Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Merging voice actors into character descriptions

According to WikiProject Television (a parent project of WikiProject Anime and manga), the (voice) actors should be included with the character descriptions instead of being listed separately. I've already stared this in Sister Princess (anime), but it should be more consistent across all anime articles. This will lessen the clutter without loosing any information. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll keep that in mind in the future. - Phorque 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Though if there are no individual descriptions, then just listing them is acceptable until such time as descriptions are added. --日本穣 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use a list in the interim, don't put down junk like "School Boy #1 - Joe Voi Sover". That kind of stuff is treading into fancruft territory. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I created a template. {{Anime voices|[[**Japanese voice actor**]]|[[**English voice actor**]]}}

So for example: {{Anime voices|[[Rumi Hiiragi]]|[[Daveigh Chase]]}} becomes...

Voiced by: Rumi Hiiragi (Japanese); Daveigh Chase (English)

For an implementation see Spirited Away or Elfen Lied.

Any ideas on improving a template like this? - Phorque 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That creates a lot of whitespace. --Squilibob 11:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Sorry. Made it into one line. - Phorque 12:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, this template should be used with subst: --TheFarix (Talk) 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my n00bness, but how does subst work and how would it improve the template? - Phorque 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's best to let this page do the explaining. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is very handy. When I do this I usually use seiyū instead of voice actor for Japanese seiyū, but meh, substing this would be easier. --Squilibob 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Squilibob and Farix, are you guys saying it's cool but just that everyone should write {{subst:anime voices|jap|eng}} into articles? Or should I be changing the template? -Phorque 12:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well look at WP:SUBST and judge for yourself. I think that everyone should be using {{subst:anime voices|jap|eng}} for articles and I put that in the usage on the template talk page already. A lot of templates should be subst'd but aren't however. {{Main}} is like that, for example. I think the template is fine and I will use it if I remember that it exists. --Squilibob 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there is a problem with that. Subst-ing with a "qif" in the template cause the full code of the "qif" to be included which is kinda redundant and space consuming... maybe the solution is to create separate japanese-only and japenese-and-english templates? - Phorque 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't really followed this discussion, but just wanted to add that voice actor info should not go in the lead of a character article, unless agreed on by several editors. I've noticed editors putting seiyuu info in the Bleach character articles' leads and IMO it puts marginal info in a too important spot, and also when Bleach is dubbed into English, there will be more than one voice actor, so the info will need to be moved into another section anyway. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I always preferred having them at the end of the character description. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DIGI (a descendant WikiProject of Anime and manga) faced a similar issue (I know I know, it's Digimon, but the WikiProject is really bringing up a lot of the core articles up to pair and reducing the stubs all the fans made). Some of you might be interested in what was done with Digimon Adventure#Main characters, in which we merged two characters and four voice actor credits to help the article's organization (or Digimon Frontier#Main characters which only has one character and then the two voice actors). Just to throw that out there, if it's helpful to anyone. It's pretty basic, but I really liked how it turned out.-- Ned Scott 09:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I really like that table. Another good idea for me to steal --Squilibob 12:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The table looks great! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Digimon X-Evolution infobox

Just wondering if Digimon X-Evolution should be using the animanga infobox or the film infobox. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the animanga infobox is set up for films. If that is the case, then go with the film infobox. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong about the animanga infobox not having a movie component. But which one to use is mostly up to consensus for that article. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I've seen anime movie articles that have used one, and others that use the other. It would be more consistent I suppose to use the animanga, but the film one is so much more visually pleasing. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The animaga infobox is good when you are covering a number of media in one article, which we often do in anime-related articles. However, it is a different story when you're dealing with just one media for the article. Speaking of which, we should consider including a video game component to the animanga infobox. --TheFarix (Talk) 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be good to make one for live action film and TV drama, too. There are getting to be quite a few with those, as well. --日本穣 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Can those not be handled by the already existing components of the animanga infobox? --TheFarix (Talk) 11:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because none of them are titled "Live action film" or "TV drama". So shows like Densha Otoko, Hiatari Ryōkō! and Maison Ikkoku, which all have one or both of those, don't have anything listed outside of the article itself. --日本穣 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject page facelift

