Quasirandom (talk | contribs) →Kodomo anime and manga in need of attention: new section |
Notice of temporary injunction |
||
Line 565: | Line 565: | ||
I removed a PROD on [[Kodomo anime and manga]] because I'm pretty sure the subject is notable and as good an article can be written about it as, say, [[Children's literature]]. Needs hella work, and translating the Japanese Wikipedia article would be a good start. The prodder is right that there doesn't seem to be much about the subject in English. —[[User:Quasirandom|Quasirandom]] ([[User talk:Quasirandom|talk]]) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
I removed a PROD on [[Kodomo anime and manga]] because I'm pretty sure the subject is notable and as good an article can be written about it as, say, [[Children's literature]]. Needs hella work, and translating the Japanese Wikipedia article would be a good start. The prodder is right that there doesn't seem to be much about the subject in English. —[[User:Quasirandom|Quasirandom]] ([[User talk:Quasirandom|talk]]) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Notice of temporary injunction== |
|||
I am letting you all know that there is currently a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction|temporary injunction]] that applies to '''all editors'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision&diff=188912442&oldid=188911270] while [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2|this arbitration case]] is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction|reads]]: |
|||
"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction." |
|||
The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2|the case]] is open. I will also notify you when the injunction ends. Thank you. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:15, 11 February 2008
Japan Project‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
|
FLCL episodes
Would someone be willing to look into merging the six episodes of FLCL into one List of FLCL episodes? The episode articles themselves are nothing more then a plot summary along with a bunch of trivia, much of it original research. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will look into this. At this point, none of the FLCL episode articles comply with Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Unless someone objects, I am going to start merging all of the episodes in a few days with everyone's help. There also was recent arbitration case regarding the episodes. Greg Jones II 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out. I'm also in the process of tracking down other sets of anime episode articles so that they can be evaluated and if they don't meet policies and guidelines, merge/redirecting them to at list article. The only reason I brought FLCL here was because a list article was absent. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Created List of FLCL episodes without episode summaries, as I've never watched it. Feel free to merge the episode articles and add the plot summaries to it. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
While looking at our remaining episode articles, I wonder if there are any episodes that would be considered notable in and of itself. Or if this is simply a "forest and trees" issue that some other projects are still struggling with. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'd be inclined to say "unlikely." I can't really think of any anime episodes that could meet notability on its own. Maybe a handful could, depending on Japanese coverage of them (that lovely notoriously hard to find stuff LOL), if they were specially controversial, ground breaking, etc. Ratings of the episodes alone don't really establish notability of the episode, but speak to the show as a whole.
- Even with regular television articles, it is very rare that an episode can establish notability. Off the top of my head, I think maybe a couple of L&O franchise and NYPD Blue might because of news events around them (copy cats from events of the episode), but even that really doesn't do much to establish notability of the episode itself versus the show as a whole if it wasn't a one time event. Collectonian (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The one anime episode I can think of that would possibly be able to justify having its own article is Electric Soldier Porygon. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just putting this out there, if anyone familiar with the series wants to merge the episode articles and add plot summaries to List of FLCL episodes, it can probably be nominated at WP:FLC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the list. I've raised the merge into a list proposal on the FLCL talk page. BrokenSphereMsg me 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nominated for featured list status here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Other series to evaluate
Now if someone is willing to work on the summaries for Paranoia Agent, they are welcomed to it. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here are two other series I like others to evaluate their episodes, Neon Genesis Evangelion and Ghost in the Shell SAC. --Farix (Talk) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd raise the issue with the Eva task force for the first. I also noticed that SephirothBCR has the Samurai Champloo eps on his to do list, those are already in list form, but have overly long plot summaries. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some other: Case Closed episodes and List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes.
- I'll offer to help with case closed since I enjoyed it, but when is it time to split the episode list into parts? Every two seasons? Rezumop (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- My rule of thumb would be in chunks of seasons that gives about 36k of text. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- If no one else gets to it first, CCS' episode list is one on my to do list. Collectonian (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll offer to help with case closed since I enjoyed it, but when is it time to split the episode list into parts? Every two seasons? Rezumop (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Monster is in need of both an episode list and possibly a chapter list (do we do those?). TTN (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. BrokenSphereMsg me 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Especially given that we have four such lists at featured status. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have set up a merge proposal for the Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes. You can comment on the proposal here. --Farix (Talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've initiated a similar proposal for Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes. You can comment on the proposal here. --Farix (Talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes
I was about to take a crack at the above article, separating it into three seasons, and making it similar to the format of List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. My main problem is that the English adaptation's use of the episodes is utterly confusing, with episodes switched around there and there, and half of the episodes not even aired (see ANN episode list and modified list). Would a separate List of Cardcaptors episodes be appropriate? It would heavily reduce confusion, and a field in that table can refer to the respective Japanese episode it's representing. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and just noting, this is another possible featured topic. =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any comment on if we should do anything with the arc-articles? -- Ned Scott 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to the appropriate list of when those are done. Those arc articles are *shudder* to say the least. Collectonian (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't have much of a problem with the arc articles. There's.. I think five of them, that cover 70 episodes worth of information. With some clean up, I could see them as a reasonable amount of plot summary without going too far. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would think separating via the three seasons would be preferable. Not only is List of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes (season x) a better title, thirty or so episodes in one list is not excessive. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me as well. :) -- Ned Scott 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the relationship between Cardcaptor Sakura and Cardcaptors isn't nearly as tangled as, say, Macross and Robotech, I'm wondering if it's possible to do a multi-sort table with columns for the CS and C episode number. If not, it'd probably be better to do separate lists (though with some sort of trackback between episodes of the two versions). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm...if Cardcaptors didn't do any episode merging, that could be possible and probably the better solution (since I think really the current Cardcaptors could be merged into Cardcaptor Sakura with some clean up). Its not nearly as hideous as what was done to Tokyo Mew Mew and that article covers both. Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- IIRC there were a couple of episodes where they 'merged', but it was probably at most two. It's not not nearly as changed as some fans would have you believe, outside of the clear oddities like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then what format is preferable? Is it feasible to make a table like Quasirandom is pointing at, or is another episode list appropriate? Personally, I think that separating the two might make it easier on the reader, and easier on us in making the tables themselves. The List of Cardcaptors episodes list can have an added field indicating which Japanese episode they are based on. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It might be easier to just "separate" them for now, like how we have an article for Cardcaptors outside of CardCaptor Sakura. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen someone going through and fixing some of the issues in the first arc list, but is anyone actively working on the new lists we discussed here? Collectonian (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of format for Lists of chapters
Bringing this up here as no one place seems appropriate -- and if we're using these as our models, we should make them solid. I'm not entirely happy with the layout of the current Featured Lists of chapters/volumes of manga. Currently we have two versions, seen in List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Yotsuba&! chapters, both with problems. The Naruto form has one obvious extensibility issue: most manga don't title their volumes. I think this is information better suited for the right side of the large row, along with other volume-specific info like cover characters and whatnot. Another problem is how the volume number is buried in the middle of the row, instead of on the left like all other series lists. I also don't like the separation of ISBN and release date, which in the naive volume table found in so many manga articles is placed together as natural compliments. The Yotusba table handles this better, but I'm not thrilled with that solution either, separating of each edition's ISBN and release date.
