Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Konpeki/Kyokujitsu no Kantai episodes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi. I just downloaded the entire series on torrent and is preparing to watch everything altogether. I'm looking for Nippongo-proficient editors who can help create an episode list and link them to the main article. I'll fill them out based on my understanding of the episodes. Anyone who wants a torrent can go to Snubbed. Editors who have a rabid anti-Japanese bias (and would probably say this is not required because it was never released in the US; yeah, I'm looking at you, Wsoxknqaz!) need not apply. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not allowed to post copyrighted links. Why can't you create an episode list yourself? You could always use an episode list as a base and work from there. The hardest part of creating the list would be finding the kanjis of the episode titles. 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The original JA version of the article (plus the episode guide has the kanji links, but I'm not sure if Google does translate it well. I will include a list for Kyokujitsu no Kantai as well.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In a couple of days, I'll help with the episode list of no one decides to take this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made a draft list here. Let's fill that up first with translations of the JC Staff episode guide above, then we go live with it. Based on my understanding from watching the last five episodes, I'd probably tweak the plot of the main page once I watch the series all over again. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The kanji for episodes 10, 18, and 32 confound the transliteration site http://nihongo.j-talk.com/kanji/. Could someone please have a look at them? --Malkinann (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Added missing ones --Kusunose 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just keep up the tweaking, although it could take a couple of weeks and much vid-watching to pull this off. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Episode 6 of Kyokujitsu no Kantai also confounds the transliteration site. --Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the transliteration. Now we need editors who can accurately list the ep titles, especially those who have strong command of Japanese. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm already finished with summaries of the first ten episodes and starting to watch EP11.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any information available about the production teams for these series, like in List of Buso Renkin episodes? --Malkinann (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I only got that from the official site using Google Translate--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC).

Where did the stuff in the Konpeki no Kantai infobox come from? --Malkinann (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just check the Google links in the translation template.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I'm finished with the Konpeki episodes and now summarising Kyokujitsu. Help out if you can, because there are some things I still don't understand (Wow, an IJN admiral receiving a Victoria Cross?)--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Its time to move this discussion to the article's talk page. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. replicating at TP now, everyone please proceed there...this thread in its current form can be archived already.--Eaglestorm (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Foreign Reliable Source check - Imperio Anime

• Imperio Anime

A check reveals they have been posted by the magazine here and [ http://www.artstudiomagazine.com/especiales/matsuri-2003.html here] which appears to be a RS based on hits I get [1]. They have done many interviews with a Costa Rican anime festvial, Festival Kamen which appears to have become signifigant enough in the country to be given Presidential recognition [2]. That's all I can find on it. It's not that easy when you don't know the language.陣内_Jinnai 04:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The first article is written by Animefanatik, the creator of Imperio Anime, so it could be a conflict of interest. His/her name is noted at the bottom of Imperio's website. (On a side note, I find it strange how Imperio posted the site under Creative Commons but claims copyright because the two don't go hand in hand.) What are you using from Imperio as a reference? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might be able to use this page from the afore mentioned Festival Kamen, if it was given that kind of national recognition. I want to use it as a RS that could have a chance at passing muster at FAC for Popotan as a secondary source saying that the visual novel's opening animation was part of the Caramelldansen origin. Right now, that and one from Imperio are the two best sources to date. That's big my biggest holdup to bringing that to a FAC.陣内_Jinnai 22:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yo necesito un poco ayuda por favor

Ariel is on peer review; the article doesn't fall under this Project's scope, but I would appreciate some input at the review page. Thanks--GroovySandwich 07:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Inazuma Eleven episodes

This show has been dubbed into English the only reason i know is there is a advert for it coming soon to Disney XD UK but i am just wondering when it start airing if i should add the airdate as the UK transmission i can provide a source but someone would need to archive it as the TV site only keeps 2 or 3 weeks listings then there gone--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

acutally it starts tomorrow here is the links http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=98607293, http://www.tvguide.co.uk/?thistime=8&thisDay=7/25/2011&systemid=&gridspan=03:00&catColor=, http://beta.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings?sd=25-07-2011%2021:00:00#{"sd":"25-07-2011 08:00:00"}, http://www.onthebox.com/search.aspx?q=inazuma, http://www.mydigiguide.com/tv-guide/tv.dll?a=6&h=1&PID=150963, http://www.mydigiguide.com/tv-guide/tv.dll?h=1&a=2&dt=4e2d1b78&Ch=50945#P150963--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You can use something like http://www.webcitation.org/ Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

unfortnally i tried teh sites after fiding that site but it seems they block sites liek them from archiving them :(--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC for Romance and Drama as redundant genres of Harem