If you haven't noticed, I gave a huge face lift to the WikiProject page and reorganized some of the information. But there are still some things on the page that I think should be expanded on, such as details on article structure. Please leave any comments or criticism about the new look here. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep disappearing? Does the server have something against me today? --TheFarix (Talk) 00:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. It doesn't seem right to have an example for Infobox Anime convention, especially when there is no example for Infobox Animanga. I've wanted to remove it for a while and now seems like a good time to bring it up. By the way, I'm so sick of that Midori no Hibi fanart >_< --Squilibob 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of a way to including a basic example of the Infobox Animanga into the main page and leave the rest of the details on the infobox's page. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

do the anime userboxes look odd today?

Hi, I didn't know where to mention this, but does it seem to you as if the templates for the anime userboxes were changed somehow? It looks to me as if the anime love/like/dislike faces seem rather...squashed compared to before.

I don't know how to change the templates, and I apologize if this is the wrong place to bring this up. --Tachikoma 23:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahoromatic: Article neutrality

I'm a bit concerned about the "fan reaction" section in Mahoromatic: it seems more like opinion rather than something that should be in an encyclopedia. Should it be rewritten to be neutral, or removed? Karn-b 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

it's clearly POV, but some fan reactions, like the ones towards Neon Genesis Evangelion, are actually notable. Not sure if their reactions are notable (I doubt it is), but you might not want to clear it out completely, as to avoid a revert war. I would definitely shorten it and then maybe put it under a ==Trivia== heading, and then add {{citeneeded}}. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with that section is that nothing about the fan reaction is cited. There is also a lot of weasel words in that section as well. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Although I don't think that the reaction towards Mahoromatic can be compared to the scale we saw with Evangelion, so in this case I don't think it really has a place in the article. I still vote to have it removed, or at least rewritten - in which case will change most of the original content anyway Karn-b 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hentai

Please pop in and give an opinion on the recent edits. You can get to the talk page directly here. --日本穣 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We really do need some further opinions here. Please come offer your opinion on the debate. Here's a link directly to the topic at hand. Thanks! (^_^) --日本穣 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be a little evil and play the {{nosource}} in this game. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the images themselves? (^_^) If you could pop in on the conversation and share your opinion one way or the other, that would be really helpful, too. It would be nice to see someone outside of me and the other guy in that conversation. (^_^) --日本穣 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Typed too soon. Thanks for your comments over there. (^_^) --日本穣 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I hate when jokers like this add images for simple shock value, then argue some anti-censorship thing when you try to tell them it hurts the article more than it helps. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

How do you structure a good anime/manga article? What are some examples of anime/manga articles in which the information is structured well? And how do you prefer an anime/manga article be organized? How and when should characters using subheadings, bulleted list, or definition list? What details should be included in the lead? What other details should be included, and which details should be left out? If an article is split how much information should remain in the main article with regards to character descriptions, plot summaries, and etc.? What should be in bold, what should be in italic, and what should be in both bold and italic?

Just thought I would throw these questions out. Hopefully, we can use this as a base to construct our own guidelines on article structure instead of referring to the guidelines on other WikiProjects. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the following articles are examples of good article structure:

• Highschool! Kimen-gumi
• Kiteretsu Daihyakka
• Maison Ikkoku
• Mama Loves the Poyopoyo-Saurus
• Planetes
• Urusei Yatsura

Just a few that I thought of off the top of my head. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the majority of those artilces, except for the last two, to be extreamly light on information or contain excessive amounts of cruft. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I was offering them as examples of good structure, not necessarily content. And whether or not something is cruft is mostly POV, anyway. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Anime / Manga articles tent to be heavy on lists. Lists should be pushed to the bottom of the article if possible. For larger articles lists should be put onto media release information pages. We also may want to refer to the Japanese styleguide for Manga: ja:Wikipedia:ウィキプロジェクト_漫画 --Kunzite 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how is this? Article should include the following:

• A good lead describing the anime or manga, its author or creator and basic plot information. (If someone asked you what the anime was about, what would you tell them?) It should be at least one paragraph in length.
• A plot summery of the entire series or film. Plot summaries can be divided into subpages if needed, but a more brief summery should remain in the main article.
• A list of the main characters with basic character descriptions and voice actor credits. Character names should always be in bold. Minor characters are optional, but consideration for article length should be considered.
  • If the majority of characters descriptions consist of one or two sentences, a bullet list is most appropriate.
  • If the majority of characters descriptions consist of one or more paragraphs, then a definition list is preferred.
  • If the list of characters is a separate page from the main article, then headings should be used.
• Lists of episode titles, voice actors of significant characters that were included in the character descriptions, theme songs and etc. should be placed towards the end of the article.
• Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details. Readers should be able to obtain all basic information about an anime or manga by only reading the main article.

