh userbox. I also made the appropriate category and added the userbox to the appropriate userbox lists. I hope I did everything right; comments? If I screwed up, remember not to bite ^_^ Dark Shikari 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's too tall for starters. There has also been some sort of campaign to cartel the number of userboxes on Wikipedia as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know about the campaign, but I figured this was reasonable as there are already a number of userboxes for major anime series. The main userboxes I've seen complaints about are ridiculous things like "this user likes to shampoo himself with octopus ink and likes worms" or similar total nonsense.  And about the size: I've seen userboxes vary in size from the standard 45 pixels to nearly double that; how much smaller should this one be? Dark Shikari 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Image isn't free, you can't use it. Ever wonder why most userboxes are really ugly? It's cuz we can't do fair use. It sucks. --SeizureDog 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the image is a clip of something used in a Wikipedia article. Can I use a vector-drawn image (fanart) instead? Dark Shikari 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot use images considered fair use in templates as you can in regular articles. An original drawing of a copyrighted character can become PD as far as I am aware, but don't take my word for it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I just found this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stargate-color.png which is public domain and is a (fanart) drawing of the Stargate. It is also used in a userbox.  I assume this means I can use a fanart picture of Osaka for the Azumanga Daioh userbox? Dark Shikari 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use images can't be used anywhere other then in article space. And unfortunately, fanart is considered a copyvio and it is not covered by fair use. That is why this WikiProject no longer uses the fanart image of Midori. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why can the above Stargate image be used in a template? Dark Shikari 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's a drawing based off of a live-action show certainly helps. Drawing an image of a drawing is different. Mostly though, I would say it's because a copyright hound hasn't gotten around to challenging it. We had Midori for quite awhile. Most people don't care, but there are those few super anal ones that do. --SeizureDog 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll just stick with the "あ!" that a fellow Wikipedian added to my Azumanga template :) Dark Shikari 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New Bot
I've made a bot which I'm currently testing out on the sandbox before I look for approval. However, as I create a list of things that I want the bot to do, I'm coming up with questions.


 * Do all "anime and manga stubs" that are part of Wikiproject belong in the category "Stub-Class Wikiproject Anime and Manga articles"? Or vice versa?  I notice Stubs that are B-Class, and non-stubs that are Stub-class: which is overriding, and should the discrepancy be corrected?  More exactly, which of the following is it:
 * 1. WikiProject ratings are the most important.  That means that if an anime and manga article is listed as a stub but the Wikiproject says its B-Class, its probably not a stub, and the stub mark should be deleted.  If its not listed as a stub but the WikiProject rating says it is, it should be listed as a stub.
 * 2. Wikipedia ratings are the most important.  That means that if an anime and manga article is listed as a stub, it should have the WikiProject rating of "stub", regardless.
 * 3. There's no overriding rule, and thus the bot can do nothing.


 * Do all articles under the category "anime and manga stubs" belong in WikiProject anime and manga?


 * Do all "Good Articles" deserve to be "Good Article Class" under Wikiproject anime and manga?

Dark Shikari 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Only my opinions, but here you go: if something has a stub tag on it, but is listed as a higher class, it should probably have the stub tag removed (unless it clearly is, in which case the class should be lowered). It probably should go case-by-case (which I guess isn't what you want to hear for a bot, huh). Question 2, I would say if something is an anime stub tag, it should be in the project. (Unless, again, that tag blatantly doesn't belong). As for Good Articles, yes, they should be listed as GA-class, unless of course they are already A-class or FA-class. No articles that passed as GA should be B-class or under on the rating. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, how about
 * 1. Put all "anime and manga stubs" not in WikiProject Anime and Manga into Wikiproject Anime and Manga as Stub-Class.
 * 2. If WikiProject Anime and Manga lists a stub as anything but stub-class, remove the stub tag as long as the article is more than 1000 characters long.  If it is shorter, do nothing, as it could be an actual stub.
 * 3. For all projects with their own rating system, turn all GA-class articles in those projects that aren't listed as GA or better into GA-class articles under that project.