As the previous discussion ended with no concensus, I've decided to start a RfC to revive this discussion. I am hoping to gain further comments and reach a concensus whether the romance and drama genres should be considered redundant when harem is already listed in the infobox. The issue arose after TheFarix (talk · contribs) reverted my addition of the genres to To Heart 2, a visual novel. TheFarix stated that the harem genre is an obvious subgenre of romance, and that it is impossible to have a harem series without involving romance between the protagonist and multiple characters of the opposite gender.

My argument is that a visual novel is a form of literary work with multiple endings branched from a common exposition (common route), and the singular romance of each separate route/ending constitutes as a reason for the other genres' inclusion in order to give both "halves" of the game fair representation. Jinnai (talk · contribs) also provided two sources regarding the harem genre's defition in the previous dicussion; one of such source requires romance while the other doesn't. -- クラウド６６８ 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel if anything the category Romance should trump Harem as harem falls under romance not the other way around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Drama and Comedy are opposite genres and should not be listed together in |genre=. If To Heart 2 is a comedy, then it is not a drama. If To Heart 2 is a drama, then it is not a comedy. It cannot be both. If you are going to make the claim that it is both, then you must a cite a reliable source. Harem is a subgenre of Romance, a rather obvious one at that. In accordance with the {{Infobox animanga}}'s documentation, the more specific genres should be listed in the |genre= over general genres, not the other way around. So if Harem is listed, Romance—as the more general genre—should not. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that most harem anime/manga would be in the romance genre, but that the harem genre doesn't necessarily imply romance. However, that probably depends on how the harem genre is defined. Since this is Wikipedia, we have to rely on reliable sources for how to define the harem genre. The definition used in the Harem (genre) article seems to rely most heavily on an "Ask John" post by John Oppliger of AnimeNation, where he was specifically asked what makes an anime or manga be in the harem genre. In his answer to that question he says that harem shows don't necessarily have to involve romance. Since that seems to be the reliable source that most directly addresses the question of what the harem genre is, I think we have to say that harem shows aren't necessarily romance (unless multiple other reliable sources can be found that specifically say the harem genre must involve romance). So, baring other reliable sources contradicting the Ask John column, I think harem and romance should both be listed when a show falls into both genres. I think that doing otherwise (again baring additional reliable sources that say otherwise) would constitute original research. Also, to give an example, the Anime New's Network's encyclopedia currently list Higurashi as a harem show, and I think it would fit the definition of the harem genre given in the Ask John definition, but I certainly wouldn't say it is in the romance genre. Another example that I think would be in the harem genre but not the romance genre is Mouse, though I haven't seen it so I can't be sure (both ANN's encyclopedia and the current Wikipedia article list it as a harem anime but not a romance anime).

For the drama genre, I feel strongly that the harem genre does not at all imply that an anime or manga is in the drama genre, as there are many harem shows that have little drama (but it sounds like that wasn't the reason Farix removed the drama genre in this case, so I don't think anyone here is actually in disagreement on that point).