--TheFarix (Talk) 13:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good start. Though, plot summaries of entire series/films may not be manageable or appropriate in certain cases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mako098765 (talk • contribs) .

You missed the part where I say that [p]lot summaries can be divided into subpages if needed. But I would like for a brief summery to remain on the main article to make the article more self-contained and allow it a chance to obtained feature article status. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean that a full plot summary, in pieces or in whole, is not a necessity, in my opinion. (I suppose an argument for thoroughness can be made, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with articles that only involve plot and character descriptions -- I'd like to see some more 'encyclopedic' information, like the creator's influences, cultural impact, etc., though those are difficult to find and cite in English form.) - mako 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally of the opinion that episode-by-episode writeups are the preserve of fansites; all the encycopedia needs is a list of episodes or, at most, a one sentence description of each. Shiroi Hane 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnsakura (cont.)

It seems that the discussion on the WP:BAP page was archived, and they changed the BAP/PUA policy anyway, so I'm continuing the discussion here. Here is my first draft, it's actually the same as the previous, only makes the flower petals stand out more. I think I've solved the problem of those outlines looking out of place, although it doesn't look perfect, so please make suggestions.

For anyone who missed it, the original discussion was here.

Somehow it seems a bit too red now. Just my thoughts on it, though others might disagree.--み使い Mitsukai 18:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the outlines or the whole thing? I've added another draft BTW, also red. Will make changes after you reply. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New draft. Even more red, but has less contrast, looks more pleasant to the eye IMO.

This second draft looks a lot better. It looks like the contrast was the problem, not the red. My bad. Hope someone else gives their opinion on this.--み使い Mitsukai 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I like this second one a lot. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can this be translated into a SVG? If I'm not mistake, Wikipedia tends to prefer SVGs over the other image formats. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Lookie at the bottom: Wikipedia:Other awards/Wikiproject. Who will be the first to get one? Shiroi Hane 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I can provide the SVG, but IMO this is unnecessary as some browsers still have problems displaying SVG, and the award is both small and won't need to be resized, so PNG is fine. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with both of these images is that I think that they are far too red. Sakura's are generally pinkish-white to creamy pink in color. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually depends on the sakura. They range from very pale pink (almost white) to dark pink. There's a whole range. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 06:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I based the colors of the original BarnSakura draft quite literally from a sakura petal that I scanned a few years ago, said petal coming from Ueno Park back in 2000. If you'd like, I can run down the street, get another one and redo it, using those colors.--み使い Mitsukai 18:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote

I think, considering the Manga and Anime BarnSakura is already on the official project awards page, it is important to decide on the final version, or at least the best version out of our current 4, to be named simply BarnSakura.png and be featured on that page.

Original (Draft 1) (Mitsukai)

Draft 2 (Mitsukai)

1. Shiroi Hane 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2. TcDohl 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Draft 3 (Ynhockey)

Draft 4 (Ynhockey)

1. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(place your vote as #~~~~ under the image)

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to vote to change the name to Sakura Barnstar. As it's close to... 桜花 (sakurabana) and would sorta make a pun on the word (albeit banal.) --Kunzite 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I guess Mitsukai's Draft 2 was voted in (sad that there have only been 3 votes, including none from all the regulars at this project), so I renamed it to BarnSakura.png and it's now on the award page under the correct name. It has also just been awarded to Mitsukai. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Porori

Anyone have an idea what this means? Please visit Renkin 3-kyū Magical ? Pokān and see if you can figure out the meaning of the bit at the end of the intor paragraph. I don't know what "porori" is, so I can't figure out the translation. Thanks! --日本穣 Nihonjoe 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That article title is a little funky and the text seems to come from a blog entry on the show... but.. ぽろり can mean three things according to infoseek dictionary [1]

1. 涙がこぼれるさま。 To spill tears (from one's eyes.)
2. 固着していたものが、離れ落ちたり、物を取り落としたりするさま。
3. うっかりと表に出すさま。In advertantly reveal something. I think this maybe it.