So what I'm hoping for is a discussion of how to tweak these to better. Any thoughts/suggestions? (And maybe, once we're happy with the result, we can template it a la {{Japanese episode list}}, so beginning users don't have to muck about with table formatting as much.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Were you to switch the place of Release date and ISBN (like List of Fullmetal Alchemist manga), I'd say the Yotsuba build is perfect. I'm not sure I understand your qualm about the two though. Do you want ISBN and release date given alongside each other? As for volume titles, they don't seem entirely necessary; volume title is usually the same as one of the chapter titles. Putting them in the large whitespace, if anywhere, would be the best location. ~SnapperTo 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely use a template to standardize the table format. The ISBN should be located where the Naruto chapters have it. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why should it be there? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the need for a template, and a need for standardization. I also agree with not liking having ISBN and release date separated. How about stacking them? With the ISBN directly under the relevant release date? For volume titles, I'm inclined to say put them with the volume number like Volume 1 - title, since most don't have them and those that do are usually listed that way in solicitations and store catalogs. One thing I thought about last night while reading a volume was side and extra stories. I'm guessing they are listed in the chapter lists, but how are they dealt with in the summaries? Collectonian (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about stacking -- I think I'd have to see an example to tell. For the side- and extra stories, it makes sense to have a one-sentence summary, possibly as a separate paragraph, after the main volume summary, clearly marked as such. I'm about to tablefy a manga list that has one, and so can show an example of what I mean in a bit. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, before I start tripping over myself, here's a list of data elements that we might have -- italics means it's required: volume number, volume title, Japanese ISBN, Japanese release date, English ISBN, English release date, list of chapters, other volume info (such as cover characters), volume summary.
- Did I miss anything? If not, the problem being, to have a layout that can adapt to having any combination of the optional elements, because pretty much any combination can be expected (and probably already exists for at least one series). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm...I think that is everything we should need on 99% of stuff, though I guess we should also consider re-releases? Like Viz's re-release of Ceres and Fushigi Yugi, which had different covers, ISBNs, and went from being flipped to unflipped. Or, more rarely, something like Aria, which is now being re-released by a different US licenser's? Obviously, these are special cases, but I think its good to at least discuss how to deal with them since I'm hoping this discussion not only leads to a consensus on formatting, but an addition to our style guide for helping editors :) Collectonian (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm hoping so to, for that last. For releases of older, formerly flipped manga, that's a good question. A similar issue is whether/how to document Japanese re-releases in bunko/other editions (which have different number of volumes, usually, from a tankobon edition). Currently, it's rare to do more than note the existance of re-releases like that, and even that's very hit-and-miss, but then see Marmalade Boy. (Aria may not be our best test case, as it has the further complication of switching Japanese as well as English publishers.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- re stacking: What do you think of this layout?
- re older prints: You could probably get away with using <br /> to separate different releases in the same cell; we already do that to separate writers from artists in manga infoboxes where necessary. This doesn't address the problem of releases with different volume counts, but a template can't handle that anyway. —TangentCube, Dialogues 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's got possibilities. One bonus: if, say, there's no English version, presumably we can make the template smart enough to omit that row -- which is easier, when working in HTML tables, than omitting a column. (I also like how your example has someone translating a classic 40+ year old manga.) Others: what do you guys think? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've reworked List of Naruto chapters (Part I) to try and address what has been brought up: ISBN is given alongside release date, Japanese column would simply be freakishly wide in the absence of English data, volume title is stuck in with "volume extras" in the event that there is none, and the rest should all be fairly consistent throughout the various lists. TangentCube's suggestions for different/reorganized releases would still apply. Thoughts? ~SnapperTo 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- How about having the date in one cell and the ISBN in another cell, both under the Japanese header (sample)? Also, something that's got me confused...the headings. "Japanese release" and "English" release is all good, until you get into English release where? US, Australia, UK, etc? Neutrality and guidelines would seem to dictate that be included where available as they are all English language releases, but how do we reflect that in the headers? Collectonian (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- That goes to an issue I was waiting for this to settle before raising, which is that many the manga/anime articles do a very poor job of distinguishing between (and being accurate about) whether a series was licensed in the US alone (rare), North America (most common), the English Commonwealth (increasingly uncommon), or worldwide English language (increasingly common). It doesn't help that the news sources aren't always good about being clear about the region. I was going to propose that an informal workgroup go through everything in the List of manga licensed in English and the anime equivalent and verify all licensing statements. In any case, that should probably be discussed under another heading, as I've yet to find a manga that is currently licensed in English to different publishers in different regions -- but there are several anime that have been (such as in Singapore and North America). FWIW, I try in my manga tables to accurately specify either NA or English release -- the name of the field should be flexible. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I like the sample. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks (on the sample). And agreed on the issue of needing to do better with distinguishing (and good catch on US really needing to North America in most casts). One I can think of where manga is released under different publishers (though through an import agreement) is Trinity Blood. Though the table lacks summaries, it gives on idea of how I dealt with the Australian release dates. With Madman's import agreement with TokyoPOP, I think it may become something we'll see more on those specific titles, since technically while it is still the same translation, Madman does also sometimes use another company's English translations, and in both cases reprints the manga under their own labels. It also shows one option I've been using for tables before discovering the other way, for showing which country/area.Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
