Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi everyone,

I just created Category:Lists of anime and manga characters, categorised in Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium, Category:Anime and manga characters and Category:Anime and manga lists.
Just before thinking it was stupid because there is

What are your views about this ? If you agree, I shall ask a bot to move all the articles from Category:Anime and manga characters by series to Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. Oh, by the way, I'm not sure whether that one should be categorised in Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium, as you can't really say it is a medium... Feel free to have a better idea :)

Thanks a lot, ~

I really don't care one way or the other. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't seem that people really care about that :). I will move all of this, then.

Jean-FrédéricFr

22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, a category should not have the name list of (as in Lists of anime and manga characters — it should rather be Anime and manga characters) G.A.S 07:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, the whole point is precisely to have "List of" in the category, as it is meant to contain lists...

Jean-FrédéricFr

12:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, it was not quite as clear at first. The thought did strike me later, though. G.A.S 12:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: Should the name be "lists of" instead of "list of" per

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)?So it is... G.A.S

12:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not indeed very clear at first reading... Shall I go ahead, then ? ~

Jean-FrédéricFr

17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

One problem I see is that many articles have the list in the main article, or only a list of minor characters. As such I am unsure of the advantage such categories will give, as it could never be complete. G.A.S 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regards, G.A.S 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, we will have to choose a standard set of categories to work with. KyuuA4 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first started the cleanup of character infoboxes, little did I know just how many of them there were. So far the count is at 35 47+ 50+ 57 different infoboxes, many of them nearly indistinguishable from the other except for a few fields. 12 of them weren't even being used or were used only once. Seriously, how did we let this become such a big mess? --Farix (Talk) 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

35? Then that's good luck right there -- as the numbers of series is way way above that. Gonna have to add into regulations about the usage of character info-boxes. KyuuA4 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't envy you the task ahead...I'd volunteer to help, but I think I'm going to be eyeball-deep just in the Evangelion articles alone. If you know of any improvements and/or changes that need to be made to those character infoboxes, ping me and I'll see what I can do about touching them up. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect some form of stand alone complex. It's a bit in the nature of Wikipedia, that if you see one template that is specific to one show or something, that people think "oh, I probably should make a specific template for this show as well". Heck, I'm partially responsible for at least one character infobox, {{Infobox Digimon character}} (although, at the time it was more of a way to make a specific template that didn't have silly options). I'll definitely help clean up those, at the very least :D -- Ned Scott 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a generic anime character infobox? If one could be made and implemented that would help, I believe (if one doesn't already exist). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Manga character. Many of those 35 infoboxes have already been converted over, but there are still a few dozies waiting on the "hit list". I've also tried to avoid switching all the series at once in case someone complains about it. --Farix (Talk

) 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So

Template:Infobox animanga character should be used for all character articles? Just wanting to clarify...I'll take care of the Evangelion characters as I get time. Willbyr (talk | contribs

) 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. However, there may be a rare case where a more specialized template is more appropriate. But those cases should only be when

Template:Infobox animanga character can't fit the bill (ex. Template:Digimon Infobox). --Farix (Talk

) 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to focus your attention to the Manual of Style:

When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I think that goes for infoboxes as well. However, the generic one does seem to be good. It may be a better idea to recommend using the generic infobox on the infobox talk page, and to redirect currently unused infoboxes; but leaving other infoboxes in place, at least for the time being.

As for how the mess got started; the recommended infobox is fairly new, as such editors created suitable templates from the generic television infobox.

NB: The infobox should be mentioned in the

Manual of Style for Anime- and manga-related articles

.

Regards, G.A.S 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it'll be included here: Template:Infobox Animanga. KyuuA4 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That will not help: Who will look in the show infobox for a character type infobox? Mentioning both these infoboxes in either the manual of style (as the other are mentioned there) or the project page will be useful though. The category has too many to search through when an editor is looking for an appropriate infobox. G.A.S 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with that category is that a large number of character infoboxes are not in that category either. In general, I think there needs to be some housekeeping done on that category by consolidating as many specific templates as possible into more generic templates. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the reasons behind switching/merging (however you like to look at it) all of these series specific character infoboxes to a generic character infobox has nothing to do with styling, posting that part of the MoS is a red herring. --Farix (Talk) 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was that you should not make an edit war out of this (but I trust you are more sensible than that). What do you intend on doing to the old infoboxes? (I recommend they be redirected, but their talk pages be moved/copied to sub-pages of the generic templates as archives, and be appropriately linked from the infobox talk page). G.A.S 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no plans to edit war, but I have been taking things slowly just in case someone starts calling for the Marshals. As for what to do with the old infoboxes, eventually send them to TfD. I really don't see any value in keeping them as redirects, even if that is a "simpler" choice. As for moving the talk pages of the old infoboxes, that may be a good idea for those that have significant discussions on them, such as the one for Naruto and Tokyo Mew Mew. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I objected to the template at first but Farix has done an excellent job at giving users flexibility and choice. I think that a style parameter could be optional so that every box isn't limited to width: 22em; font-size: 90%; text-align: left; so that editors can customize the infobox to the article that it is on. Other than that the template is almost a same-for-same replacement for the existing infoboxes. I do like the convenience of low maintenance, as long as the template isn't restrictive. --Squilibob 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Implementation

Just wanted to give an example of the custom infobox up I drew up for Battle Angel Alita/Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters using Farix's template, by adding custom auxiliary fields and parameters. There were no previous infoboxes being used for this series. The anime WPs, task forces, or even specific series for that matter that don't have a task force may want to (will most likely) take Farix's template and add custom fields to it to create a standard infobox for a particular series.

{{Infobox animanga character
| color        = #DEDEE2
| name         = 
| series       = ''Battle Angel Alita''
| image        = 
| caption      = 
| first        = 
| last         = 
| creator      = [[Yukito Kishiro]]
| voiced by    = 
| nickname     = 
| alias        = 
| age          = 
| gender       = 
| species      = 
| born         = 
| death        = 
| occupation   = 
| title        = 
| relatives    = 
| divider      = 
| aux1         = 
| aux1 name    = Degree of cyberization
| aux2         = 
| aux2 name    = Fighting style
| aux3         =
| aux3 name    = Weapon (s)
}}

To see how it looks, Alita can be used as a sample. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. So, it's a go-ahead. :) And for a "big test", I went ahead on Sailor Moon. I moved the old infobox into the discussion thread as a comparator. EDIT: After further implementation, it looks as if the infobox has never changed. The desired effect is achieved. KyuuA4 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As expected, a bit of resistance comes from the Sailor Moon group to this generic box. Will have to leave it be, and look at other series. KyuuA4 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It left out some important information and included some unnecessary or otherwise problematic information. It's a great infobox, though, and will probably be excellent for many series. --Masamage ♫ 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing info can be taken care of by adding more "Aux" tags to the infobox. This generic form is that flexible, as the range of anime characters overall is wide. In any case, we're merely beginning to implement it today. KyuuA4 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at how I did the Tokyo Mew Mew transitions as an example of how to handle the replacement of the Sailor Moon infobox. There may be better ways to do it, but that is one alternative. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This infobox looks good. I think it would be a good idea to create a standard generic character info box to use in all of the anime character articles. Then if necessary more series specific info can be added to the infobox below the generic part. I think this would make everything look consistent while still providing the ability to include more of the series specific information in the info box. How's that sound? Elhector 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Generic Character box. That's exactly what this infobox is for. KyuuA4 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to hit you to hard with the clue stick, but have you actually read this topic or even the one at the very top of the talk page? The topic at the top of the talk page discussed the development of a "generic character infobox". This topic is about transitioning from the series specific character infoboxes to the "generic character infobox" — with a little side rant about just how many series specific character infoboxes there actually are. I encourage you to read the first topic and take a good look at