 * Would that be fair? Dark Shikari 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about Start-Class articles? Are you going to leave them alone? --Squilibob 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's another question. Does a Start-class article imply that the article is not a Wikipedia stub, or can a Start-class article be a stub?  I know a B-Class article certainly can't, but can a Start-Class article be a stub? Dark Shikari 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those 3 ideas sound good. Start-class is kind of ambiguous, in my mind. The encyclopedia itself only recognizes 4 classes: Stub, none (most articles), GA, and FA. So Start, B, and A are all kind of iffy, and left up to their respective projects. I would say that if someone feels it is a Start-class, it shouldn't be marked as a stub anymore. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stub-Class articles and stubs are not the same thing. Doing this would wreck a lot of the work that is being done by Wikiproject Stub sorting, especially with egards to the idea of setting an automatic cut-off size for what is regarded as a stub - something which has been regected summarily on many occasions since it doesn't work (A very long article can still be a stub if it contains little more than a list or infoboxes). This is a very bad idea. Please do not do it! Grutness...wha?  01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check my request for bot approval at Requests for Approval. I've made some changes to the function of the bot due to input from you and others, and I'd rather not mirror them here; its easier for you to just read them where I originally posted them.  Thanks for your input: what do you think of it now? Dark Shikari 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag Request for comment
Some of you might already be aware of the spoiler tag dispute from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. (For those of who who do not know about it, it is a debate on the use of spoiler tags and if they should be used on Wikipedia.) The editors involved have decided to file an RfC and start a new discussion page, in order for the debate to be more inviting to other editors. The RfC has an intro page at Spoiler warning/RfC and then a structured discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. The debate is now better organized and not as heated as it was before. I'd like to invite anyone interested to get involved in the debate, even if it's just a small comment or neutral input. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm a member of this project. By the nature of our subject, we use spoiler tags a lot. Would anybody mind if I made a To-Do item out of this? (Comment on Spoiler warning RfC) --GunnarRene 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, like an "article needs spoiler checking" list? --Squilibob 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean like putting "Comment on Spoiler warning RfC" in Template:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/to_do, but perhaps it's better to wait until there's a Template for Deletion on the spoiler templates themselves. --GunnarRene 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Genre request
Hi, I'm working on DABing links to the Romance DAB page. I noticed that all the manga that have a romantic genre are linked to the DAB page for Romance while they really should link to the page for Romance novel (the literary genre). You might want to add something to the infobox instructions to let people know the correct link, and how to format it so it appears as Romance but still links to the right place. Bookgrrl 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. You can help: WikiProject Disambiguation --GunnarRene 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a page called Romance (genre) which must be more suitable for a link called Romance that is in a field called genre surely. --Squilibob 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Read the first sentence in the link you gave. _dk 10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there must be a better page to link to than Romance novel. What about Romantic love. --Squilibob 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Romantic love is not a genre; all the terms used in that location in the infobox are literary genres (adventure, etc); the only page that concerns the literary genre is Romance novel (confusingly, the Romance (genre) page is about the medieval romances, definitely unsuitable!). I agree it's not a 100% match but at least it's the same type of term...  If you feel strongly that none of the pages is suitable, why not be bold and create a page called "Romantic manga" and write it?  Look at the other literary genre pages for what it should contain, doesn't have to be long.  That would serve two purposes: first, it would give a better link for the manga infobox term, and second it would provide a main article for the category Category:romance manga.  (Categories ideally have a "main article," see Category:Anarchism or Category:Modernism.) Bookgrrl 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anime isn't a literary medium, but a visual. Romance film may be a much better fit. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But manga is a literary medium. _dk 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why there are two different categories: Category:Romance anime and Category:Romance manga --GunnarRene 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This all brings us back to my point above: if they're really that different from general romance literature and from each other, perhaps someone needs to write an article for each category, so that the infobox has something to link to. Unless you want the infobox to link to the category page for that genre, which I guess is another option.  Otherwise, you'll have to pick one of the existing Romance links since it's Bad Form to link to a DAB page :) Bookgrrl 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But here is the rub, neither romance novel nor romance film are good fits for the animanga infobox because our articles are almost always a combination both the literature and the visual medium. What is really need is a more generalized romance fiction that covers both, perhaps by combining the two previously mentioned articles. And I don't think it is wise to include any further "auto-categorization" using the animanga infobox. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems as though it's a narrower-topic article we need, not a broader-topic one. Given that manga really is an established literary form, and given that it differs substantially from the related literary forms such as romance novel nor romance film, then it deserves its own article.  If somebody would click here and write this article Romantic manga and possibly this one Romantic anime all our problems would be solved.  The articles could reference the romance films and romance novels as well as the romantic love page.  Surely there's someone willing to do this :) Bookgrrl 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You entirely missed my point about anime and manga usually being covered by the same article, thus we need one general romance article to link to in the genre field of the animanga infobox. Having two separate romance articles is not only impractical, but it will be ambiguous as to which article the animanga infobox should be linked to. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, I did misunderstand.  So...Romantic manga and anime, then?  Go for it :) Bookgrrl
 * What about creating some stupid disambig page like Romance (modern fiction genre) to where it could point to Romance novel or Romance film? This seems to be the only solution I can think of. --SeizureDog 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it's best to just leave things well enough alone. Romance is a already a disambig page that links to both articles, and it was because anime/manga articles were linking to that page started all this. Though I still think that creating a general Romance fiction that covers both literary and visual forms and isn't even anime and/or manga centric to be the best approach. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

