Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 35

Rather than being removed completely, the section can be converted from its current format to the excellent one in the featured article Madlax: Fictional setting of Madlax. I feel this is a very good benchmark to which other similar sections could be converted. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I never liked the idea of "Fictional setting of" and "World of" articles. They are doomed to a Start-class existence, a foul compromise. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is at all possible, that'd be great. As it is right now, an unsourced list of clearly excessive plot, I feel it should be removed. Thanks for your opinions.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these can easily be moved to the format shown in Madlax, since much of the section appears to be based around the "Hell's Gate" setting and pretty much everything seems to revolve around that. I can get to working on this section and converting it to the Madlax format. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Sections such as Terminology, Setting, Characters, etc. are all part of the in-universe coverage. The question is whether the section's contents is needed to understand the work to an encyclopedic extent or not. Especially for longer series, writing episode summaries for example becomes increasingly difficult without the ability to link certain terms and names. But Wikipedia is not a guidebook. "I came to wikipedia specifically looking for this information" is not a reason to keep the section. If linking to the section's elements is minimal, it might be better to merge it into the plot section or to outright remove it. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on this note, can someone deal with the ridiculously overused free-use images on the

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the series pretty well (in fact, I'm trying to write the episode summaries in my spare time). What do you need? I was under the impression that basically all of the images need to be removed aside from the image of the main characters. The rest are generally unimportant, unless a picture with more characters can be found.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a main antagonist, but he doesn't appear as the main antagonist until the last episode. What you've done is probably good for now until someone who knows the series and is well-versed in non-free images can stop by.

NOCTURNENOIR ⁽ t • c

) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the info. ^_^ ~

?

21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Passed by that article. I'm rather satisfied on how the OST was handled (Good job) so i added its best chart ranks with a reference to Oricon.--KrebMarkt 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

{{

I was reading over the previous TfD and was reminded of what is perhaps one of my best lines yet. Ah nostalgia. --Farix (Talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a brewing edit war over at Anime Pulse regarding referencing and cleanup tags. --Farix (Talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Closet warfare. I proposed them to go to Afd discussion so it will bring the issue in the open as both are claiming righteousness. --KrebMarkt 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. Don't these people have anything better to do? >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We need some more people to get involved. One IP editor in particular seems to have some

WP:OWNrship issues over the article. --Farix (Talk

) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll lend my hand. ~

?

02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A huge

WP:COI red flag has just on up. The IP account that has been showing [WP:OWN]]rship tendencies is apparently connected to the podcast. --Farix (Talk

) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deuuh...

Both belligerants have negatives scores in my opinon, between the WP:COI case and the Its Japanese so left to ja:wiki... --KrebMarkt 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh... >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One of them crossed the line. Personal attack + CIO. (Concurrent podcast).

Maybe this page will need to be locked. potential sore loser ? --KrebMarkt 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is back on track. There's some debate about whether the Podcasting Awards are well-known and independent and whether being nominated multiple times means the podcast is notable. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going around in circles with Ichigo over whether the

WP:WEB. So more input is needed. --Farix (Talk

) 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as list of works go, you would be referring to

WP:LOW#Books in languages other than English. As for why no include summaries for each work, let me turn the question around. Why include summaries when all other LOWs on non anime and manga bios don't include them? Why should anime and manga bios be an exception to general practice? --Farix (Talk

) 01:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...a biography isn't the place for plot summaries and the like, its about the person's life. --

talk · contribs

) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily plot summaries, but at least something describing the works, as the works are what they are notable for. I mean, an article on Hayao Miyazaki that didn't talk about the movies he's made would be grossly incomplete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On

?

03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For particularly prolific authors, would a "Works of ..." or "Bibliography of ..." article be appropriate? (not that I'm asking of necessity, I'm just curious) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

After the

Started Talk:Yuri_(genre)#Erika_Friedman_RS_Redux to discuss the on whatever Erika Friedman is a RS for manga & anime. KrebMarkt 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was getting ready to do that -- following over there. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a notice in Portal_talk:LGBT. --KrebMarkt 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether Erika Friedman's blog is a reliable source should be taken over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead. That's because the discussion at Talk:Yuri (genre) will be an echo chamber --Farix (Talk) 21:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered : Erika Friedman RS for yuri ?
She is RS for yuri field. --KrebMarkt 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Should i put her on the Project references list with all precaution? It will avoid to have this discussion again and again --KrebMarkt 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, although you should make sure to note that she shouldn't be used to source anything controversial or BLP-related (to basically quote Peregrine Fisher word-for-word). On that topic, it may require more discussion in the future. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 06:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i asked the RS notice board to inquire about : Comics Village & Comic Book Bin so may have more confirmed RS before the end of the week ;) --KrebMarkt 06:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for that. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to ping the Comics WikiProject to see if they have a list of RS they use. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Better starting a now discussion section for our big RS sources overhaul brainstorming. --KrebMarkt 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all. I was recently made aware that taking episode summaries from the companies that publish them (i.e. the episode summaries found on websites, iTunes, and in TV guides) was a copyvio. I have made several of these articles myself (

Yes, they are

talk · contribs

) 02:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on replacing those summaries as soon as possible. I have those episodes on hand (but I haven't gotten the time to write those summaries yet). Thanks for the quick response.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) If it helps, when I do them, I find it easier to do the summary while watching (or right afterwards), then culling it down to the appropriate size after, rather than trying to write it to the right size from the get go. :) --

talk · contribs

) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I usually watch while writing. At least this will make me prepare these for FLC sooner than I expected.