Template:General VG character) and how the the current template avoids the need to create most specialized templates. --Farix (Talk

) 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, but not that new. I did read the entire thread. I was simply agreeing with the idea. The "How's that sound?" question at the end of my comment was from an e-mail I was working on at the same time as i was commenting. I'm not sure how that even wound up there. My alt+tab skills must be to much for this computer :-P Anyways, like i said before, I think it looks great and is an great idea :-) Elhector 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My example above is just

Template:Infobox animanga character with custom aux fields. Customizing per series, anime WP or task force is what I mentioned too. BrokenSphere^{Msg me}

19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few notes: You don't need to put the italics around the series titles since the template already takes care of this for you. Second, unless you using a specific color other then #DEDEE2, I would remove the color line all together to reduce clutter. Since you are also not use the divider, you can remove that field as well. And finally, I would remove any generic field that would not be applicable to that series, which you've mostly done. --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there some pressing need for the giant color-barred Profile midway through the box? It's highly visually distracting imo. --

talk

02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It separates the out-of-universe fields from the in-universe fields. --Farix (Talk) 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, glad to know there is some sort of reason, but could it at least be toned down? --

talk

02:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The box seems to lack a place for when a character has a different "dub" name. It would be nice to have a named-parameter for this, and possibly for the english voice actor credit as well. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for those infoboxes outside the Evangelion franchise, but in those both the seiyu and the English voice actor(s) are listed. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This implimentation seems to work quite well: Diff. G.A.S 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Characters in multiple series. Here's an interesting case.

I'm facing a similar dilemma with Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha and Triangle Heart. As for the CSS and TRC characters, I would either list them as CLAMP series characters with a wikilink to the CLAMP article or just leave the series field blank. Seems I did something similar to a group of Osamu Tezuka's characters. --Farix (Talk) 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For Gundam characters who appear in multiple series, I suggest tagging them with the timeline the series take place. I tried it with Amuro Ray's article.--Nohansen 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is not the series name. It's better to use the base series name in those situations. --Farix (Talk) 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Updates

22 templates deleted through TfD, 16 more currently at TfD, and an untold number deleted as test pages (

Hmm. Tough call on Pokémon, especially when there are hundreds of them. Perhaps an exception here could be acceptable. KyuuA4 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not the Pokemon template, but the Pokemon character template. The pokemon have their own template,

Template:Pokémon species I think, which is separate for the character template. --Farix (Talk

) 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of it, the Animanga infobox will actually improve the look of the Pokemon character infoboxes. While Pokemon characters double up as video game characters, it seems that the articles primarily focus on the anime. KyuuA4 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at

Good. That guideline is painfully flawed. Kyaa the Catlord 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is unfortunate that a lot of anime sub-articles will be under the spotlight, articles like this tend to appear if there is no or little enforcement or poorly written guidelines. G.A.S 08:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need guidelines to recognize a poorly written, unreferenced article is a poorly written, unreferenced article. And simply because bad articles appear isn't good enough reason to have less than adequately thought out, less than NPOV guidelines that exist solely for the vanity use of elitist wikipedians to bash those who aren't as well versed. I thought that wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit and that creating stubs is acceptable.... Heaven knows my first article was (and probably still is) a piece of shit. Kyaa the Catlord 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. G.A.S 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, they simply need to be clean up to the standard of other Wiki articles, which means less plot summary and more content involving third-party sources. Within the scope of anime, that can be a major overhaul. Plus much of that kind of material (reviews and statistics) is either in Japanese, or unwritten. KyuuA4 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with the

WP:FICT re-write, but I do see that some form of sub-article for style reasons is acceptable. However, notability should still be on the minds of editors, and there needs to be a clear line of what is a sub-article and what needs additional notability. -- Ned Scott

03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't look at the credits and realize that there are many Japanese names on there, nor did you know that the original G1 TF was animated in Japan, and there is a Japanese language version? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:48, September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the three extra years the show ran for in Japan. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Then add on the "debate" over what is anime, and what is not anime. KyuuA4 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Transformers is definitely one of those gray areas, and I'm really not sure the best way to approach the situation. But looking at the production credits, I don't think

You want more of that, see what he's written in the TF The Movie talk page, which he tried to refactor out. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll take a pass. --Farix (Talk) 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This brings back an idea once brought up for a "see also" for WikiProjects. It's not anime, but it's directly related to an anime topic, so saying "see also,

Has anyone else noticed that

By the way, I didn't turn all the old links to NGE into NGE (TV); I had to fix a lot of redirects like a number of old NERV (this was particularly egregious in userspage), Tokyo-3, and Angel redirects, and I also pointed links to List of Eva media and the franchise article as was appropriate. And as Willbyr pointed out, I suggested this back in, like, April in the appropriate place. It's something that sorely needed to be done as the articles have expanded. --Gwern (contribs) 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

With the new movies coming out, there are even odds people would be looking for information on those. If I were doing that, I'd just type in Evangelion and expect to get a page covering the franchise as a whole, not just a page on the decade old TV series. I think the change is a big improvement. Doceirias 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If it were to stay as it is, it should be

Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Silver Edge

03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's been a small amount of discussion regarding creating an article for the franchise for some time now. I like the move, but I agree with Silver Edge; the article for the original anime should be titled as (TV series) or (television) instead of (TV). Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But (TV) is shorter, which is why I like it. --Gwern (contribs) 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shorter is not always better. Better to stick with

WP:NC-TV and the thousand(s?) of articles that use (TV series). —TangentCube, Dialogues

01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing...better you should make the change on your own than have an admin do it for you and quote the MoS. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the general idea is good, but like the others have said, a franchise article would probably be better than a disambig article. In any case, I think Gwern has made an improvement, and we are free to further improve (as in, moving from disambig page to a franchise article). -- Ned Scott 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to make NGE a disambig instead of the straight franchise article for a couple reasons. First, the term "Neon Genesis Evangelion" can refer to a lot of stuff; at least three, the franchise, TV series, manga, and the ADV movie article. I'm probably omitting some stuff there. None of those seemed to me to have truly overwhelming usage - in particular, while disambiguating, I noticed that a lot of usages were extremely ambiguous: while technically the author might have been intending to link to the TV series article, they actually would've been better off linking to the franchise article, etc. (ie, "2nd Impact, an event in NGE, is referenced in fictional work Foo" - should NGE link to the franchise or TV series? After all, 2nd Impact is a fundamental part of the Eva fictional universe and is not at all specific to the anime.) This also has the advantage that in the future, people linking to NGE might think more carefully about just what they mean, and readers could well be better served by this - if you just type in NGE, I could definitely see you intending to go to any number of places like EoE ("that NGE movie") and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there already is a franchise article. I think we're better off going to the disamig than that, though, since it isn't really set up to let someone quickly any easily get to the actual page they want to be on. Doceirias 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this real? It looks awfully like a hoax. --61.45.36.159 07:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

