Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Archives Older Nov '04 – Dec '05 -- Mascot 2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Example lists in genre articles

Yuri (term) is showing resistance to removal of its example lists. Input requested.--SeizureDog 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like something that simply needs some arbitrary choosing to make the lists limited, if they are to exist. Quite literally, I'm thinking of proposing taking a set number of examples, and selecting them at random from the existing list. It might sound weird, but if it at least helps wean the article off the list, it might help. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call canvassing. Kyaa the Catlord 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

... no... no it's not... Jesus people... -- Ned Scott 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Ned, can you not wait for your RfC to draw even one further person before edit warring to get your own way? Kyaa the Catlord 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're the one defending a painfully excessive list that is even specifically marked as "minor". Common sense is not canvassing, and reverting an editor, yourself, who's only out to prove a point, is not an edit war. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr so far, Ned, wanna go for four? And yes, I am totally aware of how LAME this is, I'm willing to stop just as soon as you wait for discussion rather than forcing your opinion on those who've watched that page for years. Kyaa the Catlord 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing games with you. The three revert rule does not apply to any revert, so don't even try to bullshit me there (especially when I was removing unsourced content). You want to reply with childish insults, unreliable sources, and stupid games, go ahead. I went there to help find a middle ground, but no, you just wrote me off an some generic "enemy" as you often do to people who disagree with you. -- Ned Scott 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your revert war shows precisely how much you're willing to give. I asked you to HOLD ON until consensus was found, but you were unhappy with that and decided to troll via edit summaries. Nicely done Ned. Nicely done. Kyaa the Catlord 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How many times did you revert? How was your reasons any better than mine? Doesn't the fact that you are just trying to prove a point, disrupting what should have been a calm and normal discussion, play into this? You have the nerve to attempt to blatantly lie to everyone here by trying to appear as if you have not done exactly as many reverts than I have? I reverted the removal of the minor list twice, but you have the nerve to count my unrelated removal of Figure 17, because it was unsourced? What the hell is your problem? Do you just like to start fights for no apparent reason or because you believe there to be some cabal out to get your lesbian anime list? -- Ned Scott 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your continued rambling to forgive your own bad behavior by making bad faith assumptions is noted. Kyaa the Catlord 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And seriously, please try to tell me how someone who makes edit summaries like "removing Figure 17, leaving the painfully shitty and stupid minor list. You want to put Figure 17 back in, cite a source" can straight out state that I'm being disruptive when I ask nicely for you to calm down, stop reverting and discuss like the gentleman I'm certain you are. I've been more than reasonable in this, you're the only freaking out, cursing and launching into personal attacks. Kyaa the Catlord 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...if this is canvassing, then we might as well kill ALL wikiprojects, because 80% of discussions on them revolve around similar pointing toward articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, cause rather than trying to discuss this with the involved editors who have been working on the page, it is better to go gather your bully boys and squash any resistance. Top form. Wikipedia Prevails! Kyaa the Catlord 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, more objective opinions. Which, in theory, will avoid the extremely childish squabble the two of you have been having. This is what Wikiprojects are for - providing a resource that is both objective and knowledgeable. Doceirias 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Objective? My edit summary: "wait for discussion and consensus before making such bold edits, please." Ned's response: "the minor list is extremely excessive. Use common sense. and no, Figure 17 is not Yuri". Do you see the difference? I ask nicely, he questions my common sense. Who is being objective? Who is asking for discussion before making major edits? Who isn't freaking out and making personal attacks (questioning my "common sense") rather than trying to build consensus? A revert is NOT showing "knowledge", any troll or vandal can do that. Ned's next summary "kicked it up a notch" as Emeril would say: "removing Figure 17, leaving the painfully shitty and stupid minor list. You want to put Figure 17 back in, cite a source". A victory for objectivity indeed. Kyaa the Catlord 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your assertion that the original poster was canvassing, which I disagree with. I agree that you've done a better job keeping your language appropriate, but you have also been so focused on his language that you have failed to address any of the points he made in between insults. I don't think you get a free pass as the good one here. You keep calling for a discussion, but you haven't discussed anything except Ned's inappropriate tone. Doceirias 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect a "free pass". I do expect that when people come to an article they treat other people with respect rather than walking in with a "we're here to suppress your "resistance"" chip on their shoulder. This is a collaborative effort, not a battleground, and too often people tend to use the MOS and guidelines as a club instead of discussing major changes. Mayumi simply asked SeizureDog to work with us, not take a militant "we must beat you down" stance. If you take a moment and simply review the history of the page, you will see that his initial edit had an antagonistic agenda, he stated he wanted to "kill" the lists. If you read the archives, we are not unwilling to compromise, but he does not seem to be based on his desire to "kill" and the dismissive tone he's taken on the talk page. Working with someone is so much better than working against them. Kyaa the Catlord 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with an article