NOCTURNENOIR ⁽ t • c

) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do remember that episode summaries should be concise—anywhere from 100 to 200 words but no more then 350 words for complex plot lines—and complete, including all important details. This may sometimes seem like opposing goals, but it just takes practice. --Farix (Talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, iirc, G.A.S told me that we should be running 150-300 words... I'm trying to stick to 200-300, but we'll see how it goes.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I've been following a note left by whoever did the assessment for List of Aria episodes and keeping it in the range of 150-200 words. Have I been squeezing too much, for those plottier episodes? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly :) The exact guideline is "100-200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines", so between 200-300 seems good to me for most anime series. --

talk · contribs

) 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Aria is not exactly known for complex storylines -- quite the reverse. But maybe I should aim for 200 but allow myself 250 if I'm hurting to get there. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't come from Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected article or the others two as no edit were made there in the last few months.
Any clue ? --KrebMarkt 09:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Related to a software update performed in the last few hours. More information can be found on the

village pump. 「ダイノガイ千

？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 09:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Guessing that's the same reason Twinkle is being wonky? --

talk · contribs

) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes even Jimbo got concerned by that one ;) --KrebMarkt 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, see

WT:TW/BUGS#TW-B-0255. BTW, do you have a link for Jimbo's concern, Kreb? Sounds like an interesting read... =) 「ダイノガイ千

？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Humm i in after though, i think i missread the post but still if you look closely in the Twinkle issues section, his talk inwiki appear out of the nowhere. --KrebMarkt 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle issues were resolved with rev:47457. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a problem at List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters‎ with an editor, Angas (talk · contribs), that keeps changing the location of one of the character, but refuses to participate in the discussion on the talk page. The editor mostly edits under a dynamic IP in the 122.2.x.x range. Most all of the contributions from this editor and IP range is to move the character around and add their own annalists. --Farix (Talk) 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In my short watch list, even it isn't my cup of tea --KrebMarkt 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the Erika's Friedman issue, i think some RS brainstorming is needed.

My input : Erika Friedman is RS BUT shouldn't be used to source anything controversial or BLP. That from the RS notice board.

I also put Comics Village & Comic Book Bin in the RS noticeboard for input.

Ok i got the RS stamp from the RS notice board for those two websites RS Approved --KrebMarkt 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At Quasirandom request The references pages of the project comics.

Another avenue is to check the parents TransWiki anime-manga project for RS. My first is prob is so-so. French Wiki have already listed the 2 big French manga/anime website as RS. The Italian is near-utter craps references wise but need another check. Japanese Anime/Manga project is too full of links and the language barrier doesn't help.

Please feel free to post your refs or discuss the posted ones. --KrebMarkt 14:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got an editor over at Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam 00 insisting that the image in the infobox be an English cover or title instead of the Japanese DVD cover. Comments are welcomed. --Farix (Talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And a sock has came out to play. --Farix (Talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm up against 3RR at this point - seems there is some insistance that this American comic use the animanga infoboxes, which I have addressed on both talk page and edit history - despite which I have now been given a warning that my "unexplained edits" may get me b&. Anyone else care to take a swat or three at this? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and also tagged for notability. --

talk · contribs

) 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it an actual manga per Wikipedia standards (nor the meaning of the word in American usage). Its an American comic tagged with a marketing catchphrase. If there are reliable sources for it, the article can note that it was "inspired by manga" but it isn't a real manga as far as Wikipedia goes, and it would fall under the auspicies (and infoboxes) of the Comics helm. --

talk · contribs

) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That one was created right from our requested article list by Extremepro and it's doesn't even need one day to start flames. More seriously, we have stil few OELs in our requested articles list so i propose to refuse any further request for OLE and accept to create article for the fews which are already on the list and have received the probing check. What is ambiguous is that the publisher of OELsare the ones of manga so people tend to make their request in the manga/anime project. --KrebMarkt 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those MICs need to come out of the list and maybe made more clear that they don't belong there. Not within the project scope and they aren't manga. --

talk · contribs

) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Found Juror 13 and Undertown. i may have missed one along the way. --KrebMarkt 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that the other day, but couldn't find a satisfactory place they should be listed, so didn't touch it. Maybe we should ask about it over at

WT:COMICS... 「ダイノガイ千

？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At worst i suggest, we handle them ourself as the references hunting part have been mostly done BUT no more new OEL request. --KrebMarkt 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems that according to the cover, the correct title is Yōkaiden. I moved the page. ~

?