{{

talk

07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I prodded it, but

CSD G7 does apply. Changing it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse

) 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look to this one too: Hellsing Death Nether. It seems to be a copy of the other article. Kazu-kun 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

hey guys, I just want to let you guys know that I made a new category for users who read manga. Maya Levy 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that category rolled into Category: Wikipedians interested in anime and manga some time ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I can merge them if necessary. Maya Levy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya Levy (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, boys. Currently, User:A Man In Black and I are having an edit war over the article MSN-02 Zeong - some admin thoughtfully came by and protected the page, which has given me some downtime to consider ways to further improve the article (as opposed to constantly reverting destructive edits all day). So, between now and then, if anyone would like to take a look at it and suggest any further ways I might be able to get it up from B-class status, I'd love to hear them. Thanks again! MalikCarr 10:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what where you two edit waring over? --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a long standing war over the infobox used for the mobile suit between members of wp:gundam and user:a man in black. Its spilled over to several mobile suits, actually. Kyaa the Catlord 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Are Gundams considered anime characters? KyuuA4 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox above really works well for vehicle-type stuff. Kyaa the Catlord 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga character wouldn't work. But the edit war seems rather silly, if not out right juvenile. Especially when there was no discussion or localized RfC by calling in this WikiProject to weigh in on the dispute. --Farix (Talk

) 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The funny thing is AMiB is an administrator. He's admitted to using his admin powers in the edit war, but apparently, he's untouchable. (At the very beginning of the edit war, I started a thread on AN about it and was told pretty much to shut up, in not so many words.) Kyaa the Catlord 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, let's keep this topic separate from the edit war. I'd like to resolve that in a diplomatic fashion, but I didn't come here asking for help on that regard. I'm just looking to probe the WP:ANIME editors' minds for further means I might be able to use to increase the quality of the article in question - the non-negotiable and infallible judgment of one administrator notwithstanding. MalikCarr 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect us to overlook the edit war if you want us to help improve the article. --Farix (Talk) 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, what would you propose I do? MalikCarr 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, the MS Gundam infobox should be expanded to allow the "missing" information to be incorporated. Comparing the infobox vs the generic one already in use, the infobox is omitting at least half the existing one. OR Use that MS Gundam infobox, and any information omitted is written back into the prose. KyuuA4 05:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The MS Gundam infobox was made by User:A Man In Black with no consensus, or even input, from any WP:Gundam members. To me, and to some project members, it represents the heavyhanded fashion in which said user conducts his interpretation of policies, and to that end I would prefer not to use it.

The infobox currently in use in the Zeong, Jagd Doga, Sazabi articles, and in points beyond, was created by Maikeru, and I enjoy its faculties much better. With his permission, I was going to propose it be an actual template, but he has not responded to recent commentary.

I prefer Maikeru's infobox to the ones currently in use in a number of Gundam articles, including that of the

Gundam itself, but I am not actually a member of the project, so I wouldn't claim to have that kind of authority to decide if Maikeru's infobox ought to be used in existing articles. MalikCarr

06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> That seems to me to be a, "I don't like him so I won't use his infobox" line of petty reasoning. Kyuu gave you some good suggestions about what to do. I advice that you discuss them with AMiB and others before you continue the pointless revert war. --Farix (Talk) 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm supporting the Maikeru infobox as well. It does everything that AMiB's box did, but it is more along the lines of what the Gundam wikiproject wants since he took what we said and built around it rather than ignoring our input. Kyaa the Catlord 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like his infobox because it was created with no consensus or input from any project members, and A Man In Black has decided that his version is so much better than the ones we had been using, he is unwilling to negotiate or compromise on any of its faculties (believe me, we've tried). Furthermore, attempting to change it has variously gotten us accused of vandalism, obstructionism, protectionism, trolling and copyright violation - User:Jtrainor and I have been blocked before for reverting his infobox after he stopped discussing it with us.

He's accused us of all kinds of allegations, and we accuse him of abuse of administrative power and being a one-man consensus army. If you review the Zeong's talk page, you'll see that he has chosen to stop debating this point and simply reverts whatever we do to the article, even adding new content. He's been extremely uncivil and uncooperative, and quite frankly, I'm simply not interested in using an infobox that's been forced down our throats at block-point. MalikCarr 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Still looking to get some further input... MalikCarr 07:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes, it says the episodes will be redirected soon if anyone does not find any reliable sources. My only complaints are that we need to cite reliable sources and update all of the episodes. If not, these will be merged. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 13:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I enjoyed AMG - I do not see why each episode be given a separate article.

This guideline should be more related with that issue. KyuuA4

04:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How would I get English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew to GA-class? I dont think it can follow the Manual of Style too well. Why didnt I put this up for peer review? Because I really don't care if this article will ever be GA-class; my goal for this article is to get as many references as possible. I'm only curious how to get it to GA-class, if the requirements were to overlap with my goal.

Or do I still have to put it up for review to get a clear answer? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do- GOOD GOD MY EYES. PLEASE, I'M BEGGING YOU, CHANGE YOUR SIG.

...Sorry, where was I? Oh, right: Why do the English adaptations need their own article anyway? Couldn't most of that content be trimmed down and merged into the main Tokyo Mew Mew article? --

talk

07:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is about what adaptations were made, the release history, Western reaction, etc. --Masamage ♫ 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar to

Sailor Moon, it should be partly due to some discontent about the significant changes made from the original Japanese to the English adaptation. Hence, the separate article. KyuuA4

02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Horashe (talk · contribs) has been uploading anime-related pictures with an improper PD license tag; some of them have a website's watermark on them, and others even have the original copyright holders' notice on them. How should I go about cleaning these up? I haven't the slightest idea where to get started with images. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters, you remove them from the pages where they're used (finding a replacement first if you're feeling helpful, if they're necessary then relabeling the non-watermarked ones with a proper

talk

07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've marked all the images and warned the editor. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't know the procedures regarding use of images. The second image you gave as an example is an official wallpaper while others look like they were just ripped from websites or blogs. A speedy delete tag would suffice. They can't counter it. Edit: Hmm...late response now. Input is for future referencing. Fox816 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Horashe has been indef blocked for ignoring my warning not to upload images under false copyright tags. All images uploaded by Horashe have been deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bringing the

Well, that'll make the lists obsolete, and categories would better suit this purpose. FOX TV Network shows is a category. So, yes, categories on Japanese TV networks make sense too. KyuuA4 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to let everyone know that I have some comments and suggestions on the discussion page of the main Manga entry, and that I'm starting to work on giving the entire article a thorough revision. For my credentials for doing that, please see my User page.