I was wondering if anyone could help with the article Yasushi Ishii. I am not a member of WP:ANIME and as such I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to categorize the page under the scope of WP:ANIME (by adding the tag to the talk page). Anyway, I started the article and wrote a bit about his work, but much of the information regarding Yasushi Ishii can only be found on non-English websites. As I can't read any of the forms of written Japanese, I'm at a bit of a dead end. Thanks in advance. --Sharkface217 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a little bit. Not much, but a little. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I added some for the Japanese wiki, but there isn't much there, and some of it I couldn't translate well so I left it out.--十八 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He is a famous composer in Japan, but he is not a seiyu.--Mujaki 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've been doing a bit of work on some articles related to Hellsing, as the pages regarding the franchise seem (at best) disjointed and messy. I don't even remember how I ended up making this article, but I guess that's the just an everyday duty of a wikipedian. :-P Anyway, thanks again. --Sharkface217 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of RahXephon media was listed for de-featuring

You may want to have a look at the objections and criteria, and then comment on or address the objections raised here: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of RahXephon media. --129.241.151.140 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some clarifications on image rules needed

Beta commandbot is going on crawling for all NONFREE images; and I have to let many of these pics deleted since in my opinion most of these anime-related pics-- namely character screencaps-- are replacable, if we can get some fans to draw it.

However, I wonder if this is the consensus for this project? If yes, I would rather think Image:Yoake Mae yori Ruri Iro na-cabbage.PNG would be one of the few screencaps to be perserved.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be against using fanart for the same reason I was against using pictures of cosplayers - it isn't the work we're attempting to illustrate. If there is a legitimate fair use rationale, that bot doesn't tag images. Personally, I don't think an internet meme is a subject notable enough to justify a fair use image, especially when we're trying to find group shots to avoid using an image for each character. Doceirias 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem is about the "replacability," above all things. Wikilawyers can always claim that screencaps can be replaced by GFDL-released fanart.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that qualifies as a replacement. Doceirias 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's like replacing a screenshot of a live-action character with a drawing of that character, or with a photo of a fan dressed as the character. —Quasirandom 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fanart itself has copyright/trademark issues of it's own. Under the non-free use criteria, any fanart would be interpreted as a non-free use image and a potential copyvio. At one time, we had a fanart representation of Midori, however that was removed by some administrators using the arrangement that it violated the fair-use criteria, even if it was fanart. --Farix (Talk) 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, just answer me these two important questions:

1. Is character screencaps/ scans fall under non-replacable material, and
2. If not, can be replacible with what.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It cant be replaced unless the artist releases a copy of the character into the public domain. Fanart is violating the original authors copyright. If you're gonna use a fair-use image, use an authentic one. Recreating copyrighted material doesn't bypass the copyright laws. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm not expert, but from everything I gather, fanart is quite legal, as fair use (certainly as much as fanfiction). But it's also against the rules on WP for being derivative, or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fanart is not legal, but rather tolerated and/or ignored. We can not use fanart as a free replacement for fair use images as the same copyright issues exist (compounded with the additional artist who drew the fan art aloso having some minor claim to copyright on the image). For fictional works, expecially visual fictional works such as anime and manga, the only images that can be used must be fair use. The issue here is making sure a good fair use rationale is placed on each image being used for each article in which it is used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note to this topic, editors might want to start saving local copies of images just incase you can't get to them all in time. I've just gone through and did so for most of the Cardcaptor Sakura images. Then I can take my time and see which are worth actually saving, without having to worry about a real deadline. I also would like to propose that we start categorizing our images more based on what series they come from, so that working on them is easier. Thanks to Category:Digimon media, keeping track of that group of images has been much easier (and not just for NFCC stuff, but for transwiki work as well). -- Ned Scott 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do with Case Closed after clarification-- but not much can be done. But then screencaps for this anime seems to be easy to come by. What I am thinking is a fair use rationale template for anime screencaps?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be computer savvy to make a screencap of a series so they're abundant or potentially so. Fair Use Templates MUST be used for any non-free images. It's better to use the template than type up a simple list in the summary so you won't have the BOT keep on coming back. I've had that issue with several images where the Fair Use Rationale was clearly stated however not using the template and was tagged. After being replaced by the template, I had no problems. Key thing is that you have to have a Fair Use Rationale no matter what or else BOT and/or user will go ahead and tag it for speedy delete. I try to add Fair Use wherever I see images tagged but it should always be the owner's responsibility to do so. Fox816 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