19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Extremepro solved our issue. He created the article for both OEL publication. I boldly took the opportunity to give him a Barnstar for his renewed work in our Requested Article Department. I also wrote something redirecting to the comics requests list for OEL.--KrebMarkt 07:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

tvdrama-db.com I found this site while searching for episode dates. The published version is listed by

If that's true, then I would say it would be a reliable source. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

here - TV drama database - their collection policies detail that they only use "...current core materials of the highest academic quality..."じんない 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now, there's no official Japanese versions of Italian TV series

We need some idea to fix the situation like this. And we need closer co-operations with all the editions of Wikipedia and other sites, to prevent false facts being spread over the web. -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from listing sources for eachrole (which we should be doing anyway), theres notmuch you can do to prevent it. It's no different to any article, remove and revert unverified data, and source everything else Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi All,

I'm looking for listings of Manga artists in Japan or elsewhere (particularly interested in the UK, China and Korea). Any suggestions? Thanks! --SidiLemine 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See List of manga artists. Note that the term "manga artist" refers specifically to those artists producing works in Japan commonly agreed to be manga (since, for various reasons, not all comics produced in Japan could be considered manga). Korean comics (manhwa), Chinese comics (manhua), and UK comics artists aren't covered in this list, and generally don't have much to do with manga anyways. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

P3DRO has created 3 stub articles for characters from Lost Universe with no new information added. I've tagged these for merging and notified him, but should I go and redirect them or give him some time? The articles are bare-bones and I doubt without some very serious effort that any information added would be enough to justify notability beyond the main article.じんない 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but this user is bellow the 50 contributions [11]. Giving it some time (not much thought) per

WP:DONTBITE would show some courtesy even if the conclusion is near-forgone with the spin-out reverted and redirects added IMO. --KrebMarkt

18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to go the other way. Newer editor who doesn't know better, redirect them and leave him a note explaining notability, spinouts, etc and inviting him to start a discussion for a consensus if he feels those characters can meet the requirements of a new article per the applicable guidelines (with links of course) :) --

talk · contribs

) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Both can be done, wait a bit then shove him/her with a deluge of guidelines, policies & manual of styles :p --KrebMarkt 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the middle road. I put the merge templates and posted on the talk page that these articles would likely be redirected unless substantial efforts were made, but I am willing to give the newcomer some time. It won't hurt the long run to do so as I have the page on my watch list if the articles don't improve significantly after a reasonable period of time I'll redirect them.じんない 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Over at

Its an unreliable source of fansub/pirate "reception" and blatantly violates

talk · contribs

) 02:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to get my eyes tested, I didn't see the copyvio before, but i can see it plain as day in the google search summary. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I received a message on my talk page after my revert, so I've explained the issue with the link and directed him here if he wishes to discuss it further Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the ANN link could be discussed, while we all know ANN is a reliable source, the link and point being made is still based on its user reviews, which we state are not RS Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ANN is a reliable source. ANN user reviews are not, only ANN staff reviews. That link wasn't appropriate --

talk · contribs

) 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, surprised it lasted that long, but then the page isn't exactly in great shape. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Very very true. It and Reflection were "kept" in a merge discussion awhile back because people said they were going to improve it to show notability. Since then, no one has done much with either. --

talk · contribs

) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Here's a question. Why are we including "fan ratings"? I wouldn't think that fan ratings would be reliable, even if it is from a site such as ANN. My view is that on-line popularity polls have no credibility whatsoever. Surely this series has received plenty of creditable reviews to build a reception out of that we don't have to depend on polls. --Farix (Talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its been removed. Agreed it didn't belong there, and was not a good thing to include (no better than IMDB ratings). --

talk · contribs

) 03:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across this site from a seiyuu article here. It's a seiyuu database, but rather then being run by a random fan, it's run by a japanese baseball player! Hitoshi_Doi

The best thing is, the site is in english. Can someone more experienced then me decide if its possibly RS or not. I wish to use it in a few articles, so I'm throwing it out there. If not I'll settle for it being a valid External link if possible Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Doi is pretty damn reliable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope so, that site is a goldmine. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From the information page: "Special care has been taken to verify the information, but there may be some mistakes." I would avoid using it for this reason.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 06:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Even the biggest RS sites make mistakes Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for an opinion, right? If that opinion doesn't go the way you want it to, don't just shoot it down like that.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 06:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

By no means was I shooting down the reply, quite the opposite - I was responding to a potential stumbling block! It was a fair comment, and that sort of disclaimer is common not only on web sites, but in printed media, adverts, all sorts - even if it's worded somewhat differently ("errors and omissions expected" usually in my part of the world).Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While it might be popular and have some good information, it looks like its more of a personal/amateur site both from its appearance and because of the statement above. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't be the only one to remember a long heated discussion about whether or not Doi's site could be used as an RS? I think the consensus was that it's not because it's a fan site - though I'm inclined to disagree, mainly because I've seen a lot of OTHER sites cite Doi's over the years.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here it is. I was wrong, it looks like in fact he IS in fact considered an RS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable with the usual limitation related to self published website IMO. Do we have consensus on that or shall we declare a re-match --KrebMarkt 13:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one endorse the previous consensus, absent any new information about potential unreliability. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Was not aware that there was a previous discussion on this. In that case, we should follow previous consensus; there has not been any new information published about this source that would deem it unreliable. Sorry for my confusion.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 17:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem ;) We all want to avoid that kind of issue to appear during the worst circumstance namely during Afd like it did with Girl Friends. So better to resolve it here than during an Afd. I will modify the list of RS in the project page to reflect the recent additions and confirmation this weeks-end. Thanks --KrebMarkt 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