One thing I'm concerned with in TangentCube's sample is that it specifically gives a place for a (fair use) image. Given that all images in manga lists would be fair use, and given that fair use images are being removed from lists left, right, and centre, is it a good idea to provide a template that specifically has a spot for an image? (Especially as longer-running series can run to 18 or so volumes) -Malkinann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No reason not to; if images can be justified, they can be added, if not, they can be left out, and the list would display properly either way. Doceirias (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we should. There is really no reason to have an image of every last cover of a manga series and it would certainly fly in the face of WP:NFCC (and from all of the discussion there, I think Malkinann is right, they would all get stripped out quickly). I think, it should be handled similar to the way the list of episodes are, with a single image of the first volume (preferably the Japanese release) at the top of the list (if a separate page) or in the section (if in the main article), and an additional image only if necessary to illustrate a very dramatic difference in the covers in Japan versus the US. Collectonian (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the "cover art" lines, that was supposed to parallel the "cover characters" sections found in, for example, the Naruto lists; I didn't feel like making up character names for an image that doesn't exist. That section is intended for other details about the volume people may want to include. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I was assuming. I was also assuming it's a generic example, as that may not be the only sort of thing to be included. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
To throw the offer out there, I'd be willing to make another template like Template:Japanese episode list for whatever format is agreed upon, unless anyone wants to beat me to it :) -- Ned Scott 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Coolness. I was hoping someone would do that. Once we get the layout and the field names nailed down -- which it sounds like we're nearly there. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of a volume title, which is preferred: no cell or an empty cell? —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the volume title is going to be a separate cell, then I'd prefer no cell. Blank cells give the impression there is one, we just don't know what it is yet. Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What about chapters that have been serialised in magazines, but not yet collected in a bound volume? Are there going to be some fields for the top bit to indicate ISBN and dates of re-releases in a different format (ie. flipped vs unflipped for English releases, or for manga where it is re-mastered and re-released?) -Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- For the not-yet-collected, currently List of Naruto chapters (Part II) and List of Yotsuba&! chapters handle them in a separate section; unless someone can come up with something more elegant, I like that style. For rereleases of any form, I suspect the best solution is to double up entries in the cell with a <br/>, the way multiple publishers are handled in the infobox; for an example, I ended up doing this in Aria. No matter what we do, we'd still need some sort of prose explanation of what sort of rerelease was done. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like how the doubled-up ISBNs and dates look like in Aria, it's too cramped and difficult to read which belongs to which release, despite the bracketed publisher at the end. Can there just be a few aux fields that would display up the top instead? (And a few aux fields that put information in the side bit next to the chapters?) -Malkinann (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather have as few columns as possible; when you include the row that is used for chapter lists and extras, attempting to calculate which rows are present, how wide each row is, and how many rows to use for the two columns seems like a logistic nightmare for a template. In fact, I'd rather have a fixed number of columns (hence my question above), but even hiding/unhiding the title is less of a problem than hiding/unhiding multiple auxiliary fields. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
After playing around with HTML boxes and trying to fit them into solutions, I've come to a few conclusions. I'm up late with insomnia, so this is likely to be a bit rambly, so please bear with me.
Problem one is technical: conditional columns are feasible, but hard to make foolproof, and we want this to be an easy-use template. Problem two is flexibility: As much as I like the idea of TangentCube's example that puts Japanese and English ISBN/date in separate rows, this only looks good when there is the volume material (chapters, summary) below it (it also doesn't look great on wide screens, with its one narrow and only three wide columns), and we need this to be usable when all that's available is basic publication info. (Much like the episode template still looks good when all you have it title and air date.) With those two constraints, the result is a layout very similar to the Yotsuba&!/revised Naruto I.
One drawback: This template will only work for manga licensed in English. Fortunately, we rarely have extensive articles on unlicensed manga -- Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou being the only example I can think of, and it's not even ready for GAC. A disappointing loss in flexibility, but one I see no way around.
I also see no better solution to rereleases than I did for Aria (manga) (and Malkinann is right, it's not pretty except in wide enough screens), aside from separate rows straddled by the volume number, and I don't think we can template that with enough flex to take into account all contingencies. I may be wrong about that, but the coding problem makes me shudder.
So here's my detailed proposal: a five column table. The first row has VolumeNumber (which should be centered in the cell), JapaneseDate, JapaneseISBN, EnglishDate, EnglishISBN. The second row has two cells, first cell straddling three columns has Chapters (which have to be formatted by the editor), second cell straddling two columns has OtherVolumeInfo (or some such field name; this is a place to stick information like volume title, cover characters, or the like). The third row has one cell straddling all five columns, containing ShortSummary. If neither Chapters or OtherVolumeInfo is present, omit that row; if ShortSummary is not present, omit that row. If neither the second or third row is present, use a thin border below the row; if either one is or both are present, use a thick colored border of of the color specified in LineColor. Whether there should be a border between the two cells in row two, I also have no strong opinion; but if OtherVolumeInfo is absent, there should not be one.
The consensus seems to be that the second row should be display in a font at 90%. I do not like this at all (I think from an accessibility standpoint, or at least as a kindness to older eyes, Wikipedia should use smaller-than-normal fonts as little as possible), but accept it.
Whether the column headings should be flat a la revised Naruto I or stacked a la Yotsuba&!, I have no strong opinion right now. In any case, those are outside the proposed template, which can handle either one.