As for whether comedy and drama are mutually exclusive, I feel strongly that they are not. There simply is such a think as the comedy-drama genre, and no reason to doubt that those two genres can both apply to the same work. Farix, I think you may be confusing "tragedy" with drama, where plays in particular were traditionally classified as either comedies or tragedies. However, tragedy is certainly not the same thing as drama, and I don't think I have ever seen a reliable source that says something can't be both drama and comedy. Furthermore, just based on common sense, there are works that obviously seem to be both comedy and drama. For example, Kare Kano (particularly the anime version) has significant amounts of both comedy and drama. I notice that Kare Kano currently has comedy-drama listed in the infobox, which may be the best way to list something that is both a comedy and a drama (as opposed to listing comedy and drama separately). Also, I want to note that there are hundreds of anime and manga in Anime News Network's encyclopedia which have both the comedy and drama genres listed. While Anime News Network's encyclopedia is not a reliable source, that strongly suggests that in general usage among anime and manga fans the comedy and drama genres are not considered mutually exclusive. Calathan (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed now that Jinnai did provide one source that suggests a harem show must involve romance. I'd still be inclined to say that both genres should be listed unless more sources are found that say harem must imply romance. However, the additional source does add some weight to the other opinion. Calathan (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there ant anime that involves a group of females and one of them has a brother that is involved alot in the story? I do not know if this would be a case of non-romantic harem or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether Harem is a subgenre of Romance or not is debatable. It may appear very obvious to you that Harem is a subgenre, but it does not appear the same to everyone. It's a challengeable statement, and thus it requires sourcing. Moreover, the "specific genre over general genre" clause is not designed for a versatile literary format such as visual novels, which To Heart 2 originally is. Instead of forcing the clause on the medium, we should instead find a consensus for representing the genres of visual novels. -- クラウド６６８ 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(And to Knowledgekid) The closest example I can give is Hoshizora e Kakaru Hashi, but even then that may not exactly fit what you said. -- クラウド６６８ 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The classification of a work into a genre should not be determined by editors. Instead, editors should find reliable sources which state what the genre is. The WP:Verifiabilty requirement applies to all material in the article, even to information in an InfoBox, such as dates and genre. If reliable sources classify a work as harem, or drama, or comedy, then those genres can be listed in the info box, even if multiple genres appear to conflict. Editors cannot themselves determine which genre a work belongs to, since that would constitute WP:Original research, which is prohibited. --Noleander (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is there generally isn't a lot of reliable sources regarding a specific work's genre, and that makes it sometimes impossible to list genres for an article. This is not favorable because infoboxes exist to give readers general information about the subject, and having the genres in the infobox will likely help readers understand the nature of the work. I think in the cases where sources on a work's genre(s) are unavailable, WP:IAR can possibly be invoked, allowing genre(s) to be listed without sources unless they become challanged (which is where To Heart 2 is at right now). -- クラウド６６８ 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules is not a useful policy to cite when in an RfC :-) The whole point of the RfC is that there is some confusion or dispute between editors, so it is best to stick with sound guidance from concrete policies, such as WP:Verifiability. --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think unsourced genres should still be allowed by WP:V given that it requires only "challenged or likely to be challenged" material to be attributed; this being a rare case where we argue over the genre. Of course, anything can be considered "likely to be challenged" (such as the genres this RfC is for), but I think a discussion on unsourced genres in an infobox is out of the scope of this discussion, and should instead be a separate RfC if needed. -- クラウド６６８ 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cloud: You may have misread the WP:Verifiability policy. It says that all material must originate in reliable sources. The "likely to be challenged" sentence you cite is the requirement for in-line citations (footnotes). The entire relevant passage reads: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation". This is a cornerstone of WP. Editors are not permitted to make their own guesses about genre, especially if it is prominently displayed in an Infobox. Think of it this way: if no reliable sources mention the genre of a particular piece of work, then that must mean the genre is not very important, so the article should omit it. If the genre were important, RSs would discuss it. --Noleander (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll probably just cite a source for To Heart 2's romance genre somewhere in the body in that case. My main concern is that given not all works receive significant coverage for their genres, especially for older works created before the Internet. I do agree sources should be cited when available, but it likely isn't possible to cite sources for every article's genre(s). I'll have to disagree that not having reliable sources on the genre(s) mean that the information is not important, however, as it is there to help readers to understand the article's subject. If anything, genres in infoboxes should be discussed separately, as there isn't a lot of information about them in guidelines or policies. -- クラウド６６８ 04:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the source I mentioned, it did not really say it requires romance. It says "erotic" encounters with mutliple girls eith the main protagonist usually chosing one girl in the end. I see how that can be construed as romance, but there are certainly many darker titles where no romance need be involved. Also, the usage of erotic I got was one that could run the whole gambit from explicit sexx to a panty shot to an arousing encounter..陣内_Jinnai 19:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious what other editors think about the requirement for sourcing for the InfoBox genre, so I requested input here and here. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent discussion at that noticeboard about putting genre in InfoBoxes. --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, my opinion is that the romance and drama genres should not considered redundant when harem is already listed in the infobox if reliable sources mention them along with harem. Implying that harem covers romance or drama means that there is a consensus in the majority of reliable sources that review anime to establish that, which, as far as I know is not the case. And because of that, doing that here without relying on sources would be original research. The article Harem (genre) says nothing in that regard to imply that harem means drama/romance. One could make the case that School Days could be a harem, drama, romance and tragedy. More importantly, this is not a decision that an editor has to make. If reliable sources classify a series as a harem-drama-comedy, then that is what should be expressed in the infobox because that is verifiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so it is irrelevant to discuss whether harem implies also drama or romance since sources are the ones that establish what genre should be used in an infobox. If reliable sources do not mention a genre for a series, then a genre should not be used in the infobox if it is contentious, at least until it is backed up by reliable sources. Harem as a subgenre of romance or drama is not obvious in anyway and doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources and, as such, goes against WP:V. Jfgslo (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I need someone to reclassify those titles. If Love Triangle is not Harem then what about 'Goshūshō-sama Ninomiya-kun', it's Love Triangle but still classified as Harem. And in 'Baka to Test to Shoukanjuu', besides two main heroines, the main char's sister and one of the heroine's sister also have interest in him. His sister also showed signs of jealousy. And in the OVA of the Visual Novel, 'Sora no Iro, Mizu no Iro', both heroines decided to live together with the protagonist in the end. And in those Visual Novels that are adapted into anime or OVA, sometimes Visual Novels have harem ending while their animes or OVAs do not, and reverse. How do we classify those titles? And please recheck the Harem anime and manga category page, I think there are some mistakes for some title to be put there Jakeslogan (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Virtual idol anime?