George Manley
On a random article click-thru, I ran across an article on George Manley evidently written by George Manley himself:. The draft as it was extremely non-encyclopedic and heavily press-releasish (before); I did my best to preserve notability while cutting away the promotional stuff (after). However, I am not heavily into anime, and figured I might not be the best person to contact him regarding a "arrrrrgh, don't do that again!!!!" message. So I figured I'd give you guys a heads-up for two reasons: (a) so you could welcome him to Wikipedia and encourage him to participate in WikiProject Anime & Manga; and (b) perhaps to more kindly explain to him why he should stay away from his own article per Autobiography, or at least not make it a press release. :-) &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Boogiepop series on Peer Review
I hate to beg like this, but the Boogiepop series has been on Peer Review for well over a week now without comment. I would like to know where the article is at so I can work it for Good Article in the near future (after I get this to Good Article, I plan to focus on Boogiepop Phantom and do the same with it). If anyone could assist, it would be most appreciated. Elric of Grans 04:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

School Days Help
I just created the page for School Days, which is probably the first in the "visual novel" genre to drop the novel bit and adapt only animation throughout the game. Has anyone else played this? I hadn't managed to finish it yet, and so probably need help to get the stubs filled in.

Also, can anyone give a brief translation on this? I can only make out that he's considered one of the worst male protaginists in adult games, but no more than that...I can't make out the other references or meanings.


 * そのあまりのヘタレっぷり、プレーヤーの選択と逆の行動をとるウザさ、その結果もたらされた悲惨な結末のため、「WHITE ALBUM」の藤井冬弥、「君が望む永遠」の鳴海孝之と並ぶ、「アダルトゲームにおける最悪のヘタレ主人公」という不名誉な評価を得る.