I hope that's clear enough for community purposes. Have at it. —Quasirandom (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with that, though I prefer the approach used by the Yotsuba&! list over the revised Naruto list. I've drawn up an example here. The only problem I see is that when defining ChapterList (or any list format) through a template parameter, it needs to be preceded by an empty HTML element, or else the text of the first line is treated as raw text, not wikicode. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah -- I did not know that, about the formatting in a parameter. We'll have to mention that in the template doc. And this morning, I kinda prefer the Yotsuba&! stack myself. If no one else has tweaks, I think we have a standard layout and enough info to template it. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, except we haven't dealt with the other issue mentioned above: English language releases in multiple countries. A manga series could have English language releases in Europe, Australia, and North America, and as they are all English language, we should cover them all otherwise we're getting into the regionalism territory. So how do we account for that in the table? An optional 4 more columns at the top row? Collectonian (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only way I can see to handle it is similar to reissues, with double entries in the cell. Unless we can add a second row after the first, based on whether EnglishDate2 and EnglishISBN2 are present, in which the Volume, JapaneseDate, and JapaneseISBN cells
straddlespan the two rows. Stack the various English releases, that is. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - Okay, check out User:Quasirandom/sandbox2 for an example of what I meant by the spanning thing. This is cobbled together from Aria (manga), which has a complicated publishing history, with rereleases in both Japan and in North America. Ignore the publisher labels for now -- how to handle that, we can work out -- this is only for the layout I was trying to describe. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only way I can see to handle it is similar to reissues, with double entries in the cell. Unless we can add a second row after the first, based on whether EnglishDate2 and EnglishISBN2 are present, in which the Volume, JapaneseDate, and JapaneseISBN cells
- Honestly, I see no real difference in the output of your example over what's in Aria, except for the cell borders, and that can be mostly replicated using <hr /> instead of <br /> to make a horizontal rule in the current cell. However, it doesn't look quite the same in Internet Explorer (6; I don't have 7 to test); the element produces a full line height space, compared to Firefox and Opera. —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Line breaks and parenthetical notes are fine for seperating releases. In my opinion, it's worse trying to deal with an indeterminate number of parameters with simple HTML/wiki scripting. —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Keep it simple and back to non-split cells it is. BTW, I've swapped the columns in the Yotsuba&! list, to the order I proposed above. Moving JP and EN release info improves it a lot. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been addressed before, since I haven't read the discussion in-depth, but I'm still a bit confused on the focus of listing the chapter titles. It doesn't seem to add much, and the focus is mostly on the volumes. I don't feel strongly about it, one way or another, but figured I might be missing something. -- Ned Scott 10:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand, its to be fair and give equal treatment to the original format the titles were published it (serialized chapters in magazines), but someone else may be able to give a better, more detailed explanation. Collectonian (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- As Collectonian says, more or less. I hope, though, we're not giving it undue focus -- I've been trying to craft a format/template that's flexible enough that chapter information can be included if editors deem it important or omitted if not. (So far, all manga FL have them; there are some manga lists that, if I can get them to FLC, won't have it because the chapters are unnamed or non-existant.) —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Right -- unless anyone has any objection, I think TangentCube's current version is ready to be official. That is, copy the template into mainspace, document the quirks, test it on a list or two (I volunteer to use Yotsuba&!), and add mention of it to WP:MOS-AM (I can do that too). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would anybody be opposed to naming the fields more generically (that is, "Original" versus "Japanese")? There isn't anything that warrants tying this template down to just J/E manga, in my opinion; it could also be adapted to works from other countries by simply using generic terms for the parameter names and using parameters to show which language(s) the table is for. —TangentCube, Dialogues 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you expand a little on that last clause, on how that would work? You're right, we shouldn't restrict this to just Japanese, given Korean/Hong Kong/et cet comics. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The two examples at User:TangentCube/sandbox3#Single-language release are an example of what I mean; specifying "Language=(x)" in the header template call will change the output from "Release date" to "(x) release date". —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think its ready for test runs as well. Has anyone checked to see if Ned has time to do the code up for the options and all? I also volunteer to deal with Marmalade Boy for a test run, as its one that is missing such info already, and Wolf's Rain to try it in an article where the list is in the main article rather than on a separate list of page. ;) Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not clear if Ned or TangentCube is doing it. Tangent? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have template code ready, I just don't know what to name it. The obvious "Manga volume" is misleading if we use the template for more than just manga, and I don't know what generic term would be best. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about "serial fiction volume"? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- How about "Template:Manga list"? -- Ned Scott 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, silly me, I understand the question now. If the concern is about being able to use this for more than just manga, then I'd simply call it Template:Comic list. -- Ned Scott 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go for {{Comic list}}. It's better than anything else I've come up with. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about {{Graphic novel list}}. It better fits the volume format the list is intended, leaves room for American and other style collected volumes, and can fit Japanese light novels as well. That also avoids the connotation that its for individual volumes of comics (the colorful magazine style ones). Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's call that one the winne, wrap this puppy up, and stick it under the tree. ... or something like that. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Template in action
By way of a second arbitrary section break, I've put this in action in List of Yotsuba&! chapters. Looks really good. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've applied the new {{Graphic novel list}} template to Wolf's Rain's manga section. Before and after (and ROFLOL, we had the same idea at the same time and edit conflicted :P!) Collectonian (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(Heh.) I've applied it to Lovely Complex's manga list, as an example of what happens without chapters or summaries -- and, um, it's got a really weird gap above the table. (At least, it does in Opera 9.25.) One that widened the more rows I added to the table. Any clue what's up with that? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Resolved, see Template talk:Graphic novel list#Bug? —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've also applied it to the Marmalade Boy article, which has no summaries or chapters (for now) and features three separate lists of volumes. Two things I noticed: with the default width at 99%, if you have an image beside it, you must remember to change the width or it will overrun the images; and with the OneLanguage option enabled, you can not put a reference on the header of the date field because it automatically adds "release date" after whatever word you put in. Now if only I could read Japanese so I could get summaries of the novels :P Collectonian (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, since I have most of the English volumes, it's on my TBD to add summaries -- once I get the other volumes. For the referencing of the release dates in a single-volume form, you may want to add anchor it in the prose above. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have all of the English volumes (ridiculously well read at that LOL), so I can add the summaries for the manga if you like. I did indeed put an anchor in the prose above, but may be good to put a note in the documentation. Collectonian (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you have them already, go for it. It'll be at least a couple weeks before I'm ready to get to this. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have all of the English volumes (ridiculously well read at that LOL), so I can add the summaries for the manga if you like. I did indeed put an anchor in the prose above, but may be good to put a note in the documentation. Collectonian (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- re refs: If this looks good for a ref field, I'll add it in.