I need assistance and help. The revision (in my opinion, much needed) has to be done collaboratively, not by one person making changes. So, if you're interested, and I hope you are, look at my comments on the discussion page, and leave comments there or on my user Talk page. Already, several people have come to help, and they're very wlecome. I hope more people will join.

Timothy Perper 06:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is draft revision of first two paragraphs of the Manga entry

Here are the first paragraphs (WITHOUT formatting) of my revision. Please put comments and suggestions on the Sandbox of my user page -- User:Timothy_Perper/Sandbox -- everyone is welcome.

I hope it's obvious why I'm putting this up: comments and discussion are needed before any changes in the article itself. But do me a favor? Before anyone starts cursing and growling -- "You moron! WE HAVE A WHOLE ENTRY ON LA NOUVELLE MANGA!" -- please understand that this is a **draft** and is not formatted or complete. Slow and steady, step at a time.

Manga (ñüâÊ, Manga?) listen (help·info) (pl. manga) is the Japanese word for comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku). In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II (Kinsella 2000) but have a long, complex history in earlier Japanese art (Ito 2005, Kern 2007, Schodt 1986). In the past two decades, manga have become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry (Kinsella 2000, Schodt 1996) and have become increasingly popular in the US and worldwide (Patten 2004, Wong 2006), representing a multi-billion dollar global market (Masters 2006; NEED BETTER SOURCE!!). In Japan, manga are widely read by children, adolescent boys and girls, and adult men and women (Gravett 2004). Manga themes include action/adventure, romance, sports and games, historical drama, comedy, science fiction and fantasy, mystery, horror, sexuality, and business and commerce, among others (Gravett 2004).

Manga and manga-like comics exist in Korea (“manhwa” ^{[citation needed]}) and in the People’s Republic of China plus Hong Kong (“manhua”; Wong 2002). In France, “la nouvelle manga” is a form of bande dessinée drawn in styles influenced by Japanese manga ^{[citation needed]}]. In the United States, manga-like comics are called Amerimanga, global manga, or original English language (OEL) manga ^{[citation needed]}.

MORE COMING.

Gravett, Paul 2004 Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Harper Design.

Ito, Kinko 2005 A history of manga in the context of Japanese culture and society. J. Popular Culture, 38(3):456-475.

Kern, Adam 2006 Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyoshi of Edo Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN-10: 0674022661; ISBN-13: 978-0674022669.

Kinsella, Sharon 2000 Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Masters, Coco August 10, 2006 America is Drawn to Manga. <http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1223355,00.html> NEED BETTER SOURCE

Patten, Fred 2004 Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge.

Schodt, Frederik L. 1986 Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Schodt, Frederik L. 1996 Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press.

Wong, Wendy Siuyi 2002 Hong Kong Comics: A History of Manhua. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Wong, Wendy Siuyi 2006 Globalizing manga: From Japan to Hong Kong and beyond. Mechademia: An Academic Form for Anime, Manga, and the Fan Arts, 1:23-45.

Timothy Perper 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

'Two decades' is likely to get dated quickly - in fact, I'd say we're on to three decades by now, since the sources are a decade old. The huge boom started in the early eighties, right?

I'm also not sure about the sentence listing manga 'themes.' I think what you're trying to express is that manga, as a medium, can tell all kinds of stories, but I think it would be better to just say that (should be easy enough to source) rather than indirectly asserting it with a list of genres. Doceirias 20:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. How about "three or more decades"? Let me work on it. We can fix this.

The term "themes" came from the original Manga entry page. I don't much like it either. I'll work on a version that includes your more direct wording. The source I already gave -- Gravett 2004 -- so that won't be a problem.

Have you looked at my Sandbox page? It has some new material that might interest you.

Once again, thanks -- and I hope more people give equally cogent comments!

Timothy Perper 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying instead of saying "decades" at all, we should just state the time period when it started to become a huge business. Namely, the early 80s, (or whatever the source says it was.) Doceirias 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Manga has been a huge business in Japan for a long time. It partly depends on how one defines "huge." I think that's such a sticky problem that it isn't worth trying to define. It'd be more accurate to say something like "Manga steadily has become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry" or something like that, without trying to date an event on what is, after all, a rising curve of popularity. None of the sources I've seen (Schodt, Gravett, and others) try to pinpoint a specific date. It's like asking for a specific date when films became popular in the United States -- well, some time after they were invented...

A good range would be 1960-1980, but the **easiest** solution is simply to cut the phrase. Then the sentence wouild read "Since the 1950's, manga have steadily become a major part of the Japanese..." and the reference is Schodt. How does that sound to you?

:Timothy Perper 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, yeah. Doceirias 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Revisions to Manga entry

Here are today's edits to the revised introduction. Please comment, either here or on my sandbox, at User:Timothy_Perper/Sandbox. I am NOT going to keep posting these here, since it takes too much space. So again let me repreat my invitation to join in and comment, make corrections, and help format all this.

There *are* changes in this -- new references, reordering, and rewording.

Manga (ñüâÊ, Manga?) listen (help·info) (pl. manga) is the Japanese word for comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku). In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II (Kinsella 2000) but have a long, complex history in earlier Japanese art (Ito 2005, Kern 2007, Schodt 1986). In Japan, manga are widely read by children, adolescent boys and girls, and adult men and women (Gravett 2004). A broad range of subjects and topics occur in manga, including action/adventure, romance, sports and games, historical drama, comedy, science fiction and fantasy, mystery, horror, sexuality, and business and commerce, among others (Gravett 2004). Since the 1950s, manga have steadily become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry (Kinsella 2000, Schodt 1996), representing a 481 billion yen market in Japan in 2006 (Comipress, 2007; approximately 4.4 billion dollars; note 1). Manga have also become increasingly popular in the US and worldwide (Patten 2004, Wong 2006). In 2006, the United States manga market was $175-200 million (Cha, 2007).

Manga are typically printed in black-and-white, although some full-color manga exist (e.g., Kishi, 1998). In Japan, manga are usually serialized in telephone book-size manga magazines, often containing many stories each presented in a single episode to be continued in the next issue (Schodt 1986, Gravett, 2004). If the series is popular, collected episodes may be republished in a paperback book called a “tankobon” in Japanese (Schodt 1986, Gravett 2004). A manga artist (mangaka in Japanese) typically works with a few assistants in a small studio and is associated with a creative editor from a commercial publishing company (Kinsella 2000). Popular manga series are frequently animated after publication (see anime) although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films.

Manga and manga-like comics exist in Korea (“manhwa;" note 2) and in the People’s Republic of China plus Hong Kong (“manhua”; Wong 2002). In France, “la nouvelle manga” is a form of bande dessinée drawn in styles influenced by Japanese manga (note 3). In the United States, manga-like comics are called Amerimanga, global manga, or original English language (OEL) manga (note 4).

MORE COMING

Note 1: <http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=500+billion+yen+in+dollars&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8>.

Note 2: <http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/lexicon.php?id=67>.

Note 3. <http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6318937/Frederic-Boilet-and-the-Nouvelle.html>.

Note 4. <http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/lexicon.php?id=99>.

Cha, Kai-Ming 2007 Viz Media and Manga in the U.S. <http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6430330.html?nid=2789>.