I need some help coming up with a list of anime featuring virtual idols. So far, I've come up with Macross Plus (Sharon Apple) and Megazone 23 (Eve). Can anyone think of any others? I'm purposely excluding Vocaloids as they aren't actually anime (though some have appeared in a manga or two). Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Idolmaster, White Album, Kannagi: Crazy Shrine Maidens (Zange), Koihime Musou had three idol sisters, Lovely Idol, Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu (Haruka works as an idol for a time), Seto no Hanayome (Lunar), and To Love-Ru (Ren/Run). All I can think of.--十八 05:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Uta no Prince-sama lol _dk (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So these are all virtual idols? I'm looking for holographic or other similar virtual idols which are not physically present within the world of the story (hence my examples of Sharon Apple and Eve). I'm not just looking for idol anime. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand your original request. No, none of these are virtual idols in the sense that they're virtual in-story. I can't think of any that fit that criterion.--十八 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So from what I understand, you're looking for idols who are created by characters in anime but with no actual physical presence in the story of that series. I had to actually look up info about Sharon Apple to understand your original request. I can't seem to come up with additional examples, unfortunately. How minor/major do you want these virtual idols to be? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm fine with minor ones, too, as I'm just looking for any examples at this point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this for something Wikipedia related? Are you looking for specifically constructs, or would something like Fancy Lala count? She exists, but she's magically aged-up and doesn't look like her true younger self. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not specifically Wikipedia-related, though it may end up being able to be used here if I can find enough information. It would need to be virtual idols as described, not magically aged-up or otherwise enhanced. The only two I can think of are Eve and Sharon Apple. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaia Online

Seeing that gaia does create it's own manga[3] and they have been to anime conventions[4] should this website fall under our scope? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, their "manga" would fall under the OEL or manga-influenced label, so I'm not entirely sure how much that should be taken into account. Manga-influenced series (Peach Fuzz, My Cat Loki, etc.), for instance, do not fall under our scope. (Usually they go to the American comics task force.) Additionally, conventions host several panels, many/some of which don't directly connect to anime or manga. However, I could see Gaia being a "major aspect" of the fandom, which would warrant inclusion. For now, I'll say probably not, unless there is convincing evidence that it is strongly related and not simply influenced. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed vs. Detective Conan vs. Detective conan