- re images: That happens with any right-floating element; try removing the {{-}} above the episode list on Dokkoider, for example. —TangentCube, Dialogues 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
One last mention: I've converted a one-lanuage table to the template in Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō. I think we've got (to order some last tweaks) a production model. I'll go add a mention of the template to WP:MOS-AM. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
X (manga): Good article nominee
X (manga) has been a good article nominee for over a month now. Can someone review it?--Nohansen (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The nomination has been put on hold. I think I fixed everything but the plot. This is an action series... an unfinished one at that! It's kinda hard to describe the plot without going into "excessive details of twists and turns in the story". I believe the Plot and Characters sections explain what the series is about pretty well, but the reviewer wants more. Is there someone who can help?--Nohansen (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can see what they mean. The plot section isn't a plot section at all, but a synopsis and borderline teaser. While we don't need full blow by blow, a longer summary is needed, particularly for such a lengthy series. You mentioned seven story arcs below, but you couldn't tell it was more than a short story from the plot. Why not try summarizing each completed story arc in paragraph form in the plot. Collectonian (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Article series to rearranage and cleanup: Shaman King
Hello, folks! We may need to comb through Shaman King and help rearrange, merge, and consolidate articles. In particular we need to get the character guides, add real world info about characters, and determine which ones keep separate articles. Those that do not make the cut are in a main characters page. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Add it to the pile ... —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do I have to add it to a certain place? Or is this just a figure of speech? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Volunteer help for non-free image reduction suggestions
At WP:NFC we are providing a list of suggestions for editors to help to reduce non-free use content in articles or sections that typically are "list of characters" or similar types. By no means these are to be enforced or the like at this time, but we would like to see if these are practical for helping to reduce non-free images in existing list articles. The specific suggestions can be found here. (Any suggestions on these regardless of the request below is also appreciated)
As this is completely voluntary, I am looking to see if anyone can provide either an existing example where a character list article had the number of images it used reduced per these suggestions, or if anyone is willing to try to see if it works on one of their articles, providing before/after revisions. I would ask this over at WP:TV, but.... probably not a good idea right now. --MASEM 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re. point 1, these are a few examples that previously had individual images for most if not all characters but these were then replaced with group shots, which is their current status. Coincidentally in all cases the group shots were on the main article pages first, then migrated to the character lists to comply with minimal fair use. You can see where the images used to be by the redlinks:
- List of School Rumble characters vs. 9/21/07
- List of El-Hazard characters vs. 12/24/07
- List of Marmalade Boy characters vs. 5/28/07 :--BrokenSphereMsg me 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect examples. --MASEM 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite perfect (yet), but vastly improved List of Blood+ characters (7 images) from 30 October 2007 (25 images). We're still working on a few more group shots to finish out the rest, but also a great example of amicable discussion can be found in the talk page and how working together gets good results :) Another "work in progress" which we've left tag, but that is already showing vast improvement is List of Trinity Blood characters (8 images) vs 8 October 2007 (32 images!). For both of these, most of the new group images were uploaded from new screencaps taken by editors, with only one or two pulled from the main articles. Collectonian (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
While this MfD discussion resulted in a consensus to keep the inactive task-force, the suggestion was made that the page should be brought to the attention of the parent WikiProject for possible merger, reconfiguration, or other changes. This notice serves that purpose. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, Xoloz.
- So: what to do. Honestly, I hadn't known this task force existed, or I might have joined or asked for help. I've created, um, quite a few mangaka stubs over the past month, most of them in need of at the very least guidance from editors more experienced at creating Biography articles; less than a third of the talk pages are tagged with the WikiProject Biography template. I think this could be a useful resource, especially if we can convince WikiProject Biography to take joint parentage. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think it would be great if Bio will take joint parentage. I've made one or two seiryu stubs to get rid of red-links, but biographies are so not my forte at all, so I usually just put in enough to establish notability, then hope someone else with more experience will work on the rest. :P Collectonian (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the near future, meaning I don't want to get tied down to a date, I can try to adjust the Biography banner to include it. I think we might be the better parent for banner purposes because of the BLP tag, but if you guys want to set it up on your own I certainly don't see any problems. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain your BLP concern a little more? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The white banner that appears above the Biography banner, like on the Talk:Paul McCartney, page, indicating the subject is a living person. We try to ensure that that banner is placed on all biographies of living persons, or BLPs. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that thing. The one I wasn't including in my stubs. See? WP Biography would be useful here. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The white banner that appears above the Biography banner, like on the Talk:Paul McCartney, page, indicating the subject is a living person. We try to ensure that that banner is placed on all biographies of living persons, or BLPs. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain your BLP concern a little more? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the near future, meaning I don't want to get tied down to a date, I can try to adjust the Biography banner to include it. I think we might be the better parent for banner purposes because of the BLP tag, but if you guys want to set it up on your own I certainly don't see any problems. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think it would be great if Bio will take joint parentage. I've made one or two seiryu stubs to get rid of red-links, but biographies are so not my forte at all, so I usually just put in enough to establish notability, then hope someone else with more experience will work on the rest. :P Collectonian (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
How can I join?