Compress 2007 2006 Japanese Manga Market Drops Below 500 Billion Yen.< http://comipress.com/news/2007/03/10/1622>.

Gravett, Paul 2004 Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Harper Design.

Ito, Kinko 2005 A history of manga in the context of Japanese culture and society. J. Popular Culture, 38(3):456-475.

Kern, Adam 2006 Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyoshi of Edo Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN-10: 0674022661; ISBN-13: 978-0674022669.

Kinsella, Sharon 2000 Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Kishi Torajiro 1998 Colorful: Karafuru. Tokyo: Shueisha Young Jump.

Timothy Perper 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking: if you have these books (or even some of them), please consider adding yourself and these books to the Reference library. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to. In fact, I had tried to do so before but I couldn't figure out how to add the titles. So maybe someone can help me here? Timothy Perper 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised Introduction is Ready to be Put In

The revised Introduction for the manga article has now been completely written and formatted. It is on my user page Timothy Perper/Manga.

This is ONLY the Introduction, since we’re working on the article section-by-section.

Please look at it if you’re interested, but please do NOT make editing changes directly on the draft. Instead, put comments, suggested changes, questions, and so on onto the DISCUSSION page. This procedure avoids a set of complex and messy glitches in how the Introduction is edited.

In a few days, after people have commented (if they want to), we will REPLACE the present introduction of the manga article – that means the main article – with this new, *revised* introduction. The next sections will be replaced later, so, for a while, the main article will have revised and older material in it.

We have already started work on the next section, which deals with the history of manga, but that section is NOT yet complete.

I want to thank everyone for their help! I mean that most sincerely!! Thanks!!!

Special thanks to Wikipedian Peregrine Fisher! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Perper (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Perper 10:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have abbreviated "series category" as SC in the following paragraph, since otherwise it was really hard to read.

There are currently tons of SCs (e.g. Category:Flame of Recca, Category:Dragon Ball, etc.) that have been made into subcategories of everything that the main series article is in. This does not aid in navigation in any way, is confusing, and clutters the supercategories that the SC is being put into with duplicate entries. Please, keep these categories on the actual articles, and only put SCs in categories that won't result in redundant listings.

The only reason I can come up with that people are doing this is to avoid having orphaned categories. To solve this problem, I have made a Category:Anime and manga series categories, which can tie SCs into the overall anime and manga categorization system in a sensible manner.

Also, while we're on the topic of categories,

If a particular series has its own category, then the series article should be placed in the series category, and the series category should be placed in the super categories (Comedy anime and manga, Sports anime and manga, etc.). This avoids the redundancy you are pointing out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But the super-categories probably won't apply to every article in the category. If you put Category:Dragon Ball in Category:Anime of the 1990s, then you're by extension saying every article in it is a 1990s anime, which is just plain wrong.

Categories should only be in supercategories that either apply to the entirety of their contents, or are meta-categories that apply to the category itself. --

talk

08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with tjstrf on everything now, oh and it would be appreciated if more people could help us out, we'd get the job done faster. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

...everything? Wow, that's a big responsibility. I hope I can live up to it.

Also, I'd like to mention that if you think I removed a supercategory that wasn't redundant, feel free to add it back. I'm doing my best to analyze which ones are/aren't redundant, and leaving most of the non-generic (and non-anime,

talk

08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the over-categorization of the Drama category, I would suggest trying to confirm the classification by an external source, such as ANN or other anime/manga listing cite. How much that will reduce the category, I don't know, but it should be a first step. Of course, you also have to realize that many anime and manga contains drama. You just have to determine if it is one of the main themes of the work. --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thought would to also look to see where the most cross-categorization is occurring. I'm thinking Comedy and Drama, and by extension Comedy, Drama, and Romance. One could then create sub categories based on these cross-categorizations. So creating Category:Comedy drama anime and manga and Category:Romantic comedy anime and manga would talk the pressure off of the more general cats. --Farix (Talk) 11:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that really needs defined is what the category is for. I can see it being interpreted as either just a "fallback category" if something doesn't fall into anything more specific as far as the type of plot goes, or as a category for series whose main conflicts are relational "drama" (in other words, romantic non-comedies). Which is it supposed to be? Or is it something else entirely? --

talk

19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Farix, if something is in a subcategory of drama, there is no reason to include the drama category. All romance shows and all action shows and all fantasy shows are by nature dramas. Drama should only be used when there is no other genre. Likewise comedy should only be used if the show is primarily a comedy. Most shows have comedic elements, but that does not warrant the use of the category. I don't think anything would ever need to be both comedy and drama (if there's enough comedy to make it debatable, then it's a comedy), and certainly nothing would ever need to be comedy drama and romance - comedy and romance, sure, but romantic comedy has long been it's own subgenre of comedy. Doceirias 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

talk

20:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I start seriously recategorizing the pages that are in both romance and comedy with the romantic comedy tag though, I have a question. Should

Subcategory, definitely. Doceirias 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, subcategory it is. Just wanting to sanity check my decisions before I waste huge amounts of editing time doing the wrong thing.

This is already starting to be annoying though: while romance+comedy would normally mean romantic comedy, some of the articles I'm reading seem to suggest that this isn't strictly true, and I haven't read the series myself. According to

talk

20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess (without the benefit of having read it) is that this is one of those cases where it is not actually a comedy, but just had the comedy tag slapped on it by editors who put every single genre term even remotely connected with a series. I just removed the romantic category from Crest of the Stars, for instance. Edit: Yeah, comedy isn't in the infobox, so I'm guessing you can just remove the comedy category. Doceirias 21:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the harem genre necessarily imply comedy, though? That's not the impression I got from Harem (genre), though it could be that the article is what needs to be fixed and not the category. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. There are a few shows that fit the 'one guy, many girls' motif without comedy, but I think you'd be hard pressed to call them harem shows. School Days and Elfen Lied, for instance, are on the Harem list, but I think they're stretching the definition. They're taking the tropes of a harem show and using it for a very different purpose, but I think that makes them a different genre.

But that's an entirely separate argument. Maybe we'd be better off not making it a subgenre of romantic comedy until we've got that argument sorted out. Doceirias 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples of harem series that don't use lots of comedy, at least as far as the harem aspect goes within the series. Even in Elfen Lied, whose plot as a whole concerns itself more with brutal decapitation than anything else, the harem elements are heavily played on for comedic purposes. --

talk

21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention my personal theory that Elfen Lied is nothing but an elaborate and mean-spirited parody of the genre. Even the violent bits are played for laughs. Doceirias 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

talk

21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Harem would fit under Romantic Comedy and that would reduce more cross-categorization. The romantic non-comedies are a very rare exception. I also think we need to go through and remove any thing that has been cross-categorized into both Mecha and the Sci-fi categories. I did that some time ago, but its probably crept back in. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is that sourcing it could force us to include an inaccurate genre because that's what the source says.