KrebMarkt, you should probably also add Furinkan.com as per this discussion Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Hitoshi Doi's site is considered reliable by many, many places. It's been used as a resource for numerous periodical articles and books, he's been interviewed many times for articles and even a TV show or two. His site has been there since the beginning of the public internet, and has only grown since then. It's definitely a reliable source. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks to the previous discussion that was linked and the replys since the link, I've already used it 4 times in a sandboxed article :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When you're using him as a source, don't forget to link to his article in the citation - it helps to give context on him that could be useful to a reader. For example, in

hikkomori) and Takayuki Tatsumi (Japanese literary scholar). By following those links, you can see how their expertise is in the field and what people have said about them. --Malkinann (talk

) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm going to make a case, which I think is fairly compelling, for http://www.aestheticism.com/ - a

I would support it as a reliable source, based on the information you provide above. Perhaps we should be creating a list of these reliable sources, in the same vein as

WP:ANIME/R? Maybe add them to the latter in a website section? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}

02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of just on the front page? I've been wondering about that. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, especially if the list becomes too large. The main page already has a lot of things on it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can aestheticism be counted as a reliable source when it has translations of manga up on its site? They aren't scanlations (from the one I've seen), as they don't substitute any text into the actual art, but they use prose (Such as "Panel 1: Why are you doing this?"). However, it does contain selected images from the manga. Other than that, a list of reliable sources may be nice... WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as that kind of use would likely be covered under fair use. Just have a translation of something is fine as the translation is considered a separate work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

cal.syoboi.jp

After two tries on the RS notice board

Can anyone give it a try and assess whatever it's RS ? There is around 8 FL using refs from this website. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 08:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability cannot be verified. It is not referenced by other sources and the info page about the site does not reveal much. While the site is not user-editable (as far as I can tell), reliability does not exist because it is unclear if the site is peer-reviewed or put together by an expert group of people. Safest best is to avoid it (although I have yet to see it be wrong with airdates and titles).

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c}

) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that. We really need to secure for the anime project a RS for original broadcasts dates as it will come to haunt us again with each anime FL review. --KrebMarkt 21:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can look up date ranges in a few books I have, but finding actual listings of all the dates is a problem. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I created an account there, though that just allows me to change my settings (which channels are visible, etc.) and doesn't allow me to edit the information. I'd say it would be a useful source as long as you can find another source for the information for verification (such as a magazine listing, for instance). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Ok At least cal.syoboi.jp can used as a lead to the related TV channels programs page.

AT-X: http://www.at-x.com/program/index.html

Weeks programs can be hot linked by adding ?week_data_id=week_id (see code source for list week id) to the URL. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For reference our last discussion about Class A Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 33#A-Class, for real

Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment started a Rfc about Class A

Our project will mostly not be affected as to quote Malkinann :
Part of the problem with A-class is that the content is meant to be "complete" - the people most likely to be able to assess that in terms of the manga and anime project's articles are the ones who are already working on the articles and seeking the assessment.
--KrebMarkt 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One result of that IRC discussion was an agreement that A-Class should be separate from GA/FA-class, as a WikiProject-specific assessment vs. community-wide assessments (according to the Signpost, at least - see the "IRC discussion on various A-Class proposals" summary). What will ultimately come of that conclusion, and how such results might be applied to the assessment system, remain to be seen. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cough, i was one of the five participants of that Irc meeting :p --KrebMarkt 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Sorry, I didn't know that (haven't bothered to look at the actual discussion log)... I was merely stating the result for anyone else reading it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant even within the group - for example, in

New Cutey Honey's peer review, I was only able to provide stylistic tweak suggestions and some queries, because I haven't seen the show or done my own reading about Cutey Honey. I meant specifically the people who were working on the articles, not the project as a whole. --Malkinann (talk

) 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's true that those seeking the assessment probably are the best to judge it's completeness overall, but information on various media can be checked easily. However if it's comprehensive it would require someone with knowledge about the particular item which outside task-forces or the random person is unlikely to be anyone but the nominee knowing if it's pretty much complete. However since an A-assessment is project-based their is a higher-chance than asking someone at random on Wikipedia of getting someone who has watched/read/listened to it.じんない 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Been meaning to ask this, but kept forgetting. Where is the cutoff line for what denotes an anime/manga video game? The issue came up with Rune Factory 2 because it uses anime characters for all personal interactions, but it has been contested. The scope says "Nor do media, particularly video games, in which anime or manga characters make incidental or out-of-context appearances." so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "incidental" usage. Furthermore RF2 also has a manga series based around it as well to help muddy the waters more.じんない 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that, unless a visual novel, it isn't covered under our scope. They are made in the same style, but remember: it's only interactions, nothing else, and it wasn't based on a manga/anime series. If we went by anime cutscenes, we'd get a boatload of new pages as well. Several video games use this style, such as

Star Ocean: First Departure and Jeanne d'Arc (video game). Whether or not it has a manga series based on it is irrelevant; I remember a discussion or statement somewhere that we don't cover pages with small sections explaining manga/anime. WhiteArcticWolf (talk

) 02:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a bit different than a cutscene as the style is somewhat designed around anime-style and unlike a cutscene it's an interactive non-passive element central to the game (you can skip most custscnes or ignore them in most games, but you can't get around the character interactions and the dating sim aspect of the game. It may still not quite qualify as not enough, but it's not the same use as a cutscene usage in terms of "incidental".じんない 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As the person who originally disputed that RF2 was within our scope, I still feel that it's not, but have already stated I wouldn't fight over it. =) As I understand our scope, we only cover video games when they are either adaptations of an existing manga/anime franchise, or when they spawn a significant animanga franchise; one that requires more than a couple paragraphs' coverage. IMHO, the specific style of the game in question doesn't really have anything to do with it. However, this particular area is rather hazy, and others may not agree with me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that the project seems to be leaning toward manga artist articles using {{

I personally don't see the advantage over cite book for the project. For starters cite comic requiresthe full publication date, something not always available for manga (in my experience, we have to reply on Amazon providing it, which isn't always an option. Tokyopop for example, only give the month and year). The only field I can see being any use is the volume field, but tbh theres no reasn not to list the volume numbe in the title field of cite book Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Panel could be useful too. However the required date rather than issue or month/year would be a showstopper for a lot of manga.じんない 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a lot of examples on the documentation use month/year, like

?