--Kunzite 17:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The text actually comes as a translation and rewording of information found on the official site. As the show is fairly new, there's not a ton of information out yet (and nothing on WP-JA yet). So, I did a translation of what I think it means. Feel free to edit if you think otherwise. The page the text is drawn from is this one. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories vs. Lists

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Anime Collaboration of the Week

I was just wondering what was going on with the Category vs. Lists response for anime. It seems that the Categories for anime are not very well kept up to date in comparison with the lists of anime. However, categories are much more easier to maintain. For example the Category:Fantasy_anime (I can't seem to get this to show) versus the List of fantasy anime. This topic was sort of brought up when this collaboration was working on List of English Dubbed Anime but in the end, the category was not created. Are we using one, the other or both? --Miss Ethereal 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was proposing a while back that we get rid of the List of anime and other similar lists and just make them all into categories. This would make things much easier to maintain, IMHO (and as you said). The only real objection that was raised is that on the lists, you can list articles you want to see created. This objection is not really valid anymore as we have Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan where such requests can be listed. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For reference, See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of seiyū. The main advantage of List of Anime, other than the aforementioned redlinks, is that you can see the whole list at once; due to all the subcats Category:Anime only has 38 pages and most of those aren't actual titles anyway. Shiroi Hane 20:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To get a category to appear in your talk, put a : in the link like [[:Category:Fantasy_anime]]. As Nihon said the lists are useful for listing anime articles that do not yet exist (red links). To have it both ways, we need to create stubs for any non-existant links from these lists making sure that they have categories. The lists would just be redundant once all the red links have been made into articles. I've been trying to do this for weeks but people keep adding more red links to List of anime >_< --Squilibob 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

people keep adding more red links to List of anime - heh, that would be me, gomen. Shiroi Hane 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to see what kind of effort should be taken to change over from lists to categories entirely, I went through the entire List of fantasy anime and made sure that each item of there had the [[Category:fantasy anime]] tag on it. It took me a long time to do just the one list but I didn't run into any real problems. What I did initally was change a bunch of the links that pointed to the list originally to point to the category instead then went through the actual list and added the category tag to the pages. If the page wasn't created, I added it (if it wasn't already there) to the missing anime articles. The only thing that sort of went amiss was brought up when I redirected the link to the Category:fantasy anime from the List of science fiction anime. I won't be doing that anymore, but I still sort of think it's okay since they should now reflect the same thing (except without the red-links).
Shiroi Hane does bring up a good point though. For the anime by genre lists, there are associated categories that, once the lists are transferred over are basically complete. However, for just anime shows/movies in general ... there doesn't (at least I don't know) appear to be a comprehensive list. Category:Anime is for all things anime, and Category:Anime series does not include movies... Maybe the solution is, if we decide to convert all lists to categories, is to do only the genres and not the list of anime. Ideas? --Miss Ethereal 00:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Another advantage List of anime has over categories is the fact that it is manual so, although it is not updated automatically, you can do human-oriented tasks that the software is incapable of like grouping related but disparatly named titles (e.g. Martian Successor Nadesico Gekigangar III The Prince of Darkness) and listing alternative titles. Shiroi Hane 00:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the things with categories that one should be careful with is to avoid overpopulating a category because of one genre being a subgenre of another. For example, mecha anime are almost always sci-fi anime as well. The same goes for magical girl with fantasy—and maybe comedy and romance—and horror with supernatural. Generally, I think such duplication should be avoided. Also, categorizing an anime by genre should be based on a verifiable source in order to avoid WP:NOR. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you perceive fantasy as a fictional work then every anime is a fantasy anime. I can't think of a non-fictional anime actually. (Grave of the Fireflies might come close?) --Squilibob 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Partly true, but I think sticking with this description of fantasy as a genre may be our best option. And given that fantasy has many subgenres, it would be more appropriate to use their respective subcategories and not put them into the more general fantasy category. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is subjective, but when I think fantasy I tend to think magic... --Miss Ethereal 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