Mecha/sci-fi is a good one; Adventure/Action is common as well. And all instances of Slice of Life should probably be adjusted to Drama, since that's what it means (although that might be more of an infobox problem than a category one.) Doceirias 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (from

WP:V) And that includes genres. --Farix (Talk

) 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also a place for common sense. And no reason for this conversation to involve dickish wikilawyering. Yes, having a source is great, and a good way to solve arguments. But you suggested sourcing it to ANN, where the information is added by fans and potentially unreliable on issues like genre. We should look for sources that reflect what we believe to be true, rather than dumbly putting in obvious nonsense because that's what the source says. Doceirias 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're adding information to an article that's completely wrong, and you know it, that you can cite it to an external source is really no excuse. It'd be better not to have the info at all. Also, ANN's databases are no more reliable of a source than we are.

I don't have a problem with infoboxes being a bit more specific than the categories. (For instance, I've linked Rurouni Kenshin's infobox to a specific type of "period drama" that we don't have a category for but which it very much falls into.) So I don't see a problem in having slice of life series being listed in the infobox as slice of life and categorized as drama, though the drama category should probably mention that in its description.

Really though, the longer I look at the genre category system, the more I think it's a completely hopeless mess. We have categories that group by theme of setting (Western/Sci-fi/fantasy/school), type of conflict (Action/Adventure/Romance), medium of conflict (Martial arts/sports/mecha), and even by amount of nudity (ecchi/hentai and shonen-ai/yaoi). Also the ones that group by target audience, though those are at least in their own system now. Is it any wonder that people end up horribly confused as to what they're supposed to put in that box? What's even worse is that I see no way of fixing this, since there are so many articles to fix that we'll never achieve consistent classification. --

talk

00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For all of you worried about the various categories and genres of anime and manga articles, we have a new one: Category:Rape anime and manga. I'm guessing it should be deleted following this precedent. I'd nominate it myself, but the process seems kind of complicated.--Nohansen 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

...Just when you think you've seen everything. I'll nominate it for you, so check

talk

05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am a frequent editor of

Hear hear. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The following reference may not help with Akatsuki but it's a good solid **print** source of material on Naruto (plus a number of other anime).

Camp, Brian and Julie Davis 2007 Anime Classics ZETTAI! 100 Must-See Japanese Animation Masterpieces. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge. pages 232-239.

The book just came out. You are SO right about a lack of material in English!

Timothy Perper 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And much of those sources cite the manga. That's clearly against

WP:SELFPUB. KyuuA4

05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of fiction, citing the primary source for in universe info isn't actually a concern as far as accuracy or verifiability goes, in fact, the primary source is THE accurate account of what happened in the work. It just leaves us really weak on the whole "assertion of notability" aspect. --

talk

08:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As tjstrf says. —Quasirandom 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i know that this may not be the right area to discuss this, but i wasn't sure where else to post this and gain a decent amount of anime/manga minded people

but what is everyones thoughts on a possible anime/manga wikipedia set aside on its own, in a sense separate from wikipedia yet also part of... kinda like the subject specific wikipedias that have appeared to be popping up so much lately

mainly we'd be able to orient rules such as image policy and various other things more towards anime/mangas specific needs, set up articles the way that anime/manga feels they need to be split up, instead of the way that wikipedia who looks more at the broad picture then individual sections at times

anyway, just an idea i thought I'd post to see what people think... peace, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That would be the paradize for those persons who refuse to use English names despite the fact that Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia. Kariteh 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How would this deal with existing anime-specific Wikis that have already been set up? Work alongside them to cover series that aren't big enough to warrant the same level of coverage but not duplicate the work already put into those that have by redirecting readers there? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer using a general fiction wikia, since it would be more likely to be accepted as a linkable pseudo sister project for in-universe articles. --

talk

17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea but setting up a wiki is no easy task you'd betetr get alot of people to help out.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's already an anime wikia. However, it doesn't get much use. And if you thought the fan battles on Wikipedia are fierce, then you probably don't want to imagine what those same battles will be over there since it doesn't have policies such as

WP:NOTE, which is our biggest PITA. --Farix (Talk

) 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

well my main qualm with current policy is with the whole image fair use stuff... i feel that it has hit anime/manga articles expecially hard as we/ve had to cut 95% of our images out of articles which has, in my opinion, really effect the quality of the articles... because of that i'd think that if certain articles were to also be migrated over 2 another wiki we may be able to have a Fair Use Rational more specific to anime & manga... idk , prob just a foolish idea of mine but i thought i'd see what others thought... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Blame all that on

Copyright. Regarding anime images, I have to wonder if some high quality fan-art is acceptable as a replacement. KyuuA4

02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

o i have no prob undestanding that is copyright's problem... but its because of wiki policy, or at least the new policy, that is effectin us badly... but ya the fan art is a good idea... i wonder if thats possible... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan art on Wikipedia or the anime Wikia? The argument that fan art is derivative is surely to be brought up as grounds for deletion. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Farix: That's why I believe we should create a new general fiction wikia that retains all of Wikipedia's policies except those that limit/forbid in-universe coverage. All the best parts of Wikipedia would then be maintained. And if we cross-linked to it whenever there's a set of articles merged due to lack of notability, we could bring at least some of the userbase with us. --

Well there is no doubt that anime and manga related articles do kind of get the short end of the stick in relation to rules, regulations, and other forms of control on the Wikipedia. I can't even begin to count how many times we've had to rename the article now titled

so more of a FICTpedia... so are we going to do anything to try to do this, such as get ahold of other fiction groups or somethin.... i mean this is all an amazing idea but it obviously require more planning prior to us doing it... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any concrete plans right now, but I've dropped the idea a few places and gotten positive reception. The hard part isn't just getting the idea accepted though, it's getting the editors to write content. We would need lots of active fiction editors from here, and to make

talk

23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

well personally i think that the best option would be to go for what people may see as the lazy way and just copy and paste most articles, and then let them evolve from there... OR for certain pages that suffered major removal of imformation, to go back oto the old one and work from there, but yet again, thats just the lazy way of doin it, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Can't let much of the In-universe material here go to waste. Best to have a back-up of that material incase of a "Notability Purge". I've seen work relating to other fictional work whose notability is questioned - such as Futurama episode Xmas_Story. Much of the character articles seem to be similar. KyuuA4 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ya ik, which is why i personally think that all of us fictional wiki editors would benefit from setting up a fictional wiki... and reguardless of the fact that school just started im very intersted in doing this and would be willing to help/assist in its creation... but i think we need to get others informed of it too.... not only more in anime/manga but also sci-fi people, other tv shows, and all that... who's in?Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper, myself and a couple of other editors have been working on overhauling the Manga page with the hope of making it a featured article. A new introduction that was written at User:Timothy Perper/Manga has been added (diff). Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. - Peregrine Fisher 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A comment about references. The references that we added stop at #21, and from there on they're from the older entry. The older refs have some minor glitches (from #22 onwards), and we'll fix those when we work our way down through the article. Thanks for all your help, everyone, and please come and join the effort at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox2 and User:Timothy Perper/Manga2, where we're now working on the introduction to the Origins section.

Thanks again, everyone.

Timothy Perper 16:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On the current article as it is standing, the term graphic novel needs to be worked in there. Technically, manga is a type of graphic novel, due to function -- combination text with art. Yet, it is indeed the Japanese variety. KyuuA4 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation! Let me raise some issues that make the question a little less simple.