 * Sounds like an interesting game. I always did hate the still frameness of traditional visual novels. Do try to get it an infobox though. --SeizureDog 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan up for deletion
Our beloved mascot has a little page on Wikipe-tan, but it's now listed for MfD (miscellany for deletion). Voice your opinion and prove your love to Wikipe at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Two questions: 1: Shouldn't that information page be kept at the Wikimedia Commons site with the images (not totally familiar with conduct there) since it is relevant to several Wikimedia wikis? 2: Is there a precedent from other mascots? --GunnarRene 04:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Before anyone leaves me hate mail on my talk page, Wikipe-tan is only on MFD because someone incorrectly nominated her page on AFD. I procedurally listed it on MFD (per policy). I did suggest keeping her, if that helps at all. As for the Wikimedia Commons thing, I'd bring it up on the Wikipe-tan article's talk page, or on the MFD itself. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominator also has only 3 edits, and they are the 3 steps for the AfD. No other edits. Just thought I would say that. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a note on that to the MFD. I was going to add it to the AFD, but I decided to move the debate to MFD first. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The MFD is over, Wikipe-tan was thankfully speedily kept due to the malformed nom and the consensus to keep. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment here: why is the mascot named "Wikipe-tan"? I mean the use of the -tan suffix which as I recall is an American thing (specifically nevada-tan, which is a corruption on "-chan").  It could be argued that WP:A&M as a whole is a very American thing too, but that's for another time.  --ColourBurst 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, Wikipe-tan is supposed to be like the OS-tans, hence the "-tan" suffix. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain her...uh, loliness. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think -tan is Japanese, not necessarily a corruption on -chan but an even more diminutive form of it. Where -chan is for girls or children, -tan is even .. I guess, cuter.  Hence it works for lolis.  --Crisu 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, from the OS-tan article:
 * "The Japanese suffix -tan (たん) is a child's mispronunciation of -chan (ちゃん)"
 * -- Ned Scott 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we draw a line with publishers/serializers/broadcasters
The Naruto article's infobox is getting a little out of hand. I think we need a guideline on these things. Perhaps we should limit the listing to the three major or first three (chronologically) distributors/publishers/serializers etc. Knowing every single company in every country becomes a little irrelevant. - Phorque 11:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We could just limit it to original and English language versions, being this is an English Wikipedia. But to counter any perception of systemic bias, I would just stick with the original Japanese releases and simply mention the English licensing in the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. As I suggested previously, get rid of the parade of nations (flags) on all of these info boxes and the boxes would be less cluttered.  --Kunzite


 * I don't know, I'm sort of on the fence with this one. It does serve to show how widespread the show is, plus it's not like it's that big of a problem. Besides, this is only a minor problem with a handfull of shows. Most don't have more than 5 countries.--SeizureDog 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with SeizureDog's description of the matter: for the time being, at least, this matter affects few series. Nor do I think it's a big deal in any case. International distribution strikes me as a major aspect of a franchise, and I think it would be biased to keep ourselves to the English edition, either in the infobox or the text. NGE deals with the situation in a reasonably concise manner. As I see it: in for a penny, in for a pound. --Monocrat 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I kind of agree with everyone in a way. The "clutter" only affects a few articles and knowing how widespread a series is is useful information. However, I think finding some kind of compromise would be for the best. I like the idea of discussing/listing all the broadcasters/publishers in prose rather than in the infobox. Keeping the infobox to original and english language publications might be the most relevant for a quick glance and further distribution can be discussed in the article (perhaps in the lead?). - Phorque 17:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Genre Redux
I notice that the genres in the manga infoboxes (romance, comedy, adventure etc) don't match the genres listed here Manga. Is this something that should be fixed? Perhaps this would also fix the unresolved genre request above... Bookgrrl 21:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no manga infobox—unless you count the manga component of the animanga infobox, which doesn't have a genre field in it. Also the genre list on the manga article is grossly incomplete. A much more complete list exists on the anime article. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Farix, saw your posts in the discussion above. Yes, that's what I was referring to (sorry, my knowledge of manga and anime is scant, I'm just trying to DAB the romance links!)  The main anime article does indeed have a far better list of genres, and it also says "for additional genres see the movie genres" so those I think I can legitimately link to romance film, eh? Bookgrrl 00:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are only talking about anime, yes, linking to romance film wouldn't be a problem. But most of Wikipedia's articles on the subject are not focused on just the anime or manga, but both. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't we just not link to romance? It's a super generic term anyway.  --Kunzite 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

New Userbox version.
User:Tjstrf/User Bleach

I originally was simply making it for my personal page, but after a quick conversion to field input, I have created what I believe could be a bit more useful than the generic Template:User WP Anime message. Considering the 2,500+ articles this project encompasses, very few of us would possibly possess the time or patience to edit more than a small fraction of these pages. In recognition of this, my box allows a user to specify what their main series of interest is as an editor by field input.