APTX 4869

This has been happened for a while, but I still don't know what to deal with it-- and I don't want to escalate it to WP:AN/I yet.

Earlier this month, User:Masaruemoto moved the article's content to List of Case Closed characters [1] [2], stating the its content violates WP:FICT-- something I don't particularly argue but others here might. The problem he didn't ask for consensus for such a merge, and if he had read Talk:APTX 4869, this article had been prodded before and I actually wondered where to merged it to. I left a message on his talk page but had no reply as of yet. So I decide to the things myself-- but out of the following choice:

1. Keep the status as of now (content merged to List of Case Closed characters
2. Revert to the status before 5 Novebmer (ie unmerge), then raise a prod to discuss where to merge, or
3. Speedy.

What would you choose?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would do #2 because it's not even a character. There might be a better place to put it. Toothpyx 00:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an issue here. It's something that shouldn't be it's own article, so it makes sense to just merge it somewhere. People remove prods all the time, but nothing here has been deleted, just reorganized. If there's a better place to put the information, put it there. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OS-tan

OS-tan, the article on unofficial Microsoft OS mascots from 2ch/2chan has been mentioned as requiring sources from the last AfD. Note that the article has been itself quoted as a source by Wired Magazine. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is that Wired Magazine source? KyuuA4 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/culture/design/multimedia/2007/04/gallery_mascots?slide=10&slideView=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sailor Moon good articles

Out of Sailor Jupiter, Sailor Mars, Sailor Mercury, and Sailor Venus, there doesn't seem to be any true real world information. There are a couple of sentences that might be worth it including in a list entry, but everything else is either fairly trivial/primary (songs on the CDs) or original research (all of the translations). Is there any reason not to delist these? TTN (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering a complete lack of information pertaining to the character's creation, and any reception/influences outside of Sailor Moon, I'd say you're right. I just looked up some other GA character articles, like Ned Flanders, which has such information.--十八 03:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Translations don't count as original research last I checked, since it's just language. Anyway, those can be easily sourced. These articles were brought up to GA level before the rewrite of the WP:FICT guidelines to require more out-of-universe info. There is lots of such information, and I know where to find it; if you're willing, please give us a deadline by which to bring them up to speed before delisting. (Preferably one after the end of NaNoWriMo. >_>) I'll happily get on it myself. --Masamage ♫ 04:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that translations shouldn't be considered OR, but there seem to be quite a number who disagree. Check out, or all places, Talk:Leck mich im Arsch. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

By translating them, it is implied that the translation or the different parts of the translation have some sort of connection to the character. That is where it becomes original research. I'll just leave this for now and come back to it sometime. TTN (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Check your watch lists

I've discovered that a certain user is unilaterally merging hundreds of articles into "list of" articles without discussion. I'd suggest everyone check their watch lists and act accordingly. These undiscussed redirects are really out of control. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is this user? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN. He's currently got an Arbcom case called against him for doing this sort of shit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a party to the arbcom (however if I had known about it I would have participated.) If anyone here is a party to it might I suggest using the following argument: Per WP:IGNORE any guidline can and should be broken if it's enforcement is a detriment to Wikipedia. TTN is using WP:FICT and such in his arguments. Simply bring up the fact that his methods and choices in enforcing said guidelines is making Wikipedia suck, so therefore what he is doing is wrong and the argument should be settled as such. It's clearly obvious that the consensus is on this side of the argument. That's my 2 cents. Elhector (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For your reference: WP:RFAR#Episode and Character Articles.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to buck the trend here, but IMHO better they be merged into lists than inevitably put up at AfD. 90% of all anime characters with individual articles don't have the real-world importance and coverage to meet WP:FICT; and with the recent trends of fictional elements from other universes and media being put up for deletion (in last few weeks I've been seeing articles about elements from Dungeons and Dragons, Warcraft and Warhammer 40,000 up for deletion and passing), it's inevitable that anime character articles would probably be next to be considered for deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I think the issue here is that TTN is doing more than just merging stubs and articles consisting only of a plot summary; he's also merging articles that are fairly or very fleshed out, and articles that have Good Article or Featured Article status. At least, that's what I gleaned from glancing over the Arbitration. Doceirias (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Doceirias, you mean that his merges are removing content? --Gwern (contribs) 01:37 22 November 2007 (GMT)