How Can I Join? Uzumaki Dude (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Some IP is trying to add excessive plot detail to Slam Dunk (manga)
Compare as of now vs. the excess plot. I've reverted 2 additions and left a message on their talk page which is getting ignored. I wouldn't consider it disruptive unless they keep persisting despite attempts by other editors to keep the plot at a reasonable length without going into too much detail. The IP's additions however are justification for slapping a {{plot}} in there and I think the current version of the plot is fine without going into too much detail or getting too long, which is how it has been now for several months. I'm mentioning this because I get into 3 revert rule territory if I keep reverting the additions and would like some additional eyes on it until this person either wises up or something happens because of their persistence. BrokenSphereMsg me 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Recommend semi-protect. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll keep that in mind if it becomes a recurring issue. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just happened to check Vagabond (manga) after visiting Slam Dunk (manga) (since I didn't know they were done by the same mangaka), and found that Vagabond has some serious excess plot issues as well. Just bringing it up in case anyone wants to deal with it.--SeizureDog (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for multiple issues and added it to the front page. Collectonian (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just happened to check Vagabond (manga) after visiting Slam Dunk (manga) (since I didn't know they were done by the same mangaka), and found that Vagabond has some serious excess plot issues as well. Just bringing it up in case anyone wants to deal with it.--SeizureDog (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll keep that in mind if it becomes a recurring issue. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Lupin III television specials
Anyone want to take care of Category:Lupin III television specials by smerging them to List of Lupin III television specials? --Farix (Talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes
The merger of the episode articles into List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes is nearly complete. The four director's cut episodes are the only things remaining to completely merge. And that is a matter of how best to merge the information about the added scenes. Also, it may be possible to finally push the article to Featured List status by giving it a good intro and information about the various releases. --Farix (Talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Manga lists and Japanese Titles
Can anyone recommend some sources on where to find the Japanese titles for manga chapters? Some, like Kare Kano, are actually included in each volume, some articles already have them, but then with something like Wolf's Rain they are missing and each chapter/grope has a title, so I'd like to include it in the list, but I can't find them anywhere. Any ideas? Collectonian (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The best source is to find someone with the original manga. Outside of that, some series will have fan pages listing them, but most do not. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Demographic
Another user has removed the demographic from the Wolf's Rain infobox, saying it only applies only when the manga series is the first work, not ones where the anime came first. At first I argued, but for now I've let it stand while I come here to find out for sure. So, is this user correct in that demographics are only for manga first articles? Collectonian (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Demographic refers to the target demographic of the mangazine in which a manga/novel was published. Original anime (not adapted from a previous publication) don't belong to any target demographic. If the anime spanned a manga adaptation it's better to indicate demographic of said manga in the articles' body, as it would be misleading to indicate this in the infobox. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I was looking for views from the project and other editors besides you since you were the one who did the edit, while the issue never came up in the article's Peer Review. :-P Collectonian (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is a policy about it either way, but it's one I've often argued. There's a strong tendency to apply demographic terms to everything, even when they really wouldn't be used that way in Japan. I entirely agree with Kazu-kun on the issue, and would strongly recommend that this be incorporated into the project guidelines. Doceirias (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to set it out, and particularly to include it in the infobox instructions in a clearer format. Collectonian (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The demographic field in the infobox includes any anime and manga where a clear demographic can be identified through reliable sources. Most of the time, it is through the Japanese magazines which we identify most demographics, but its not limited to them. --Farix (Talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not that anime producers don't have target demographics, but that they must appeal to a much broader market than a magazine due to the costs involved. There anime that's obviously aimed at young kids, or at teen girls, teen boys, college kids, families, or pornophiles. However, except for the first and latter ones, they generally include things which will appeal to more than just their main audience. Anime demographics are generally far more fuzzy than those used by manga magazines. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Contains Japanese text template
Yu-Gi-Oh! GX - help with reliable secondary sources for the characters of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX
User:The Clawed One posted these comments on the MOS page and was redirected to here:
" I was wondering if anyone here knows of any Japanese sites or magazines or whatnot that could provide reliable secondary sources for the characters of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. Cast interviews, show reviews, bios done by secondary materials. Any help anyone has would be appreciated. The Clawed One (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"
I am also asking for help - there have to be reliable secondary sources about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- As the magazine archive gets bigger, it will be more and more important to always check the What liks here link, as you will find links back to the archive if there's a particular magazine that has an article about the topic. This article has this issue of Animage with something in it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Manga at FAC
I couldn't see where to list current FACs on the main page, so I'm listing it here. If you are interested in participating in the dsicussion, please come to the discussion. Please note that including reasoning behind your opinion is strongly encouraged, and if you find issues with the article, please bring them up so they can be addressed. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Airdates
Is there any guidance as to what qualifies as an original airdate? For example, should episodes or episode lists mention only the original Japanese airdate, or should the original airdate in English dub/sub be mentioned as well (using the AltDate parameter in {{Episode list}})? Astronaut (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- For anime episode lists, make sure to use {{Japanese episode list}} instead of the regular one. Its already set up for handling that and the Japanese and english titles. The original Japanese air date should always be set as OriginalAirDate. If it aired in English, then whatever the first English airdate was would go in FirstEngAirDate. Collectonian (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Osamu Tezuka articles
I was going to go about creating some stubs for various works by Osamu Tezuka, but I stopped after I realized that I wasn't sure if they should be under the Japanese or English titles. Many of his works are unlicensed, but still are quite well known by certain English translations (e.g. New Treasure Island). The current standard set by articles such as Marvelous Melmo is to use these, as far as I know, unofficial English titles. Should they be moved to their Japanese titles?--SeizureDog (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tezuka Osamu World is the official Tezuka Productions English site. Maybe we could use the titles they use?...--Nohansen (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to inform you guys, Loituma Girl is at Good article reassessment in here. --Mika1h (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Character images?