If anyone else thinks it would be good to have this box listed alongside the other version, I'll retitle it ("User WP Anime series" or "User WP Anime2", probably) and place it in the main template space. --tjstrf 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Seiyu question
If a seiyu portrays his or her character on stage is he/she still considered a seiyu or are they now an actor? --Kunzite 02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They'd be both, and should probably be credited seperately within the article/infobox for both roles. --tjstrf 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seiyu encompasses both... Kyaa the Catlord 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How would seiyū encompass both? The "声" (sei) in "声優" (seiyū) specifically applies it to voice acting. --SeizureDog 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kyaa has the mistake impression that seiyū is a title instead of a job discription, voice actor. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seiyu is seiyu, actor/actress is actor/actress. If for example, one is talking about Sakura Taisen anime, then the seiyu title is appropriate. But if you're talking about the Sakura Taisen live show, then the actor/actress title is appropriate. Karn-b 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kiddy Grade AfD
Kiddy Grade is currently up for deletion. There has been some criticism that very few manga's conform to wikipedia policy, especially Inu Yusha, Tenchi Muyo and Ah My Goddess.

Here is a quote:

" I don't want to be rude and please don't take this is gnawing the newbies or assuming ill intentions of an editor. I don't, it's not the editor, it's the culture. But there has been a pervasive explosion of these character articles in Anime articles. They contain little chunks of information, but only seem to exist to hold an image and an infobox on the character and to fill out a character navagation template... '''I have half a mind to say delete the lot of them and start from scratch .. but I'd only push for that if we could throw in the similarly formatted character articles from OMG, IY, and Tenchi as well. They were all created in the same manner, and it's not well suited to the wikipedia. First off, they contain way too many pictures and (some of them) seem to only exist because an infobox was able to be created for the article. But, I will not be mean to the information and I will push for a SUPER speedy merge These articles fall under the auspices of the WP:FICTION which give a wonderful steps on how to create such pages. Also, a aticle like Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) contains WAY too many photos and is a definite violation of the fair use policy. It needs a lot of trimming regardless of the outcome of this debate. I would vote to Delete the Kiddy Grade Infobox and navigation templates, if I could. "

What does policy say? Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters

--Crampy20 09:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Kiddy Grade article itself isn't up for deletion, which you explicitly stated, instead it's the character articles that are. I think an important point has been raised on whether some of the existing character articles should be merged into a single article if they are small enough. I wouldn't want to merge any of the better quality character articles, for example the Fruits Basket articles like Tohru Honda. Some of the articles have been split from their main articles because they were way too long, like the Galaxy Angel character articles, Milfeulle Sakuraba and co., and could perhaps be merged into a List of characters from X series type articles but how long is too long for such articles? --Squilibob 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the quoted passage, it's something that should be looked into. However, it should be pointed out that most of these kinds of suggestions are about article structure, and not deleting actual content, so editors shouldn't worry about things being "removed". -- Ned Scott 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a bit much saying that they are all bad (Excel Saga at the very least is considered a FA, so it must be reasonable, to say the least), and deleting them would serve no purpose, but I would also agree that anime/manga articles are, in a general sense, pretty poor. An excess of lists, and no sense of what constitutes an Encyclopedic article.  There are also many anime-related articles that have questionable notability, but "don't mention the war", so to speak, or you will upset the maintainers.  I tried to make a difference on several articles in the past, but became so frustrated with the culture of many anime article maintainers that I left Wikipedia for a while, and have now only returned to work on articles that no one else is maintaining. As the original poster said, "it's the culture" that needs correcting as much as the articles. Elric of Grans 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To tell the truth, this was written with 10-15ish large/popular series in mind and a handful of editors who insist on creating seperate pages for every bit of minutia that involves their favorite shows or series. I admire the editing done in Excel Saga and wish more editors would do things that way. --Kunzite 03:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: Actual afd is here. See further discussion on this matter at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) --Kunzite 03:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I am a nobody on Wikipedia, my opinion here may not carry much weight, but I do believe things need to be looked at in this WikiProject. There are questionable articles like Notable anime (fails NPOV and NOR, demographics treated as genres, non-encyclopedic), pointless, non-notable articles such as Hijiri and Koshian, meanwhile major titles such as Macross are in a poor state.  Then there are lists that simply should not exist (eg List of light novels is LC (unlimited/unmaintainable), and Category:Light novels already does the same job).
 * If I can, I would like to propose that WikiProject:Anime and Manga undertake a serious housekeeping project. Every page under the project should be briefly visited by an independant, but knowedgeable, editor (eg I could not be independant on Boogiepop series, but I know Cowboy Bebop well enough to know what is and is not notable) who should be quite critical: if it does not belong on Wikipedia, propose it for merge/deletion.  I would also like to suggest that IMP be considered.  I understand that it is not policy, and not current, but it could be used as a useful tool: WikiProject Novels assesses pages by class and importance.  If Anime pages were sorted into Top (Astro_Boy (1960s), Anime, etc), High (Aa! Megami-sama!, Tenchi Muyou!, etc), Mid (Kiddy Grade, Blood: The Last Vampire, etc) and Low (insert random article only included for completeness sake here), it could give the project's editors a better idea of where to focus their efforts.  Of cause, that alone will do nothing to improve the quality, but I feel that some focus makes for a good thing.  As good as it is, I feel it is a bit sad that Excel Saga made it to FA while more notable titles are only a B-Class, at best.
 * As an aside, I would like to see what the opinion here is on anime that devote full pages to individual episodes. Personally, I do not feel that they are warranted, but several major titles have them.  WikiProject:Novels does not have pages on individual chapters from The Lord of the Rings, so why do we have 51 stub-sized, non-notable pages on the plot of Fullmetal Alchemist?  Something like this is just as valid as looking at the notability of character articles.
 * Hopefully I am not stepping on any toes: I just want to see the quality of articles in this project improve. Elric of Grans 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For one, how good an article is doesn't make it a more "kick ass" anime. I admit, it is funny sometimes to see the unbalance, but it all depends on what things people like to edit. Maybe we could do something similar to the to do list, where an editor can list an article and also list what concerns they have with it?