In Japan, manga are published in serially issued magazines and in tankōbon, and they're not defined as "graphic novels." In the United States, which is our main focus, manga have been published in comic book ("pamphlet") form, which was the main publishing format until several years ago, in magazines like Dark Horse's now defunct "Super Manga Blast", Gutsoon's also now defunct "Raijin" magazine, and in the distinctly NON-defunct "Shojo Beat" magazine from Shogakukan and Shueisha. Also the magazine "Mangajin" used to publish manga. Then, in the past five years or so, publishers like TokyoPop and Viz, followed by others, abandoned the "pamphlet" comic book format and went to what's called a "trade paperback" format. These soon came to be called "graphic novels," and are the current best-selling format for manga in the US.

The upshot of this is that we are planning to discuss the issue of how manga is published in the US in a later section (something about publishers and publication formats). In the Introduction -- where we can't include *everything* -- we have to be succinct but not inaccurate. Hence the wording we used.

By the way, as credentials for what I'm saying, my wife Martha Cornog and I are book review editors for Mechademia: An Academic Forum for Anime, Manga, and the Fan Arts, which is a scholarly journal devoted to the field, and she is Graphic Novels co-editor for Library Journal, where she writes a regular column for librarians and others on graphic novels. She and I are currently editing a book on graphic novels. Please trust me when I say we do not intend any slur against graphic novels!

So, given the history of manga publication, I don't think it's quite accurate to try to **define** manga as "graphic novel," at least not the way that term is used in the US publishing industry.

May I ask you to reconsider your change in the article? That doesn't mean eliminate it, but reconsider it. For example, can we change your wording to something like "Manga are published in the United States in comic book, magazine, and graphic novel formats." And then we can add the appropriate references.

Is that OK?

Timothy Perper 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone put a citation needed note on "komikku." I'm not sure how to respond because I'm not sure what the problem is.

The word "komikku" is defined at Breen's WWWJDIC dictionary simply to mean "comics."

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jwb/wwwjdic?1C

To use this site, simply enter "komikku" and choose Romaji and then search.

We can cite that, if that's the problem. Can someone explain further?

Timothy Perper 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I left something out of my comment above about defining manga as graphic novels. We can cite a number of sources for our usage, but (I admit) assumed that the term was more generally known than that. Those sources include Schodt 1986, Schodt, 1996, and Gravett 2004.

But, the present change, which identifies manga as graphic novels, does not have any sources for defining manga, aside, I mean, from an online dictionary that in fact gives our definition. Let's leave it for a few days, and if no other sources are put in for the change, then we'll change it back to what we had and include the references I just gave plus the online dictionary that KyuuA4 cited. We can then also add the sentence above about manga being published in different formats in the United States with some references.

Is that acceptable?

Timothy Perper 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We're in the final editing stages for the first part of the new "origins" section for the Manga entry, and people are invited again to visit Timothy Perper/Sandbox2 and add comments, suggestions, and observations.

I have also created User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox3 for the next section of "Origins." Please make comments, observations, and so on. Timothy Perper 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand

Agreed. For another example, see

Otoboku. KyuuA4

16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Use the title most English speakers will be familiar with, which is likely Fighting Spirit.

WP:USEENGLISH does state to use the English titles unless the work is better known by English speakers under a foreign title. --Farix (Talk

) 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The "official English titles" part in WP:MOS-AM is kind of a very basic guideline, it's not the important part. The important part is the end of the sentence, which is: "unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form". Overall, it all just amounts to using the most popular title for English-speaking persons (whether this most popular title is English, Japanese, or in theory any language). Kariteh 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This an interesting conflict. The manga came first, and the article should be written to make it clear the anime is derivative, no? So should naming follow the most familiar title for the manga or the most familiar for all versions of the sotry? —Quasirandom 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It could depend on which work is more popular in the English-speaking world, the manga or the anime? It might be difficult to know this for sure though. Kariteh 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In cases where you are not sure, stick with the English title. That is what

WP:USEENGLISH basically states. --Farix (Talk

) 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But the manga still doesn't have an "English title", only the anime does.--Nohansen 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merely semantics that really doesn't matter. --Farix (Talk) 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And in any case, the article should have both versions of the title in bold in the first sentence of the article, and redirects liberally created. —Quasirandom 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And correction. An English title does exist, and it's the one currently used. [2] Anime, manga. Doesn't matter. What, Kariteh just said. KyuuA4 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"only the anime does": Yeah but that's irrelevant. The article isn't about "the manga" or "the anime"; it's about both of them, i.e. about the franchise. Kariteh 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably to distinguish it from

Hellsing (anime) should be a disambig page, not a redirect. Doceirias

00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that was the case, then a disambig wouldn't be needed. Maybe a

Hellsing Ultimate. UnfriendlyFire

03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For a second, I was confused by this change. But I see. It's definitely a move to distinguish the TV series - yes, Hellsing was broadcast on TV - vs the Ultimate OVA. For another example, look at

Ah! My Goddess (TV series). KyuuA4

03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sailor Jupiter and some other characters from Sailor Moon are in Category:GA-Class anime and manga articles. They don't look as good as other GAs I've seen, but that's a place to start. - Peregrine Fisher 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF#List of exemplary articles has a sub-section for characters that have reached FA status. And remember, the great potential these articles have is in real-world information. Tell us things you don't know from just watching the show (avoid an all-plot article). -- Ned Scott

06:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So, as far as notability is concerned, there needs to be enough "Popular Culture" references. Yet, as far as anime/manga characters are concerned, much of that material is Japanese. Most anime/manga character articles tend to have limited (if any) out-of-universe material. KyuuA4 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thinking about notablity concerns (

Chiyo Mihama who have documentable presence in popular culture ... so what else should be said? —Quasirandom

16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Inside information precedes outside information. Aside from the introduction, they start with Personality, Character background, etc. Then all that is followed by out-of-universe information. At least, that is the pattern many of the fictional characters seem to follow. Example: Palpatine. KyuuA4 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines in

WP:FICT suggest otherwise. Or rather, they suggest not creating the character subarticle until you have the outside information needed to establish out-of-universe notability, and until then the inside information should accumulate in the main article. But that's a digression: I'm hoping for guidence on presentation AFTER those steps. That is to say, sequence within the article not order of adding information. —Quasirandom

23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing the demographics for each of the manga magazines. The hole I'm seeing is needing a way to answer the miscorrections/queries whether Aria / Azumanga Daioh / Yotsuba&! / Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou / Et cet. are "really seinen," because they don't match the stereotype of a violent, sexed-up seinen manga. And then there's the eternal wrangling over whether Nana is josei or shoujo. I'm assuming the publisher websites specify the intended demographics, and so could be citable (by someone who reads Japanese). One a citation is in a magazine's article, it can be copied to the series article as needed. —Quasirandom 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good set of questions, but I don't think there are any good or easy answers. One problem is that the "intended" market, reflected in the label the publisher uses for the manga, doesn't tell one who is reading the manga. So you need to decide if you want publishers' labels or actual readerships, including the by-now considerable crossover readership these manga are obtaining. Another problem is asking if it's Japanese or US or international readerships that are of interest.