Can I please get some guidance on what some general fair use rationales might be for character images? (like in Wikipedia:Use rationale examples, which doesn't cover character artwork) "Sole depiction of character" is one that's good for when you're not using any other pictures, but are there any others? -Malkinann (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I basically did what I could with this list. I'm not sure what more is needed to push it on to featured list. Someone with more experience then I can take a crack at it. Then they can work on List of Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG episodes. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did a little work on the two incomplete sections, but I've never seen the series so someone else will probably want to take a look at both. The only other thing I noticed is that some of the summaries are a bit long and need to be tightened up (no more than 10 lines is usually what I hear when I hit FLC). Collectonian (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- That many? I've been trying to limit myself to 2 or at most 3 sentences per episode. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, from the FLC's I've been through, and others I've read, 2-3 line summaries are generally considered too short. The summaries should include all major plot points of the episode, without excessive details. 5-6 lines are generally good, and up to 10 for complex plots. Collectonian (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Huh. Okay, I'll have to go back and beef up what I've been writing a bit. Though right now I'm working on a slice-of-life series, so there aren't exactly a lot of plot points. Um, when you say "lines" -- how wide is your screen? Or better yet, how many sentences or (roughly) words is that? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Doh, good point. I always forget screen width makes a dif. :-P Check out List of Trinity Blood episodes. That's one that recently went to FL status where the summaries were modified during the FLC to be not too short and not too long. :) Collectonian (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'K discarding the shortest and longest as outliers, those are between 4 and 10 sentences, or 75 and 175 words, or 3 and 6 lines on my screen, each. There's some rules of thumb for ya. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I got a little liberal with second season summaries. I did the best I could to leave the ending details out so as not to ruin the series too much. BTW, if you would like, I can expand the first season summaries from the notes I have here at the house. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually episode summaries should include ending details. Wikipedia isn't a spoiler free zone and not mentioning the endings would not be giving a full summary of the episode. It's minor events that can be short summarized or not included. One thing that's helped me, because I am notorious for writing overly long summaries, is to ask myself if each sentence is necessary for understanding the overall events of the episode, or could the reader still know the over all "what happened" without knowing that particular bit. Kind of like when telling a friend what happened on an episode of TV the night before...you usually don't break it down scene by scene :) Collectonian (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Workgroup
Almost every single article for the series JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has been marked as a stub, needing cleanup, needing citations/sources, or has had all of the images deleted due to fair-use rationale issues. Who would be interested in helping out/starting a workgroup with this series?Hatewind (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Some useful redirection categorization tools
I know I've seen a few anime episodes already use one of these, but I've created three templates that can help with redirection classification.
- {{ER to list entry}} - for episode redirections (I would also say this applies to manga volumes, if such did have redirections, but if a new one is needed specifically, that's not a problem to make up.)
- {{CharR to list entry}} - for fictional character redirections
- {{FictR to list entry}} - for fictional elements redirections (eg everything but characters).
Each supports an optional parameter that can be used to include the name of the work the episode, character, or element. Eg: {{ER to list entry|Naruto}} would classify the redirection into Category:Naruto episode redirects to lists, and without it, to Category:Episode redirects to lists.
What is nice then is that these show/work-specific categories can be added to a general category as to have all related pages together but still indicate which have been redirected. For example, the aforementioned Naruto episode redirect category could be cateogorized into Category:Naruto (or an appropriate sub-cat of that). --MASEM 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added this to the cleanup lists on the project page, but following through on the AfD result, here's a notice that it's another requiring expert attention. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, much of the Negima related material suffers from large quantities of fancruft. As for this magic article, it seems better to eliminate the list of "spells" to focus more on series magic abstractly. KyuuA4 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Light Novel summaries
The general rule of thumb seems to be about 6-10 sentences, or 100-200 words or so, is generally good enough to summarize most manga volumes and anime episodes. What about light novels, though? Do we have any rule of thumb for those. I'm getting ready to do a media list for Trinity Blood (which has 12 novels all together), and the first RAM novel covers the equivalent of 3-4 anime episodes. So would 400-700 words be correct (in line with a film plot length), or would most find that too long, particular with the tabular format we usually use? Collectonian (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'd have to see some in action before being able to judge, but I'd probably try to keep it to 400-500 words. Does the Literature Wikiproject have any guidelines for plot summaries of full-sized novels? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Anime and Manga portal
Is anyone updating our portal anymore? It looks looks a little embarrassing to see those big red links where content should be. I checked the history, but it looks like the portal has been neglected since the start of 2008, or earlier. I'd be willing to volunteer to help keep it up to date. I was bold and set one of our recent GA's Tenjho Tenge, as this week's selected article and Sakura Haruno as this week's selected biography (also a recent GA). I used the 2007 entries as a guide for formatting both. Collectonian (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never got any response here, so I got really bold and made some big changes over at the portal. Please see the talk page for a summary of stuff I've done so far, and offer your thoughts, feedback, etc. Collectonian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Etiquette in the promotion of external wikis
The current exodus of anime/manga-related content to exterior wikis raise a problem: how can we tell other editors to come to the new specialized wikis without upsetting etiquette?
Exactly, is it proper to:
- post, on the talk page of the relevant series, that I am starting a project to create a wiki on that series?
- leave a message on common editors on article(s) related to that series, saying the same?
--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FICT has been revised
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Several new proposals for Template:Japanese episode list and other notes
I've made a bunch of proposals for the episode templates {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}} (such as dedicated "Director" and "Writer" fields), as well as a method of translcuding season pages onto main LOE pages, plus other notes. Input from anyone interested would be greatly appreciated. See Template talk:Episode list#Revamp -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Remaining episode articles and season list categories
Well, with almost all of the anime episodes now merged or redirected into list articles, I like to know if there are any potential stragglers that need to be merged or redirected. I know that there are at least two Pokemon episodes left, and neither of them appear to be notable.