 * As for the individual episode articles, we do have the advice from Centralized discussion/Television episodes. I agree, this idea that there must be one article for every episode is something we really need to overcome. For one, there's alternatives that many users haven't considered, such as the one from Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (anime), a single article detailed plot overview, or Sakura Card Arc: 47-59's story arc approach.


 * On that same note, we have all these members and many of us (myself included) overlook many of these guidelines and suggestions that already exist. Maybe we can improve the situation by having something similar to the Tip of the day (or week or something) and highlight different guidelines, both from our WikiProject, from our parent projects, and from official and centralized guidelines and policies.  There's a lot of really good advice out there on things like how to grow an article on fiction (WP:FICT), to the somewhat newly created Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Not to mention Guide to writing better articles and all those helpful Category:citation templates. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly Elirc, everyone is equal here, so everyone's opinions should carry the same weight :) (or so we nobodies want to believe.) I really really agree with what you say, though Wikipedia's nature (and culture) does make your proposals difficult, especially on articles about minor characters. The importance scale would propose some problems though, because we have no way to really classify the importance of individual anime. For example, people would disagree on the importance of The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi, as it is really popular now, but is it really important? Or Dragonball is really important, but does it rank on the top level as does Astro Boy does? Hence if a importance scale be imposed, I can foresee endless debate and turmoil in the project, which we would rather do without. _dk 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how anyone could think that the quality of the article reflects on the quality of the source material. That article on Television episodes would be a good way to undertake things, though both articles used as examples would need a lot of work, in my opinion.  Handling things on a season/plot arc basis, if and only if there is sufficient material to warrant it, would definitely be much better than what is currently done.  The catch is that too much importance is placed on plot summaries, and not enough on the actual important information, and people need to remember this too.    Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (anime) is a good start, but it is nothing but a plot summary, and as such a pretty bad article.  As Centralized discussion/Television episodes suggests, relevance and impact, amongst other things, are vital inclusions.  A tip of the week might not be a bad idea, but I am not sure how effective it would be.  If people took the attitude of "Ah, that's right: we should cite our sources!" and went along and filtered the week's tip through all articles they edit, it would be good.  If people read it and go "Ah, that's right: we should cite our sources!", then dismiss it soon after, it will achieve nothing. Prompts are good, but are entirely dependant on the attitude of the editors. Elric of Grans 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's already difficult to get people to contribute to the WP:AMCOTW, much less anything that is more significant then that. And unfortunately many of the wikipedians who are listed as participants really don't participate in the WikiProject. They simply put themselves on the list as a form of status symbol. The best thing I've learned to do was to pick something specific to do to a wide range of anime article, such as sorting the anime into one or more of the genre categories or see that the character sections comply with the project's formatting guidelines. That is the only way you can really get anything done around here.