From Fantasy: Fantasy is a genre of art, literature, film, television, and music that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of either plot, theme, setting, or all three. As I've already said, there are subgenres of fantasy that exists in anime, such as magical girl, horror and supernatural. So anything listed in one of those three genres don't need to be (and I say shouldn't) be listed in the fantasy category. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this topic here as it has nothing to do with ACOTW but does have something to do with how articles are organized. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In trying to sort and then clean out some of the junk in the Anime and Manga article request area (problem is, I find something interesting and go download it.) I've come across a wonderful use for lists: those very small aritcles on minor mangaka, anime series, and manga series. The Japanese wikipedia keeps them all in list format. It would avoid the need to create 1,000 stubby articles for things like "Io (イオ) -- a beach blanket harem manga created by mangaka Minato Koio. The main character is normal everyday highschool boy Kenji Nakamura who travels to Osaka on vacation. While there he discovers the secret of his father's dissapearance, meets 5 beautiful girls in swimsuits, and make friends with a whale....yadda yadda yadda..."

However, that being said.. lists suck. They're hard to maintain and often have a lot of omissions. Also I personally think that we erred a bit with subcategorization of anime. The up-and coming Category math feature could have solved the problem nicely -- and might sold this one.. For example.. I we had all manga taged with cat:manga and those that dealt with food as cat:food, for example, we could get a list of "cooking related". Wikipedia:Category_math_feature... or all anime with television dramas or Manga and TV drama... We're missing some, but those can be added... --Kunzite 07:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If the intersection of categories is implemented then I think we're in a very good position as far as our current categorization for anime goes. TheFarix has done an excellent job at categorizing each anime series but no one has removed the Category:Anime series from the articles and if the proposed category guideline were to come into effect, the category math feature would intersect anime series with each of the genres, which I think would be ideal. If we still had every anime article in Category:Anime then a lot of work would have to be done. --Squilibob 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement, but there is still a large number of anime that needs to be sorted by genre that weren't in Category:Anime. And I still think that Category:Anime series is too broad and has potential for overpopulation as Category:Anime did. Perhaps dividing it further with Category:Anime OVA by help matters. But the idea of the category math feature is interesting, that may offset the need to create a separate romantic comedy anime category. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If we could implement the Wikipedia:Category_math_feature then that would be ideal (from what I understand of it). We could make it an WP:AnCOTW and it would probably get more attention than some of the collabs have been getting. --Miss Ethereal 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

short comment

the mascot looks st..., CUTE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lanoo (talk • contribs) .

I have nothing against Midori, in fact I like Midori and Midori no Hibi but that picture is everywhere. Maybe a anime_mascot.png could be made and changed every few months. --Squilibob 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good one for the project in a cheerleader sort of way. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 09:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What about having Midori-chan doing different things or different poses instead? I think Midori is a very good mascot for us. Just think of that Midori no Hibi episde "Takky no hibi", and we've got all the Midori poses and costumes we need. TcDohl 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to get the artist to make several different pics in that case. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

AnimeNfo.com article in danger.

I am having a dispute with some people who consider my article on animenfo.com as spam or advertising (and they are being quite condescendent about it). That website is reffered to in many, MANY anime articles, as a search for animenfo confirms. It is a useful database and review website for the anime scene, and much like imdb.com deserves an article on wikipedia. Similar websites for the equally "unencyclopedic" topic of videogames have large articles, such as gamespot.com, gamespy, etc. If you would like to help, please visit the animenfo.com article and post on the Discussion to help convince people about the usefulness of this article. Beltz 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it a bit, categorized it, and marked it as a stub. It needs to be expanded some, perhaps with a history of the site, and major changes the site has gone through over time, etc. Keep in mind NPOV, though, as some POV had crept into the article before I rewrote it. Hope that helps! (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 09:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Planetes under good article nomination

The article Planetes has been nominated to be a good article. Please help to improve this article along the guidelines set by its peer review. Thanks! --TcDohl 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article and several others should be featured on the project page as "Example articles". - Phorque (talk · contribs) 13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii Kon article a stub?