Yet another problem is avoiding the fanboy-style of stereotyping manga according to perceptions of how sexy, violent, starry-eyed romantic (and so on) it seems to the fanboy who is doing the labeling. These fanboy labels are OK on a blog but they do not, in my opinion, pass the Wiki tests of NPOV and NOR, and they certainly don't pass the test of verifiability, meaning it will be difficult to find reliable citations. For example, is "Ask John" on the AnimeNation website (John Oppliger) a Wiki-reliable source or are his essay-answers to reader questions merely blog-like commercially-motivated opinion?

Another problem area is that these labels -- shonen, shojo, seinen, redisu (josei), and so on -- derive from a LONG history of reader familiarity in Japan. That history is absent in the United States, where the manga-boom began some time between 1995 and 2000. Yes, of course, some US readers were reading Japanese language material in 1980 or 1985, but large-scale American experience with manga and therefore with its genres doesn't date back to 1947 as it does in Japan. In the US, 1997 is closer. So, for Nana, to the American fanboy or fangirl, it's about girls and romance and stuff so it's shōjo, but it's pretty sexy, so it's redisu. My impression is that in Japan it's simply Nana because these labels don't have the meaning or significance they have here.

Finally -- now comes my own opinion -- I don't really think it matters what these labels are. I'm more interested in the nearly-impossible-to-find readership figures than I am in flame wars among the fanboys (and there are lot of those out there!). Some years ago, there was a vicious (I think that's the right word) fight among folks who wanted to create a list of genres for American comics. They came up finally with an elaborate taxonomy, but no one ever uses it. For example, is Mighty Mouse a Talking Animal comic or a Superhero comic? Does it matter? To the flame warriors it counted a lot, and yet not much came of it. What about mutant turtles who are ninjas?

I sympathize to a degree with the taxonomic instinct behind wanting to characterize different kinds of manga, but I also think that the question to begin with is What is the purpose of the classification?

Timothy Perper 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

People like categories. They want to know genres, and whether they might be interested in something because they're in the target audience. Knowing the intended audience also tells us something about the creator's intentions. And possibly the least significant but most imporant, adults can get really weird about works with sexual content approaching the vicinity of teenagers. —Quasirandom 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts! The taxonomic instinct or something like that. The sexuality and teenagers part is also *so* true. I'm most interested in the creator's intentions, and personally don't like being lumped into an anonymous "target audience." So, please understand, I have no objections to classification itself. I just see them as tools. Timothy Perper 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'm interested in sourcing those demographics for the utilitarian reasons I gave. —Quasirandom 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's all articles linked in List_of_manga_magazines#Seinen_magazines with unsourced statements about their demographic. Many of these link to either official website or to ANN articles that do.

• Big Comic Original
• Big Comic Spirits
• Business Jump
• Comic Beam
• Weekly Comic Bunch
• Dengeki Maoh
• Dengeki Moeoh
• Dengeki Teioh
• Ikki (magazine)
• Weekly Manga Action
• Magazine Z
• Monthly Comic Alive
• Sunday GX
• Ultra Jump
• Young Animal
• Young Gangan
• Young King OURs
• Young Magazine
• Weekly Morning
• Afternoon (magazine)

Incidentally, we could use consistancy in how we format lists of manga published by a magazine. Just sayin'. —Quasirandom 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any encyclopedic animanga sites other than ANN? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Animenfo[3], but it's rather poor quality. --Mika1h 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried running a search there for Chameleon Jail, Takehiko Inoue's first manga that seems to be relatively unknown compared to his others and which I'm planning to write an article on, and got no hits. ANN does have it, but the info is sparse. I do have a little info re. its releases from his page, but was wondering if there might be more out there. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Particularly for the main

Newtype. However, as an online source, that magazine is rather limited. Here's a very old source, Ex.org. Unfortunately, it is no longer active, and the material remaining there are old archives. It could still be useful for older series. KyuuA4

07:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Google book search can help find a good mount of references (I'm often very surprised at what I'm able to reference in it). Even when you can't see a complete copy of a book, there is often enough there to let you cite the book itself as a source. On that note, don't forget you can also bug people who own some of these books, as listed in our Reference Library. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally. worldcat.org shows some odds and ends for Chameleon Jail. --Gwern (contribs) 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of discussion and

I've been trying to redirect

Not sure why a phonetic spelling of an English word needs to redirect to French maid, but it definitely should be redirecting to Cosplay. If I searched for Meido, I'd expect to get 冥土, the first entry on that disambig page. Which doesn't seem to have an actual entry. Doceirias 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So I'm saying it should get redirected to the disambiguation page. And 冥土 is just a synonym for the Japanese netherworld,

_dk

06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced that Meido doesn't mean anything but French Maid. Why should it redirect anywhere else?SidiLemine 11:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)---

I'm not sure why this should be redirected to cosplay. Even the AfD doesn't support that position. In fact, most of the merger comments suggest redirecting this to French maid with only one opposed to such a merger. So if you want to go by the consensus in AfD, then the redirect is perfectly valid. At least it is more valid then the current redirect to cosplay. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add that a redirect created through AfD doesn't have to stay the same because of the AfD. Editors should be able to change the redirect to a better target without having to be tied to a previous AfD result, especially when the result does not conform the consensus reached at the AfD to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was

bold and changed the redirect. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

12:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Meido would be / would have been a good place to try to hold this discussion. -- JHunterJ 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the other suggestion from the AfD - Cosplay restaurant#Meido. There it explains the phenomenon, and makes reference to the French maid aspect as well. Confusing Manifestation 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to the disambiguation page. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind typing 'meido' to get a page on maids. They would just type maid. It's an English word. If someone is typing 'meido' then the disambig page is more likely to get them what they want. I added a link from the disambig page to the French maid article just in case. Doceirias 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to move Meido (disambiguation) to Meido? --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I used the {{db-movedab}} to get that to an admin's attention, and the move has been made. -- JHunterJ 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with {{

The need for piping doesn't happen often. I think it's more work typing out the [[ brackety thingies ]] each time instead of having to do it in full once in a while. (at least that's what I understand from you saying 'dropping the wikilink completely')

Another question on this - I don't think there is a similar template for

drama CD

voice actors? Now I usually type up something mimicing the template like

Drama voice by: or

Drama role by:

Granted, they don't come across as much as actual seiyuu, so I don't mind just typing it out. Ninja neko 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of convenience, keeping the link code in the template is preferable. It would probably be more intuitive for lx to be the target rather than the appearance, though. —TangentCube, Dialogues 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It comes up more often with English VAs then Japanese. It would also be less counterintuitive if the template doesn't create the wikilinks. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do some voice actor articles have blood type? This does not seem encyclopediac at all for an English-language project like this. What is the need to give out this sort of private information? •

Probably added due to

Japanese blood type theory of personality. It's like adding an astrological sign, trivia. Ninja neko

13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll re-add the two I removed earlier, unless it's a problem. Please let me know. •

Lawrence Cohen

15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)