Umm, I know this has probably come up a number of times and I'm sure the debate will continue forever among the angry fanboys, but I just noticed there are three separate articles for the same franchise: Case Closed, Detective Conan, and Detective conan. ~ Hibana (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed; the latter two now redirect to Case Closed--GroovySandwich 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, looks like you fixed one of them and I fixed the other. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could those redirects be permanently protected? I don't see any harm if they can. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All three of the pages in question (the two above and the one below) have been semi-protected. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I also fixed List of Detective Conan films which was a pure copy of the case closed list. No need whatsoever for two of those. Someone may want to keep an eye to make sure people don't try to recreate that. Someone may also want to keep an eye out to make sure that this is not tried on the episode or video game articles.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help finding source of this pucture

This blog contains a picture containing the top ratings for dramas (I think), but I am unsure if the picture was created by the blogger or taken from a reliable source. If the origin of the picture is unreliable, does anyone have a suggestion to find a source for ratings of this Japanese drama? Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be created by the blogger; Tineye and Google Images trace it back only to that page and a forum thread, and the copyright notice points to other blog pages compiling various sources (in Google Translate, one of the 4 links mentions the information incorporates rumors). --Gwern (contribs) 12:58 4 August 2011 (GMT)

Aion Manga

Does anyone know if Aion volume #3 was released by tokyopop or not? I got Aion #3 at Otakon and inside it has the tokyopop website (USA) and a printing of May 2011 but in the article the sources point out the release as being up in the air. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have it, then it was released. It was probably one of TP's last releases, so there wouldn't be that many copies. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 10:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this link[5] that is in the Aion article puts the release in question for volume 3, I need some kind of reference that says that volume #3 was indeed released. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really in question. ANN acknowledges that it was available on retail sites; it just wasn't able to directly confirm with Tokyopop. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times Manga Best Sellers

I'm currently preparing an article for The New York Times Best Seller list for manga. There should be no problem getting sources for prose from my initial review of available resources on the Internet. The time consuming part is looking at 100+ weeks' worth of rankings and transferring them onto the tables. While I'm aware that there is currently no consensus whether sales rankings contribute to a book's notability, The New York Times's list is quite visible and well known. It should let us see high interest works that may not have received sufficient attention from editors. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The current List of New York Times Fiction Best Sellers and List of New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers simply lists the #1 books and nothing else. Anything more than that will likely get the list sent to AfD under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Farix (t | c) 15:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not indiscriminate since it has a specific reason for being listed, only showing the things on the top ten manga list. And its certainly not a directory, but a collection of useful information with encyclopedic value. Dream Focus 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be considered a directory according to the points listed on that page. Indiscriminate is dependent on the third point, which is excessive statistics. The NYT lists for fiction and non-fiction are much older and generally do not present notability beyond the #1 ranks. However, the manga list is much more recent, and I intend to use "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". In my opinion, this would be an easy FL if done well. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work Arsonal! Rather well done list. That's something useful to navigate the information, and see what was popular and when. Dream Focus 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I also think it may be good to list only the #1 for any specific week (per Farix's comments). The list will get far too large otherwise. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the length issue can be solved by splitting the article by years. I think the article is a good idea and should continue to list the top 10. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If it ever gets too long, split it into years, or have it grouped to every five years, whatever fits nicely together. I see no problems with length now. Dream Focus 10:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I will reassess the length when I'm finished. As of this writing, I have 55 weeks' worth of ranks left to populate. Although, to be honest, I don't see how listing only the first-ranked releases on this main list would make it any shorter than the yearly compilation since both would have 52 lines of tabular data. I'm open to ideas, though. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The list is now live at List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers with a staggering 257 citations. At 130kb, I think splitting will be a good idea as suggested. I will implement this at a later time. In the meantime, there are three series (2 manga and 1 manhwa) that made the Best Seller list that do not have an article on Wikipedia. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RSs

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/brain-diving/2011-08-09

"This time, though, instead of a fictional book about the supernatural I'm going to be examining a nonfiction book about Japanese ghosts – Patrick Drazen's A Gathering of Spirits: Japan's Ghost Story Tradition: From Folklore and Kabuki to Anime and Manga, which was recently self-published through the iUniverse service. This is Drazen's second book; the first one, Anime Explosion! The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation, came out in 2002 from Stone Bridge Press and was an introduction to many of the genres and themes that can be found in anime.