Yes, the "merges" are simply bold redirects where no material is being moved from the pages being redirected. It is rather disruptive and completely improper. His actions may not be "against policy" but they certainly deviate from the spirit of Wikipedia and its collaborative, consensus driven mission. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doceirias. Also, even if a lot of the articles get nominated for deletion and subsequently get voted for deletion at least they've gone through the process. IMHO that's much better then a single editor coming here and making tons of wholesale changes with out any discussion and with an obvious lack of consensus. There is a huge difference between being bold and being completely wreckless. Elhector (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For your reference, ArbCom has accepted this case-- but it would not rule on content policy; it would only rule on TTN's behaviour.Archived request--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bite my head off...

Seriously, don't. I like breathing. Anyways, I wanted to show the Project my Userbox. IF I was supposed to put it on the community userbox thing, please TELL ME, and don't kill me for making a mistake. Tell me what you, as the WikiProject, think.

Code	Result
|{{User:L337p4wn/Userbox/FMA}}	FMA This user is not a half pint or a midget!	Usage

--L337p4wn (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

CHOMP! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think userboxes are required to be all in one place. I've seen plenty that are in userspace. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean post it with all the other anime/manga userboxes here? People tend to post suggestions/requests for comments on the talk page there for userboxes, although the response time tends to be slow. Or if as Nihonjoe said, have the template on your own userspace vs. on Wikipedia space, e.g.

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/x userbox here}}

Either one is fine; I tend to put my anime ones on Wikipedia space because that precedent already exists, while for others I use my userspace. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved it to the Anime and Manga userbox page! :) L337p4wn (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No manga template?

So many manga lists and they all use wikitables of similar style, so to prevent editors from adding images on each volume released and to set a standard, should their be one? _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, especially since some of the fields in the featured manga lists don't apply to some of the manga articles I've been editing -- especially the volume title, and for some manga, the tankobon chapters don't have titles, and in one case (Please Save My Earth) there are no chapter divisions at all -- and for others, there are relevant fields I see no way to include -- such as the date chapters take place in List of Yotsuba&! chapters. I suspect there's no good way to template manga lists that will account for all possible variations. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to trailers is discouraged?

Any of the admins care to inform me the Wikipedia policy on linking movie articles to (specifically) trailers?

An Admin on the farsi wikipedia has left me a message citing WP:NOT#LINK, and has deleted every link I put from every anime article to any trailer of that movie/series. He claims "links to trailers are not encyclopedic and are not relevant". Am I missing something here? Thank You.--Zereshk (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on where the trailer is hosted. On the official site? The official site link should take care of that. On YouTube? Are we sure the copyright holders posted it? Otherwise, we can't link to it. Doceirias (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The links mostly go to IMDB or the official website.--Zereshk (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to note: rules on one wikipedia do not necessarily apply on another. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are only around 2 admins active at any one time on the entire Farsi Wikipedia. So it would seem that I dont have much say in this matter if an Admin says something, I gather? Their laws seem to be a translation of English wikipedia rules. Do we have a problem here with linking to trailers, as far as "relevance" and WP:NOT#LINK is concerned?--Zereshk (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As Doceirias indicated, simply linking to the official site for the series is good enough. If the trailer is not on an official site, then we generally don't link to it, and if it is on the official site, we link to the official site in general rather than directly to the trailer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:use English question

A question about wp:use english. Many series have a manga and an anime adaptation. Sometimes both of them get licensed with different companies and the transliteration of some words are different. Which should be used in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothpyx (talk • contribs)

If the article is about the manga, use that; the same for the anime. If it's about both, use the one which is most common. If neither is more common than the other, mention both in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Like with anything on WP, often you have to decide on a case by case basis with is the 'better' version to use. If there's two equally valid English names, you have to find a good criteria...or possibly just use whichever was used first as a last resort. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notablity for Manga