 * As for how some articles on minor series can be fuller of details while articles on much more popular series seem to get little to no attention, well that's just how Wikipedia works. People will edit the articles they are interested in working on, and not amount of cattle prodding will change that. So if you see an article that could use more filling out, be bold and contribute to the article yourself instead of complaining that no one else has sought to improve the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not complaining so much as I am suggesting that they should be looked at: "these are the articles that are most important to our project, so we should get them all to FA as soon as possible!". I am already doing what I can: I have taken the Boogiepop series, one of the most significant titles in light novels, from .  I have also tried to help on other articles, but had my edits reverted if they did not match the 'vision' the article's main maintainer had.  My complaints are about articles that perhaps should not exist, rather than articles that need more work: the latter will obviously exist, and we obviously should all work to improve. Elric of Grans 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (darned edit conflicts.. was addressing Ned's last post) In this particular case it is not individual episode articles (I'm in the process of building a list of episodes article and there is alread a plot summary on the main page - I don't think there's any argument about there being enough material for individual articles, not yet at any rate) but chatacter articles. To be honest, I was happy with the centralised character page, the split seems mainly to have been done in order to inject multiple infoboxes and images that wouldn't have fit into the centralised characters article. Shiroi Hane 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree about the characters and needless character stub articles.


 * In response to Elric of Grans and Farix's comments, I think, depending on the "delivery method" (user talk page, template, etc) that a tip of the week aimed towards our WikiProject would probably be easy to maintain and very useful. It's not just telling someone that you should cite things, everyone knows you're supposed to.. but rather, show some of the handy tricks that can be easily over looked that make these tasks easier. A good deal of editors might not know about things like the tag or that there's a template for citing websites with a datestamp and such via Cite web or even Web reference simple.  And I bet a bunch of editors don't know that policy was changed so that if you upload a fair use image, like a screenshot or manga scan, and don't provide source and fair use rational statements, it can be deleted in 48 hours without an IfD. Hell, I learned a lot just now when looking for examples for this message :D -- Ned Scott 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