02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, {{cite book}} does just fine and per above better suited for our needs in most cases. --Farix (Talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually as the only thing I can see being useful not already in cite book is panel, it would be easier to see about adding that to cite book in the rare case that citing a specific panel was important.じんない 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's what caught my attention. The panel thing. Can story arcs be implemented using cite book? I have no idea about that one. ~

?

02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would bring this up at {{Cite book}} as it seems that for manga that template is still preferable. I can't see why they would refuse it with a reasonable argument of how it could help for graphic novels considering they already have tons of specialized use variables already.じんない 03:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary, nor really appropriate as most "arcs" are fan divisions not supported by the actual manga volumes. --

talk · contribs

) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcs, no panels yes. Graphic novels are often covered by cite book and citing a specific panel can be useful, like citing a specific page statement.じんない 06:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see any usefulness in attempting to cite a panel at all, particularly the way manga panels tend to be laid out. Citing a page is specific enough, without citing a specific "sentence" or "word" which is what citing the panel is equivalent to. --

talk · contribs

) 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of several reason. Articles where you are quoting text from a text-heavy manga such as Death Note is one good example. Another one is when you are citing something that is printed in small text or the picture may not be apparant to the causal reader, such as citing the usages of xxxHolic's prolific mentioning of obscure anime/manga/pop-culture references.じんない 09:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I never use {{

talk · contribs

) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got the {{

?

02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase

WP:BK#3 for you: "The manga has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable piece of art." -- I would certainly consider video games to be a form of art. And if the game is a direct adaptation of the manga then that would certainly be a significant contribution. The key word is "notable piece". If the game itself is notable, then the answer is yes. -- Goodraise (talk

) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that will give me more avenue to assert notability --KrebMarkt 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, Tanoshimi has ceased acquiring new licenses or releasing new manga volumes, although they have stated that they intend to continue reprinting those volumes they've already released.[15] Can anyone find any press releases or other reliable sources talking about this? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 04:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. That's exactly what ADV Manga said they were doing, when they went on hiatus at the start of 2008. They in fact never reprinted anything and without announcement released the license to their far-and-away best-selling series (per BookScan, half of what they sold in 2007 was Yotsuba&!). Not a good sign for Tanoshimi, even if they're a Random House imprint with deepish pockets. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ADV as a whole has been a bit of a joke for a few years, despite being one of the key publishers of the late 90s/early 2000s. They even closed their Uk office, with ADV in the states blaming piracy for the decision (ignoring the fact they had no decent titles being released in the uk at the time, and Manga Entertainment UK had completely revived themselves by having..... decent titles!) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tanoshimi seems to have been completely out of it for some time... The latest release according to their catalog was June 5, 2008 (and the last news entry on their website is dated September 16, 2007). In addition, the pages for some of their earliest releases seem to have all but vanished - Tsubasa 1, for instance. The link I provided in my original comment just happens to be the first mention of what's happened that I've been able to find. And I'd really like to be able to read more of Y&!, I really like it... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not encouraging signs for Tanoshimi, those. I'm not finding much newswise though -- sorry. Yen Press has picked up Y&! -- next volume in September. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing is rather disappointing, and actually somewhat surprising, considering some of the titles they were releasing, combined with the fact that they're the UK equivalent of Del Rey, which is pure awesomeness in and of itself IMHO... That'd be great, but I haven't even read volume 5 yet... =( 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor just added a

What is the Japanese name? That possibly could find more sources as I doubt it is in English in Japan.じんない 09:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any kanji, but an on-wiki search suggests that the Lucky Star character Meito Anizawa is Anime Tenchō... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been started to determine if

These articles have remained separate for a long period of time without all of the controversy. Considerable work has been put into them. And again, merging all of them into one article - which would be of considerable length - would make such an article too long and complex to be viable. These articles do not contain controversial or sensitive information. I hardly think that keeping the articles in their current form is as big a cataclysm as it is being depicted. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Also, there are plenty of articles shorter than these on wikipedia that haven't raised so many objections.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)_

As I explained above, the resulting length of the list is a false argument. These articles have not been touched before simply because no one has taken the time and expended the energy to attempt a cleanup. And we are not making a "cataclysm" out of this; on the contrary, everyone here understands that we're not working under a

deadline and there is no need to rush. That being said, if you ask for a certain amount of time to attempt to save these articles, and no significant improvement is made in that time, merges may proceed posthaste. Ultimately, more than anything, we'd like for you to cooperate in this cleanup, since it's quite evident that you're close to the series and thus probably know better than most of us what information is necessary for an overview of each character. 「ダイノガイ千