Question: Is the project going to codify the apparent rule of thumb that the threshhold for having an article for a manga is the notability criteria for books with the additional criterion of

6. The series has been licensed in English.

anytime soon? Because it'd be nice to have a working guideline here. Or to decide once and for all that a series that doesn't meet WP:BK even though it's licensed should not have an article. (I'd prefer the former, myself.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think being made into an OVA, TV series, or game (likely video, but board and card would qualify it as well) should qualify it as well (basically expanding criteria 3 at WP:BK). I agree with adopting the criteria proposed above, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why only English and not other languages? _dk (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Was your question directed at me? Or at Quasirandom. I'm assuming the latter as it being directed at me would make no sense since my comment had nothing to do with anything other than Japanese. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't a large portion (majority?) translated into Chinese and/or Korean by the Japanese publisher as a routine matter? If so, no real notability is really demonstrated for those. Others with a better sense of the industry could probably comment on that better, though. Possibly licensed in any non-East Asian language would be a better criterion. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, only Kadokawa Shoten has a foothold in Taiwan to publish their manga there. Other manga has to be licensed by companies like Tong Li Comics (Taiwan), Jade Dynasty (Hong Kong), etc, like the situation in the US. East Asia gets more manga licensed because of their cultural similarity to Japan, and the relative ease of translation. _dk (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would be any easier to translate from Japanese to, say, Vietnamese than to English. I'd suspect the translation from Japanese to any other language would be fairly similar in difficulty. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's beside the point. I will not stand for systemic bias based on ignorance. _dk (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was merely addressing your comment about "the relative ease of translation." Exactly how is that biased? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my question: what proportion of manga series are licensed in, for ex, Chinese? If it's relatively high, then it isn't a distinguishing marker of notability. (At the moment, I'm inclined to a threshold of licensed in Europe or the Americas, but good arguments can be made for both more and less restrictive criteria.) —Quasirandom 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the proportion of manga get translated into Chinese is rather high compared to English, but that is at most 70% of the manga published. Why do we need to restrict the criteria anyways? Isn't a manga notable enough if it manages to either i) sell well in Japan, or ii) is able to be licensed and published outside of Japan? What's this talk of Europe and the Americas? Not all manga get published as tankobon, even less outside of Japan. Why must western countries be the indicator of notability? I would listen to what SeizureDog says. _dk 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, any manga published by a notable company (i.e. not doujinshi) is notable enough in my eyes. Even if the series is not notable outside of Japan, it's still likely notable within Japan. The exception is possibly one-shots. If someone can provide a counterexample though, I'll revise my thinking.--SeizureDog (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nihonjoe, my comments weren't directed at you. _dk 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Options

So we've got a scale of possible inclusion criteria here:

• 1. Licensed in English
• 2. Licensed in a western language
• 3. Licensed in any foreign language but Chinese
• 4. Licensed in any foreign language
• 5. Published

The last directly counters the Wikipedia consensus -- if any book published got an article, we wouldn't need WP:BK to discriminate. I argue that 4 is also too broad: if two thirds of all manga series are licensed in Chinese, it happens routinely enough that it doesn't show the manga is notable -- it's not discriminatory enough. (Question: what's the licensing rate for Korean? Roughly the same? Smaller? Do the list need a 3a excluding that as well?) We have to set the bar further afield. So where?

(Keep in mind this isn't a notability requirement that all articles must pass -- it's an additional possible requirement.)

Is it time for a poll? —Quasirandom 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