I think the switch from a commercial press to self-publication may indicate the direction English-language anime and manga scholarship may be heading in. A few years ago, when Japanese popular culture seemed like the Next Big Thing, there were more publishers that seemed like they were willing to take a chance on books about anime and manga.
Unfortunately, as I know firsthand (and as I've heard from other authors, confirming that it's not just me) these books didn't sell nearly as well as anyone was hoping, which in turn meant that these publishers didn't want to take risks with additional books along these lines. After all, all publishers need to make money in one way or another to stay afloat. In the last few years, the majority of books on anime and manga have been published by university presses, perhaps most notably the University of Minnesota Press.

...However, this puts books like Drazen's in an odd predicament. It's not really an academic book, since it lacks the references and theories something like that would entail, which means it's not a good candidate for a university press. However, since few popular presses have seen their books on anime and manga reflect positively on their bottom lines, there aren't many other options these days other than self-publishing. Of course, these days publishing a book on your own doesn't have nearly the same connotations it did decades ago, when vanity presses were the domain of those with more money (and ego) than sense. These days you can self-publish a quality product, get it up on Amazon for all to see, and (if you're savvy about these things) perhaps even make a tidy profit."

--Gwern (contribs) 17:07 9 August 2011 (GMT)

Can you elaborate what discussion you're trying to bring up?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's kinda of a "beware what print books we use a RSes" message and that univerity presses have begun publishing authors as a kind of vanity press, in which case we use the same criteria as a fansite or blog. The only other thing I could see is that there is likely to be more of such in the future, most of which seem to be poorly referenced.陣内_Jinnai 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, that was the opposite of what I meant. I was pointing to the earlier part of that Ruh quote - Ruh would likely not be able to get his own book on Mamoru Oshii (Stray Dog of Anime) published these days, and this is a general trend. Our RSs are going away, if we continue to define RS as principally 'did a commercial business publish it?' --Gwern (contribs) 22:06 21 August 2011 (GMT)

Need a little help on the Naruto article

Recently, some users have been repeatedly added unsourced, poorly placed, and NNPOV material to the lede section of the Naruto article ([6]). I tried to open up a discussion here, but the users unfortunately kept on adding the unsourced material. One of them was blocked for edit warring on the article. Can someone please look into this mess and voice their opinions on this matter? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should be indef semi-protected like in the past. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Leading 0s in numbered lists

I know this is a very trivial matter and seems nitpicky, but I just wanted to ask for clarification. When has it been customary to use (or not use) leading zeros in a numbered volume list? There is currently mixed usage, and I just wanted to straighten things out before we have anchor links breaking left and right, such as in the Best Seller list I'm creating.

Lists that use leading zeroes include List of Soul Eater chapters (FL), List of Shugo Chara! volumes, List of Kitchen Princess chapters, List of Sayonara, Zetsubou-Sensei chapters, etc.

Lists that don't include List of Naruto chapters (Part I) (FL), List of Bleach chapters (1–187), List of Fruits Basket chapters, List of Black Butler chapters, etc.