？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest that the longer articles on the major characters (
  Maia Sterling
  , etc.) remain separate.
• Articles like
  Marcus Rush
  are borderline - I need to think about them more.
• After thinking about this, some of the articles (such as
  Anatole Leonard) can be merged as they are not long enough and deal with relatively minor characters.(Hyperionsteel (talk
  ) 05:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

The two Lynn Minmay articles should be merged into each other. They are after all the same character in essentially parallel universes. Given that Super Dimension Fortress Macross is the primary work, the character page should reflect that, with a section on her Robotech differences (where appropriate). The same for Lisa Hayes (you can make Lisa Hayes a redirect to the other article). While I think it's a good idea to leave the major characters until the other pages have been merged, they still need to prove their notability at some point. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As suggested, we could start with the ones you're willing to concede should be merged while you work on finding real-world info on the others, with the exception of Lynn Minmay above. 1 article is enough for a character.じんない 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the following articles being merged: (

With regard to Lynn Minmay and Lisa Hayes, I don't think merging the Robotech and Macross articles is a good idea. Robotech and Macross are not parallel universes. The English Robotech is a completely separate story arc from Macross. Also, Lisa Hayes in particular remains a notable character beyond the first Robotech Saga, none of which has a parallel in Super Dimension Fortress Macross.

My past experience is that mixing Macross and Robotech articles is too confusing and complicated due to the different story lines, characters, translations, and events outside of the 36 original episodes.

For more minor characters (such as the

I think the VF-1 Valkyrie article can be salvaged, since it has third party sources that can be put into the article, because it was a popular toy, with mentions in toy magazines. As for the other vehicles, they can be merged into the list of vehicles. A Robotech universe article sounds like a good idea. I think that Zentraedi and Invid should remain separate articles, since they are main features of this fictional universe. Robotech Wars should also merge into the universe article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

-Possible third party sources, should anyone have the print issues -- Protoculture Addicts and Mecha Press 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd post that question on some other relevant wikiprojects.じんない 09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know which issues of the magazines have Macross/Robotech information? If so, you could ask the individuals associated with the issues on the magazine reference library. Some of the general books on the book reference library might also have information. (*cough*Anime Explosion*cough*) --Malkinann (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone posted about this on the wikicomic project - having looked at some of the articles, I'd suggest you get merging/transwiking pretty quickly before people like me start AFDing the articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here know about the sources (probably hundreds of independant RSs) that are available in Japanese? Is that a consideration? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 11:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Robotech is an American phenomenon, with recut/heavily edited/changed stories, so most of the Japanese sources on Macross, Southern Cross and Mospaeda do not count. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Though for VF-1 Valkyrie, that's a joint Robotech-Macross article, so Japanese sources are fine for that one. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Though for

SDF-2 Megaroad-01, that's a joint Robotech-Macross article, so Japanese sources are fine for that one. 76.66.193.90 (talk

) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is http://anime-wiki.org an eligible target for transwiki? The articles before we start merging things together, as-is, might be transwikied there. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it can be added there and it can be added at wikia projects such has this [16] and this [17] --SkyWalker (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged

I have merged this following articles for failing

The articles which have not been merged yet are :-

More discussion is needed. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Claudia Grant, the Macross Operators, and Zor Prime could be merged. However, the other characters are more central to the Robotech plot and the series as a whole (which spans 3 generations). They should not be merged.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

If the characters have not received significant coverage by third-party sources, then they must be merged, deleted, or transwikied. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If it can help to estabilish notability,

Ariel (Robotech) were the testimonials of the spot produced by Harmony Gold for the United Nations 60th anniversary (see Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles web site with the video in english and spanish [18]), but i don't see mention of this in their articles. --Yoggysot (talk

) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Stub class prevents an article from becoming a DYK. Could you reassess Viper's Creed to a Start class? Many DYK articles that are shorter and less developed than this article are not rated as a stub class on the talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To ask for a reassessment, the

?

01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is imo a stub class, however it is close to being start. The reason it is still a stub class is it does not really have a reception/impact section nor related media section/music section. If this is a series, then there are undoubtably multiple forms of media. The sections don't have to be significant (that's for higher grades), but the lack of either shows that it is still a stub.じんない 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not always. Looking at the Japanese Wikipedia page and the official website, there's no mention of other media, and besides music is almost always merged into the episode lists now, so it's not applicable. That said, I also see this article as a stub, as it's lacking many sections detailed at

WP:MOS-AM including characters and reception. Normally, I wouldn't bring up the subject of reception for an article to be assessed Start (as not even C class articles always have reception) though in this case (per the utter lack of other media types) I feel the article would need the additional information. However, it also has extensive referencing for such a tiny article, so this may be an exception. Either way, it's been reassessed as Start now, I see, so good luck with the DYK.--十八

02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It does have extensive referencing for it's size, I'll agree.じんない 04:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with nihongo skillz assist with the names and titles listed in High School Debut#Light novels? I'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gah, that's a hard one. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

tan³ (TangentCube) has done it Again ;) --KrebMarkt 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the romaji -- still need a couple titles translated. But yes, thanks to the 3-dimensional one for the assist. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a search field in the archive box to allow searching of just the archives of this page. Enjoy! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How does The Anime Critic measure up? --Masamage ♫ 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that would pretty clearly be a complete failure of RS. Its a personal, self-published website by, basically, a nobody. Pete Harcoff designed the THEM Anime website, but wasn't a contributer, so no borderline notability from there. --

talk · contribs

) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then! XD Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide me with a list of GA or B-class seiyū's? I'm trying to get

They should all be listed here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks, I don't know why I didn't look their first. ^~Moon~

と暁

^~Sunrise~ 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we even have one? I know we have two B-class biographies, but neither is a seiyū. ~

?