-userbox
I've removed the userbox, as template userboxen are on their way out on Wikipedia. If one of you wants to move it to your userspace, I'll provide source to what was there. --Improv 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Personal userboxes are userfying, per the German Solution, but Babel and project userboxes are staying in the template space. In fact, many of the idiotic personal userboxes (like Template:User dlph) seem to be staying in template space as well, just not the personal viewpoint ones. If they had some gigantic straw poll on the issue to change this, by all means give a link. --tjstrf 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the german solution says that userboxes can be mored to the project namespace? It's been a while since I had read that.  I thought about proposing a move, but decided that I didn't care about user boxes and ignored it. --Kunzite 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it says that you move them to User: pages. However, this whole deletion of wikiproject userboxes seems to be supported by little but "Improv says" at this point. Unless Jimbo made a mailing list post to support it within the last 5 hours, (last time I checked it) which I doubt. --tjstrf 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Undone. I was a bit too hasty in this, and didn't take in enough context to make the decision I should've made. --Improv 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, now I know there's been a lot of activity over the userboxes, but WikiProject boxes? I didn't realize there was ever a problem with them. Rather, they seem to be the kind of boxes that are actually useful and do help tell people something at-a-glance on your user page (that is relevant to editing on Wikipedia). I can understand if there's a movement to get them out of the template namespace, and if that's the case then we can simply make it a sub page of the WikiProject itself. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've looked over both WP:TGS and WP:T1D, both briefly today and in their entirety in the past, and nowhere does anyone seriously mention deleting project userboxes. As best I can tell, Improv just came up with this idea on his own and decided to try seeing if he could make it fly. (Sort of like the be bold principle, only with admin tools and protected page deletions.) It's not like you can confuse the project box with something polemical... Well, whatever, he undid it, and we're saved a bloody trip through Deletion review. Hopefully he'll try getting some actual consensus next time. --tjstrf 08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * About userboxes.. now, I decided a while back to make a couple of anime series infoboxes, including one for SHnY. Looking over the pages on creating and using userboxes I determined that creating them in template space was a bad idea and would not go down well so created them in my own userspace and listed them in the middle of the required page where most people who would be interested will never see them. Since them three other userboxes for the series have been made, in template space, and listed in plain sight at Userboxes/Anime. Something is not working here. Shiroi Hane 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New Project
Hello there! I was looking on Wikipedia and I realize that the whole Gundam Universe (that is, Universal Century) is in total despair. I was wondering if there is some old-school Gundam fans that are willing to work with me in expanding this articles (U.C only! there is already too much info regarding SEED and Wing) Messhermit 13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, someone did start WikiProject Mobile Operation System a while back, but it hasn't had a lot of activity lately. Maybe you can re-new the flame there. (and maybe rename to WikiProject Gundam? Just a thought). -- Ned Scott 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding lists of fansub groups covering animes to an infobox or something akin
Many big animes pages currently don't have big pieces of infomation like the groups that have fansub/scanlation/fandub releases of the anime/manga in question. For example, the Lunar group isn't mentioned on the Bleach (manga) page as of writing. Neither is the AonE group mentioned on Naruto. These groups are big reasons for the success of these shows, and for their later English releases. It could also be useful infomation for people looking for copies of the shows to download (reminder: this is a legal practice if the content is not licenced in the country of watcher). This is probably useful infomation for people, and it's probably the kind of thing we ought to include in a userbox or something of the like. Agree? --CalPaterson 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because it's against wikipedia policy to include information about linking to sites with major copyright infringement. They are frequenly removed from articles whenever they get added. See WP:EL, Occasionally acceptable links, #5 --Kunzite 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad idea, and against policy. If people need the names of the fansub groups that bad, a few seconds of searching on Google should suffice for them. (Even the ever-elusive null group can be found in less than 12 minutes) Or, they could always check the article talk page, where it will often come up in the course of discussion over proper romanization. It's not worth putting wikipedia in possible legal danger to save people 5 seconds in their Google search. --tjstrf 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On top of that, there are no verifiable sources that will link a particular fansub group to the success of a particular anime instead of the anime being successful on its own merits. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you used the fansub translation as a reference, that might be acceptable. -- Ned Scott 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "(reminder: this is a legal practice if the content is not licenced in the country of watcher)" No it is not. While it is only considered to be a more moral practice if it's not licensed in your country; it's still illegal. --SeizureDog 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you live in a country that doesn't acknowledge international copyright law, of course. Which the U.S. does, and the servers are based there. Maybe Wikipedia should outsource its servers to Afghanistan? --tjstrf 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Manwha infobox needed
It seems that Manwha articles such as ID_eNTITY have been using manga infoboxes, troublesome for two reasons: Now I'm no good with infoboxes and such, so if someone could whip up a quick solution that'd be great.--SeizureDog 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) They get added into the Category:Manga series
 * 2) The infoboxes say "Mnaga" in them, leading to possible confusion.
 * Ok I copied some Template: Infobox Animanga sections into a Template: Infobox manwha page. Edit as needed. --Squilibob 00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag usage
I know you guys have already been informed of the spoiler tag RfC, noted above on this talk page, but I thought I'd give you guys an update.

I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines and WikiProjects is welcome and encouraged.

In addition, it was proposed on the RfC talk page that it might be a good idea to have some WikiProjects discuss this issue themselves and also present a "group answer". It might be a good way to get a fresh take on the issue and avoid groupthink. Basically, start a discussion on how your project uses spoiler tags and notices, and what you think could be improved about the process and the WP:SPOILER guidelines. Individuals are still free to comment with their own personal ideas and comments as well. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that without spoiler tags it will be restrictive on how anime articles are set out. For a readers reading about an anime that they haven't seen, how else do we provide as much information as we can without spoiling it except for restricting what goes where? -Squilibob 06:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)