On a related note. What should the naming convention be for categories that contain multiple season episode lists? I've been using Category:Lists of X episodes since Category:X episodes is now a misnomer. --Farix (Talk) 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Character Mergings
Pokemon
In a nutshell all the characters in the Pokemon series have been tagged for merge. Unfortunately, all the character articles do fail requirements for maintaining their individual articles. Before things get out of hand, I've proposed on the Discussion page there that a major cleanup be performed before any mergings are done. Doing so would give those articles a shot at keeping independance as well as bringing up to par articles within our watch. If at the end of an agreed time period the articles do not meet requirements than a merging can be performed. This will save the head-and-heartache of arguing while being relatively fair for both parties. If this works out, it can be used as an example for possible future merging conflicts that may arise -or- spearhead motivating niches of editors that center around certain anime series articles into improving them. Fox816 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately? Why is it unfortunate that the articles are being cleaned up and merged? I took a quick look at all of them and they are in terrible shape violating most of Wikipedia's core policies along with WP:NOT and fails WP:FICT. They are simply extensive plot summaries with almost no real world context or cite a single third-party reference. S-merging them is probably the most appropriate cleanup method to take on them right now. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately in the sense that they were in terrible shape unworthy of being independant. I apologize if my wording came across in a different manner aside that which I intended. I've placed input regarding the cleanup alternative which keeps the articles for a short time on the discussion page link provided. Fox816 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Some New Company Categories
In the style of Category:Viz Media and Category:Production I.G, I've created Category:Geneon, as well as Category:ADV Films and Category:ADV Manga (which are both under Category:A.D. Vision).
Anyone want to help add the relevant series articles to these new cats? :P
Collectonian (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Quick question
Is magical boy a genre that should be placed in a genre box? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since magical girl is, I don't see why not.--十八 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I plan to add it to the anime/manga articles which are listed on the magical boy page. Perhaps someone can sort through the list just to check if it is correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have prodded the article due to looking like complete OR. I have never seen the term used, and I doubt it's a serious genre classification. Maybe passable as a subsection to magical girl, but a stand alone article seems right out. Unless someone can source it up to mantain its notability, I don't think it needs to stick around.--SeizureDog (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the titles are shonen shows and I also never heard the term before. (Based on the article, Naruto is a magical boy) It doesn't even have an article on the Japanese wiki. Rezumop (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could I salvage something to put it under a sub-section of magical girl or does anyone have anything else in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It depends: can you you find any sources to prove that it's not just a fanboy neologism? I mean come on, FLCL being counted a "magical boy" anime? --SeizureDog (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is an interesting question. I certainly would agree that the current article is not really using the term properly and just has a bunch of stuff thrown in. The only two I really recognized as being regularly referred to as "magical boy" are DNAngel and The Mythical Detective Loki Ragnarok. At first I was going to disagree with the PROD, but unfortunately I could not find any sources to provide any sourceable definition or list. Collectonian (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm inclined to PROD what's left even after the trimming, unless someone can find ANY reference to the term being used. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did a google search and couldn't find anything that proved magical boy a sub-genre. Should we try asking for something at ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm inclined to PROD what's left even after the trimming, unless someone can find ANY reference to the term being used. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the titles are shonen shows and I also never heard the term before. (Based on the article, Naruto is a magical boy) It doesn't even have an article on the Japanese wiki. Rezumop (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have prodded the article due to looking like complete OR. I have never seen the term used, and I doubt it's a serious genre classification. Maybe passable as a subsection to magical girl, but a stand alone article seems right out. Unless someone can source it up to mantain its notability, I don't think it needs to stick around.--SeizureDog (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I plan to add it to the anime/manga articles which are listed on the magical boy page. Perhaps someone can sort through the list just to check if it is correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan feature picture progress
The new vector is almost done. Editor At Large has asked that if anyone has any suggestions to ask now. See WT:TAN#Vectorizing update. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Under attack
I've heard this, & I'm wondering if anybody can confirm it: a few years ago, a manga in Japan on the Attack on Pearl Harbor blamed the U.S. for pushing Japan into it. True? What title? Who wrote/pencilled it? Trekphiler (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Way too many fair use images on Ranma ½ character articles
So, I was recently knocking out non-English, non-Japanese VAs from anime articles, and I happened upon the Ranma ½ character articles, all of which that have way too many fair-use images. There's at least 5 fair use images on each individual Ranma character article, and it's clear to me that most of the images are being used for decorative purposes, which oversteps the bounds of fair-use allowed here. I really don't think it's necessary to illustrate each and every moment a character had during the series, or (to use a specific example) have an image on Ranma Saotome displaying all his rivals when you could just go to the article of that specific rival and view their picture there. Other egregrious offenders include Nabiki Tendo and Shampoo (Ranma ½), but as whole there's way too many images on all these character articles when you could use just two, maybe three images to illustrate each of those characters (For the sake of comparison, Sailor Mars, a Good Article, has only three fair-use images, while Sakura Haruno, another GA, has four FU images). There really should be a purging of all these Ranma images, as they're unnecessary and decorative on the articles they're on. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. The place to bring this up, though, would probably be Talk:Ranma ½ so that editors who work there and don't read this don't get blindsided. When refer to that discussion in the edit summary when you remove the images. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- From the looks of things, those articles also fail WP:NOT#PLOT, and I wouldn't doubt that there is a lot of original research hidden in there as well. --Farix (Talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Quasirandom, I've started a discussion over at Talk:Ranma_½#Too_many_images_in_character_articles. Feel free to join in if you choose. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Yes, eleven is rather too many. --Masamage ♫ 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Convention article organization
I have proposed a general outline for convention articles over at WP:Anime/Cons. Comments are welcomed. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Kodomo anime and manga in need of attention
I removed a PROD on Kodomo anime and manga because I'm pretty sure the subject is notable and as good an article can be written about it as, say, Children's literature. Needs hella work, and translating the Japanese Wikipedia article would be a good start. The prodder is right that there doesn't seem to be much about the subject in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Notice of temporary injunction
I am letting you all know that there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors[2] while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:
"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."
The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. I will also notify you when the injunction ends. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)