01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the GA link. It's just anime characters. Oh, well I'll just build it up to the best I can and hope it passes a GA nomination in the future. ^~Moon~

と暁

^~Sunrise~ 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in general seems to have a lack of quality voice actor articles. Focus now on referencing, but it may do you well to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Many video games have voice actors, and the article structure between a voice actor for cartoons and one for video games would be nearly identical, if not so. WP TV covers cartoons and WP Comics can overlap with comics such as Batman and Superman, which were all made into animated series. Good luck! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. ^~Moon~

と暁

^~Sunrise~ 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You may also try focusing on the really well known ones outside of Japan as they will be more likely to have references you can use: Megumi Hayashibara, Sumi Shimamoto, Kappei Yamaguchi, and Kikuko Inoue are four which come to mind immediately, and all of them have a decent start on the articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting picks there, the 3 leads from Ranma ½, and the female lead from Maison Ikkoku? A Rumiko Takahashi fan Nihonjoe? :p I agree though Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really a Ranma fan, but I love Maison Ikkoku. I was mainly trying to pick a few that were very well known in the English-speaking world. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested, we have the Biography Workgroup. There's only four members right now so we're kind of limited in what we can do. We have a Seiyu stub category but as far as I know we don't have any developed Seiyu articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll join. Maybe Miyano will became the first seiyū. That would be such an accomplishment. ^~Moon~

と暁

^~Sunrise~ 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear you there. I'm trying to get

?

00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The mergers have been slow, but going well. Sourcing has improved on the character list tremendously, though there is a lot that could be done. Still, I'm battling lots of insertions of original research and of excessive plot details and I can use some help here. I could also use some help with the growing charges that I'm not actually cleaning up the articles but "merely destroy [sic] other Wikipedians' hard work". --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to my watch list. I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the series, but it's pretty easy to tell when information should or should not be added. As for the accusations, they can either come to my talk page or start a discussion if they feel that my edits (or others edits) are "destroying their work." WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the list that is the target of most of the OR/excessive plot insertions, it's the 21 remaining character articles. Many of them grow by a paragraph or two a week. --Farix (Talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'll add them as well; they're soon to be merged, correct? So, it's mainly protecting them from becoming congested until they can be merged. A cleaner article is much more easy to merge. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at

If the ANN encyclopedia section is regarded as unreliable, how about the reviews section of ANN? I believe that if their news section is regarded as reliable, so too should be their reviews. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga." From the project page. I don't believe there's anyone arguing against the ANN reviews, and there's certainly no reason to, either. The concern is solely about the encyclopedia, because of the user-editing.kuwabaratheman (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not a user review of course. We had an issue over that recently Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way of telling a user review (unreliable) apart from an official ANN review (reliable)? --Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ANN hosts user reviews? I know that they have user ratings (unreliable) and some fans post reviews on the forums, but that's about the extent of it. Every formal review I've seen in the review section has been by a staff member. You can also find other reviews in the "Shelf Life" (Bamboo Dong), "RIGHT TURN ONLY!!" (Carlo Santos), and "Buried Treasure" (Justin Sevakis). You may also find reviews and analysts in columns like "Hey Answerman!" (Justin Sevakis, Zac Bertschy), "The Click" (Brian Hanson), and "Chicks on Anime" (Bamboo Dong and friends). --Farix (Talk) 00:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have confused the two. Now i think about it, the issue was regarding user scores. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across a mention of the book Manga: The Complete Guide, and I realised I had enough reviews and interviews on it to make a notability-passing article on it, plus there was a red link, and we all know that Wiki abhors a vacuum. ;) However, now it needs attention from someone who's actually read the book, or better yet, owns a copy. Thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do later -- got it from the library when it first came out and only raided it for info from series articles I was interested in at the time, but I've at least opened the covers. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if we knew the names and qualifications of the other contributors to MTCG, it would be a really big help. --Malkinann (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I now have this book. What exactly is needed? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! :D A sentence on how Thompson describes his collaborators' role(s) in MTCG, and a list of who they are, (with, if possible, a short description of their quals.) would be really great! :D --Malkinann (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I need the page(s) of the entry on Yotsuba&!, if you happen to have the time. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at

There are now over 1,400 articles lacking an image. Some of those articles will likely fail

WP:NOR. But if anyone wants to work on finding and including Book and DVD covers for these articles, go knock yourself out. --Farix (Talk

) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I head off and start nominating some article in the Hentai category, I like to know the status of two websites for reviews. First, Animetric (http://www.animetric.com/) is referred to as both a self-published website and "reliable source", but I'm not seeing any discussion about it. Are there any examples where its reviews were quoted in more mainstream publication, as the description on the project page states? The best I can find is that they were quoted in a handful of ADV press releases in '04 and '05.