May I add one more level: 6. Serialized. Currently it seems that any manga serialized would likely get a Wikipedia article....Manga, unlike books, do not get published into tankobons unless the publisher has deemed that manga to be popular enough for publishing. (The publisher can also decide to discontinue a work if it's seen to be unpopular, that's trivial.) So when we're talking about a manga series, we're talking about a piece of work that has proven itself notable enough to be published again and again. I'm leaning towards option 5. Needless to say, I'm disgusted by the discrimination here only for the reason that "we need to set the bar higher". Ooh, English is all high and mighty. _dk 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to privledge English -- I'm trying to find a relatively easy-to-demonstrate standard for notability that is consonant with the community consensus for other kinds of books and comics. Not everything published in English is notable. Nor is everything published in Japanese. —Quasirandom 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the discussion we're having now, and the annoyance I'm feeling, the standard would only achieve pissing people off rather than easily demonstrating notability. <sarcasm>It's published in Chinese in Taiwan and Hong Kong and Singapore? Who cares? It's published in Korea too? No, no, no, you don't understand, Asia doesn't mean crap to Wikipedia; it has to be in English to be notable for Wikipedia silly!</sarcasm> I'll step back. How about being licensed by more than one foreign company to demonstrate notability? _dk 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Licensed in two or more languages outside of Japanese sounds like a good criterion. Simple, objective, and demonstrates that more than one company thought it was notable enough to warrent licensing. —Quasirandom 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your previous edit, saying "countries" (or rather, regions) instead of "languages", since different companies hold the license for different regions (except in the case of multinational enterprises like Tokyopop), and so the localization would be different for places like, say, Hong Kong and Taiwan, even though they both use Traditional Chinese. And there's also the issue of Simplified Chinese vs Traditional Chinese.... _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Urk. I'd forgotten about HK/TW being separate licenses. I was trying to avoid the converse problem in most European langauges, which is that they are licensed by language instead of country. In English, you can get licenses split between North America / Commonwealth, but the publishing trend is toward unified English language rights -- and even with the split, they're multi-country licenses. French editions generally sell in all French-speaking countries, and ditto German. (Not to mention, if you believe the PRC, Taiwan isn't a separate country.) —Quasirandom 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

'K after a little thought, how about licensed by two or more companies outside of Japan? It's rare, as I understand it, for a licensing publisher to put out more than one language edition. (We may need to specifically note that Viz counts, because it's a U.S. company and does go through a licensing process even though it's owned by Shogakukan and Shueisha.) —Quasirandom 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me, I have no more complaints. _dk 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unified licenses sometimes exists in traditional Chinese versions of manga too, the most obvious example being those licensed to Tong Li-- So?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like "more than one line in the publisher field in the infobox"? _dk 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather use "licensed in two jurisdictions outside Japan."--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But then there's, say, the very common North American license covering the two jurisdictions of Canada and USA. I think two or more acts of licensure would be better, or in clearer terms, licensed to two or more companies. —Quasirandom 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a level between licensing and publishing - if a book is published only in Japanese and has not yet been translated but is selling well and generating buzz, it is notable. Doceirias 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's buzz, though, there will be reviews satifying WP:BK's criterion #1. —Quasirandom 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deadkid, please take a step back and stop assuming there's bias here when there isn't. This whole discussion is to determine exactly what criteria can be used to help determine the notability of a manga series. People are just throwing out ideas here. I do think being licensed and published in two or more countries outside of Japan is a good criterion, though. It shouldn't be the only one, though, as there may be a lot of series which are long running and which may not have been published outside Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else kinda.. not care about what WP:BK is doing? Even though it is the closest guideline we have for manga, if we're not having an issue with non-notable manga, or at least deciding what is notable or not, then I'm not sure I see the point. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that manga articles do show up in AfD with notability concerns, I'd like to have a guideline that is easy to apply without having to root around for Japanese reviews. —Quasirandom 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best situation there, then, be the successful finding of Japanese reviews? _dk 07:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Japanese rather notorious for doing fluff pieces far more than doing actual reviews? Besides of which, we're having a hard enough time finding notable English reviews of manga :/ --SeizureDog 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I (and a small number of others) are doing to try to help find reviews is working on the subject archives over at the project magazine archive pages. Only Newtype USA and Animage have subject archives so far, and they are not completely populated yet. If we can get these pages filled more, checking the "What links here" list will show whether a particular show is mentioned in an article in a particular magazine. For instance, this page, which shows that an issue of Animage from 1987 has an article about it (a 6 page article, no less). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

I think we've got a consensus here -- that a manga series is notable enough for an article of its own if it meets at least of the five criteria listed in WP:BK or the additional criterion of

6. Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan.

(One thing I like about this formulation is that it's easily extensible to manhwa.) The notability for anime I think remains the de facto standard of follow the guidelines for any other TV show/movie, as applicable.

If no one objects, I'll swot this up as a brief note in manual of style. (And then get back to drafing the character article style guidelines.) —Quasirandom 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anime series - giant worms devouring a city?