I was wondering if the Kawaii Kon article still qualifies as a stub, since there isn't much information to give on it because it's a relatively young convention. If it is still a stub, what should be added to it?

Musashi1600 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of names of articles

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment.". A discussion on Wikiproject Japan has made me wonder about how we should treat article names for anime and manga that have different capitalization. Examples: Gundam SEED articles, NARUTO, Magical DoReMi, FLCL, Jinki:EXTEND etc --Squilibob 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For FLCL, why don't you use its long name of Fooly Cooly? Jake52

FLCL is ok, I think, according to the "don't invent new formats: MCI is standard, not 'Mci.'" entry in that list. Allcaps entries should be in title case. DoReMi is CamelCase and is a judgement call. The same thing with personal names (i.e. Yoshitoshi ABe) is not good form. We don't do it for E. E. Cummings. --Kunzite 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Chapter numbers

I think that the infoboxes should also contain the information about the numbers of chapters released, not just the number of volumes. Does anyone else agree? ~ Anonymous contributor, April 21 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.161.44 (talk • contribs) .

Chapters doesn't always tell you how much content was released. Volume is a bit better, in that a whole volume is usually considered enough of the work to be a sellable product on it's own. Chapter is less defined as to how much content it has. But you really wanted to, you could just put how many chapters after volume, like "Volumes: 4 (8 chapters)". -- Ned Scott 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

who would win

who do you think would win in a fight, Monkey D. Luffy or Goku?

Leave your opinion on my talk page!

Mr Negoiator, 13:00 April 2006 (UTC)

• Goku, per um... wait a second, this isn't a real poll!, and it's probably not appropriate for this talk page. Sorry man, but you'll have to leave such discussions on other web sites. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Ned Scott on this matter. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nerima Daikon Brothers: Request for review..

Please review the article my translation of the Nerima Daikon Brothers article from the Ja:wiki. I need to add screen shots, do two more character translations, and expand upon the list of Koizumi puns. Then spellcheck, spellcheck, spellcheck.

What is the general opinion on translating the staff section jp wiki articles on anime? I notice that most aren't included in translations.

(I'm trying to get this added to the DYK section of the front page, so I've been working on the article on my sandbox. The current one is a stub which I have put the inuse template on.)

Thanks!--Kunzite 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion, which can be applied to most if not all anime and manga articles, is reduce unnecessary spoilers. A reader should be able to get more information out of that article without having to avoid the huge spoiler area. I don't know how much if it is actual spoilers, so you might be able to just close the spoiler tag (via {{endspoiler}}) every so often and open it back up when appropriate. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We're bound by the WP:SPOILER guidelines for this. I'm inclined to include all spoilers that contain encyclopedic content because wikipedia is not censored. End spoiler tags are optional and I find that they clutter the article.

My personal philosophy is to put a spoiler tag on the top of the page like the French wikipedia and say--you've been warned. However, I don't think that's usually policy here to include them after the lead.

Also the definition of a spoiler for this series can be up for debate. What constitutes a spoiler for this (or any) series? It's not been widely seen. My putting Michael Jackson and Junichiro Koizumi in the list of people parodied is technically a spoiler. It's akin to putting Sailor Neptune in a list of Sailor Moon protagonists. She play an important part in the show and mentioning the name hints at future plot and possibly spoils part of the plot of SuperS because it gives away the fact that's a protagonist rather than the ambigious setting in the end.

Finally, anything that I put in the "political references" section will be a deep spoiler, but it's some of the most encyclopedic content in the show. A lot of that information isn't even in Koizumi's article--especially the Koizumi Children/Madonnas/Assassins that were aspect that's so heavily played on. ("Koizumi Children" are the politicians that chosen for their ability to defeat Japanese politicians who opposed Koizumi's Postal Reforms. (Mostly photognic female politicians.) They create a bit of a personality cult around the Prime Minister.) --Kunzite 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but I still think that someone who wishes to not read spoilers can get a lot more out of that article than they currently do. Also, remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Ned Scott 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii Kon article a stub?

I asked this about a month ago and didn't get a response. Does the Kawaii Kon article still qualify as a stub, and if it does, what information should be added?

Musashi1600 07:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)