Second is Hentai Neko (http://www.hentaineko.com/), which also appears to be a self-published website. However, I can't find anything about the contributors of the website to tell for sure. It's connected somehow with Otaku Fringe (http://www.otakufridge.com), which judging from its "about" page is not a reliable source because reviews are user submitted. --Farix (Talk) 11:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how "Animetric" can be considered a reliable source. Its a self-published site by a single person who doesn't seem to have any industry connections nor notability within the field on their own (i.e. not an expert). I'd also be inclined to fail "Hentai Neko". Reviews are all user submitted, and while supposedly "Reviewed" by the editors of the site, but there are no real details about those editors and from the submission guidelines, it doesn't seem like the reviews are required to be quality, from experts, etc. --

talk · contribs

) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That about sums up my views. Though there is one thing is that I'm sure that I sure will come up during an AfD. That is some editors will point out that these are the only two websites that regularly review hentai anime and manga, therefore they should be considered experts. --Farix (Talk) 23:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...people will probably try that arguments, but that still doesn't make them experts. :) --

talk · contribs

) 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Animetric from the list give the current discussion. --Farix (Talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the 3 websites is RS. Fell free to Prod & Afd those which don't have enough RS third party coverage (many of them IMO). Unfortunately i won't help much in that issue as i am negatively biased on Hentai Anime/Manga and unsure of my objectivity. --KrebMarkt 08:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already nominated the first one. However, right now, it is just me and Dream Focus, and we already know what Dream Focus's position is. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Animetric I proved as a RS being published for it's opinions by other reliable sources. A quick check of ANN comes up with 2 of them and I had a couple more from more exhaustive google search.

As for whether they deserve an article...that's debatable. However they do meet the qualifications for

WP:SPS.じんない

22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the 2 press releases were already cited i'll skip those. Here are 2 more though: animefridge, Rightstuf (major distributor and English licensor) Connections with the industry is a plus, but it is not a requirement to be considered an expert. If others who are reliable for their opinions per WP standards consider you an your opinions valid, reguardless of your connections you are considered by WP standards an expert.じんない 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having a sentence quoted in a press release qualifies one as an expert. The AnimeFrienge website only provides a brief descriptions of various anime websites, including several copyvio sites, but they didn't republish anything from Animetric (a requirement for self-published websites). And finally the Right Stuf link doesn't show anything connected with Animetric. In fact, I did a Google search of their entire domain and came up with zilch. You're coming up empty here. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird...i swear I found it on rightstuf yesterday... Not even that long ago. I found them shortly before posting...じんない 14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An new user has boldly reworked List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. I was probably too wordy in comments on the editor's talk page, but I thought the previous organization (by faction) would be easier to source, while the current organization would be much harder to source. Either way, please comment about the changes and which version you feel is better. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs more work, but overall, its a good start. Now just need to merge those character articles into the list. --Farix (Talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Farix. He did just fine (and he really isn't that new of an editor, been active in the project for quite awhile now and has been editing as a whole since 06) and appropriately reformatted the list in an out-of-universe fashion. I'd guess he saw the current work along the same vein being done in one of the other Gund lists and wanted to help with the others, which I think is great. I don't really see how the organization affects the ability to source the content in any way? --

talk · contribs

) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Farix and Collectonian, the start of a proper cleanup (a rare thing, especially in character lists). Don't see an issue with difficulty in sourcing between the two, other then the obvious lack of current sourcing itself. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I too agree, granted it needs some work but it's off to a good start and should be worked on further. Deus257 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gundam SEED vs. Gundam Seed

The above discussion gives me an excuse to ask about something that's been bothering me for some time now: is there any particular reason the various Gundam SEED articles use that capitalization? Having read one (

I was wondering that myself. Per naming conventions, it would seem like it should be Seed? --

talk · contribs

) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not an acronym, then it shouldn't be all capitalized. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. ~

?

21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall a scene in the original series where SEED was fully expanded, after the Archangel arrived at the Orb Union. But beyond that, I don't think it was ever explained. --Farix (Talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll have to watch the series. I picked it up a while ago, but haven't gotten around to watching the whole thing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an acronym [19] and thus should be capitalized. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, then. Case closed. It should be capitalized. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced myself, but then, I'm not sure what the guidelines say about acronyms that are explained exactly once (from what I can tell) and then promptly ignored... if they even cover this case, that is. Regardless, I'm fine with it staying capitalized, if that's what is decided. I mostly just wanted clarification that SEED was/was not an acronym. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is an acronym, it depends on what indenpendant reliable sources use most often. over at

independant secondary sources used the former and I think a similar evaluation of the Gundam SEED/Seed usage is appropriate here.じんない

19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is Bandai, one of the main producers of Gundam (along with Sunrise). If they are saying it's an acronym, it doesn't really matter what any other sources say. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Started this month, but I only just found out about it. A separate sublist of the New York Times "Graphic Books (sic) Bestseller List", that is. You might be able to guess who's dominating it: the week of 28 February, it was ALL Naruto except for two Dark Horse titles, and last week all Naruto except for a volume each of three other Viz titles. Something to keep an eye on, and possibly add to the reception sections of

ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c}

) 22:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think Naruto can just be summarized with: selling like crazy! :P --

talk · contribs

) 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking like hotcakes myself... —Quasirandom (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (mmm, hotcakes)

I've been learning that Seravy makes excellent hotcakes. I think maybe I'll make them tomorrow for dinner. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)