Giant worms devouring a Japanese (?) city is what I remember from an anime series. The protagonist was a girl and the plot evolved around something like global warming, pollution, environment or something anyway it didn't seem like the series is about human relationships of any sort. The name of the series was something "purely" Japanese perhaps the girls name I think the first letter was "a" but I couldn't find anything in the anime category on Wikipedia... H;AP! Lysis rationale 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like like Earth Maiden Arjuna. Although the main character's name doesn't start with an 'a'. Toothpyx 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Toothpyx, you realize the main character's name is Ariyoshi there, right?--SeizureDog 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to Juna, the given name.--十八 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but knowing how the Japanese address people, she was probably called Ariyoshi more than Juna.--SeizureDog 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I watched it, but all I remember is her boyfriend calling out to her "Junaaaaaa!" over and over again. Toothpyx 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the English dub, perhaps? I don't remember that from the Japanese. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Japanese version. Tokio always calls Juna by her given name when they're alone, and in the later part of the series he calls her that way all the time. Kazu-kun 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did stop watching it fairly early as I found it to be overly preachy and low on plot. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help! Actually it's weird how my perception of what is "purely" Japanese has changed. It's "Arjuna" what I thought to be the girls name and what I thought sounds "purely" Japanese. I've seen only the first episode and it's one of the best TV/youtube-like things I've ever seen, I've never watched any anime actually. lol I actually didn't come to notice how exactly Tokio calls Juna, because I watched it in Japanese with Spanish subtitles (which I don't understand that good) because the English dub really sucked the chick had like this whiny voice when she said "(..)I died - and then I saw" in the opening which somehow completely changed the pretext of the original line "(..)watashi-wa shinda. Soshite mita(..)" or something. Lysis rationale 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Important anime missing an article

The anime in question being Ganba no Bōken. It got an honorable mention in the Anime Insider top 50 anime of all time list (which since only included licensed anime, was effectively their pick for best unlicensed anime of all time) and was also voted #22 in TV Asahi's poll for best anime. I must say that I'm rather surprised at our missing this. I thought we had nearly every anime at least to stub status, but this looks to be a fairly large oversight. Anyways, anyone want to help gather up some info on this?--SeizureDog 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it. =( BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Too busy to help, but there is a Japanese page: ja:ガンバの冒険 Doceirias 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for List of Yotsuba&! chapters peer reviewers

In the absence of having the lessons learned from the FLCs of the lists of Claymore and Naruto manga chapter lists written up somewhere, I'd appreciate anyone who took part in those commenting in the peer review of List of Yotsuba&! chapters and letting us know what needs to be done to make this a potential FL. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference Library Subject Guide

As with the magazines, I've started a subject archive for the Reference Library. You can see the first page here. We should try to keep it to about 5-10 titles per archive page so they don't get too large. I'm planning on being more specific for each topic on that page (which shows are referenced, what kinds of resources are in the article, etc.) Any suggestions for improvements are welcome. I think this will make this list of books much more useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arabic anime: please help clueless!

I have a problem: there are a few anime-series, dubbed in Arabic out on the net and I would like to know their original titles. Some are easily recognised, eg. Future Boy Conan. However, what about: "Al Namer Al Mo9ana3"?? If someone knowledgeable went to http://video.google.com/ and searched for "Al Namer Al Mo9ana3" ...and told me if that "arabic old anime" had another name, I would be very grateful.

Also; if you search for "sasuki arabic anime" you will also get a series, which I also assume has another name?

And there is a series on http://filfil.net which is about inventions/explorations, see eg: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2950144344096476181&q=genre%3Aanimation+arabic+duration%3Along&total=156&start=100&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6 Again; it looks as if it is a Japanese anime film, dubbed into Arabic. Does anybody recognise the series?

And if you search for: sindibad arabic -on video.google.com, you will find a series which obviously is an adaptation of Sinbad the Sailor, but which one? Is it the

• "Arabian Nights Sinbad no Boken (1975) - an anime TV series by Nippon Animation"?

If anybody could help me with these problems, I would be very grateful. Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign-language dubs (again)

• Any consensus on the case of non-English dub actors being listed? I'd really like to remove the Latin American dub actors from this page, but would like to have a policy to back me up before I go to the trouble of doing so. Hill of Beans (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've noticed many of these edits come from this Spanish dub actor/user. Pretty much everything he's added is non-notable to an English-speaking wiki. Hill of Beans (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Anime- and manga-related articles)#Inclusion of non-English language release information covers it pretty well. Non-English information is limited only to the infoboxes, otherwise transwiki information to that respective language's Wiki. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seiyu speedy-deleted

• Some deletionists speedy-deleted Holly Kaneko before I even had a chance to reply on the talk page. As mentioned in the topic above, we've got profiles of Spanish-language dub actors, yet anime seiyu are now deemed non-notable and speedily deleted!? This disturbs me and I view this as an abuse of admin privileges. I've tried to put it back the way it was, but I'm afraid whomever deleted it may try it again. If you guys could help me with watching over his and the other seiyus' pages, I'd appreciate it or any other advice. Evan1975 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll start keeping an eye out. If any RfC's or any other hearings are started concerning this kind of stuff please stop by my talk page and give me a heads up. I would love to participate. Elhector (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Holly Kaneko looks to seriously fail notability. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

447 hits for Harî Kaneko + 255 hits for Holly Kaneko + 164 hits for Hari Kaneko + 93 for Harii Kaneko + 77 hits for Kaneko Harii + 37 hits for Kaneko Harî, + 25 hits for Kaneko Hari + 2 for Kaneko Holly = 1,100 hits. If those guys hadn't speedily deleted the article, I could have explained this to them. Evan1975 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly disagree with KyuuA4. Elhector (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly doesn't state why the person is notable or demonstrate that the person can pass WP:BIO. The number of Google hits is irrelevant. What you need is nontrivial coverage by reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent AfD that sorta noodled around this topic, but failed to come to a consensus -- pending a discussion of just what the guidelines for seiyu/VA notability are. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Holly Kaneko's and Ruri Asano's articles are prefect examples of articles that should be avoided. There is nothing there to explain why the person in notable and there are no non-trivial third-party sources. The number of roles that person did has been in has no bearing on notability of the voice actor or actress. --Farix (Talk) 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KyuuA4 and Farix: there doesn't seem to be anything showing notability. I did a quick search in Japanese, and came up with only a couple articles stating she was going to be voicing one role or another. No notable coverage at all. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me that all of these people are notable? Or the aforementioned Spanish-language dub actors? If they're a seiyu notable enough to be listed on Japanese Wikipedia, they should be listed here. (Unless they were seiyu that only did dubs, I guess) As for Japanese-language hits: 1990 for 金子はりい + 634 for かねこはりい + 486 for かねこはりぃ + 309 for 金子はりぃ = 3419 hits. I could add more to the article (more roles, etc.), but I don't see the point in doing so because people are just going to keep claiming "non-notability" without defining what it takes to be notable. (This is the first I've heard of Google hits not being evidence.) Evan1975 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of Google hits is meaningless. But I already have pointed to you to the standards by which people are considered notable. --Farix (Talk) 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that they are meaningless, it just says that it's not the only deciding factor. You also refuse to specify what does qualify notability other than your "nontrivial coverage by reliable third-party sources" doublespeak. Evan1975 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of Google hits is not a factor in determining if someone or something is notable. Never has been. Now if you refuse to read the notability guideline that I directly pointed to you twice, then there is not point in discussion this with you. --Farix (Talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try reading it yourself, as it does 'not say "The number of Google hits is not a factor in determining if someone or something is notable." Also, your own submission doesn't even pass notability standards. Evan1975 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can find at least two different newspaper articles covering Kermit Hunter's play Honey in the Rock[3][4], which is sufficient to pass the general notability criteria. And given that it is one of the longest running Civil War dramas, it wouldn't be that hard to find more. Also, as quoted by WP:BIO, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online." Since you can only assert notability based on Google hits, then the hits are worthless. --Farix (Talk) 04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Google hits all by themselves can not be used for determining notability. The Google hits can be used to find notable coverage, though, by looking at what actually composes the hits. If, within the hits, you can find evidence of notavble coverage, then the Google hits are useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to figure out some criteria for these articles. Should we do it specifically for Seiyu, or try to collaborate something with voice actors over all, or even actors over all? We might not even need a full "guideline", but maybe just something as simple as a pointer in WP:MOS-ANIME that mentions an existing guideline with some tips. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any problem with applying WP:BIO that I know of. --Farix (Talk) 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)