Neither examples are exhaustive. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of preference--GroovySandwich 04:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been told to remove Zeros at the beginning of numbers but I can't seem to remember where. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the leading zeros from the volume numbers, you have to remove them from the chapter numbers too. You can't have it both ways. I never understood why we put 2 zeros in front of series chapters that have over 100 chapters anyway, unless we're also being consistent with the volume numbers. And even if it is a matter of preference, I think I've seen it more often when leading zeros are used rather than not. I guess the main thing is, if the article has leading zeros, don't remove them, the same thing we do with how dates are formatted between (day month year) and (month day, year) formats. We don't change from one format to another because one is not superior over another.--十八 08:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We didn't always have {{Numbered list}} and {{Graphic novel list}} didn't always look the way it does now. At some point in the past, using leading zeros was superior. Now both methods are equally good at best. Personally I'm leaning towards skipping the zeros wherever possible. Goodraise 08:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can design a bot to remove all the leading zeros, then by all means.--十八 10:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Its ridiculous to put zeroes in front of numbers. We count as 1, 2, 3, not 01, 02, 03, etc. Adding something in because some thought it looked cool, is not very encyclopedic. Do some series use the zero method for their published volumes? Do they do that in the original version, or in the translated to English version? Do DVDs for television series sometimes use the zero method for episodes? Is that where this all started from? Dream Focus 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why leading zeros? Because most sorting algorithms are pretty stupid. They will improperly a series of numbers based on the characters instead of the whole number, such as 1, 11, 13, 3, 5, 7, 9. By incorporating a leading zero, you can ensure that the numbers are sorted properly: 01, 03, 05, 07, 09, 11, 13. —Farix (t | c) 11:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We just need a better sorting algorithm, that READS in numbers as REAL not chars. One simple line of code and its done. Dream Focus 11:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, only List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes uses sorting. I just tested removing zeros from it, and the sorting still works. Are there any others you have in mind? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Going back to Juhachi's comment above. I think it's possible to remove the leading zeroes using AWB, either manually or using a bot. {{Graphic novel list}} has 732 transclusions, while {{Japanese episode list}} has more at 1,186. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't go around removing the leading zeroes. As I said, it prevents the data from dumb sorting algorithms and gives the lists a much cleaner look. —Farix (t | c) 15:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If the numbers are added into templates, then would it still have that sorting problem? A "cleaner" look? Sure it looks a tiny bit more organized, but not to a significant amount.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Farix; I wouldn't change things without first understanding the issue. I've already mentioned above one case where the sorting does not break. If there are other places where it does, by all means you are welcome to point it out. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the question it should come down to is: What sort of tables should we use in the lists? if we use sortable lists the zeros would be the best way to go as to not mess things up (unless a solution can be worked out as above with the haruhi list) or just regular tables without the zeros, straw poll anyone? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't need sortable lists, unless they are something like Haruhi and have some kind of special order sequence that cam vary.陣内_Jinnai 01:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is not going to be a problem with the table I do not see why the 0's are needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The only other title I can think of offhand that might be affected by this offhand would list List of Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon episodes as Act.ZERO would be a prequel even though it comes after if we listed all of them together like they do on the Japanese page. The order of chronology would put it at the top for story, but at the bottom for release/air date. It's a bit different than a flashback as the episode is numbered (albeit in roman lettering).

There are probably others, but that's all I'm aware of.陣内_Jinnai 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the tables also have microdata that allow computers to extract and parse the data. Users can sort this microdata based on episode numbers, titles, air dates, directors, writers, etc. And since we don't know whether those sorting algorithms will treat the data as or as integers, it is better to use the leading zeros so that it wouldn't be an issue.

But really, why is this even an issue? This has never been an issue before until Arsonal suddenly when around removing leading zeros from some of the tables. There is nothing here that would violate MOS:NUM as it only states to avoid leading zeros for dates and 12-hour clock times. On top of that, removing leading zeros in the episode tables will break many of the episode redirects and reference links that depend on those zeros. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What sorting algorithms are you referring to other than Wikimedia's own sorting function? The issue is that when you have anchor links directly to specific parts of a list, there is no consistency. Some lists were originally created with leading zeros, and some were not. This poses a problem in the future should an article contains multiple links to different articles with different methodology (the first example of which is the NYT Best Seller list I created). Because there is mixed usage, an editor unfamiliar with the article may mistake the use (or non-use) of leading zeros as incorrect, breaking the links you are talking about. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds so much like a non-issue that it isn't worth bothering. Especially in the face of sorting problems and breaking existing links. —Farix (t | c) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand that it may break some existing links, but no change is without effort. I still don't understand what are these sorting problems you speak of. Where are episode and chapter list being used for sorting other here? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I believe Farix is referring to Microdata (HTML5) and third-party software which may or may not use it. He has a valid point in that numbers with leading zeros make the lives of programmers of such applications easier and in turn may help our readers indirectly (for example by delivering better search engine results), but I'm not willing to put the visual appeal of our articles (which is admittedly subjective) behind such considerations. Goodraise 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if that meta data can be used, it can be hidden so we could have 1, 2, 3 visable and hidden 01, 02, 03. Personally, if this is really something that needs a guideline change (I don't think it is, but if it continues to be argued it would be better):

Non-sortable lists should generally not use leading zeros. Because of coding concerns, sortable lists may use leading zeros except those that would violate MOS:NUM.

There is no coding concern with non-sortable lists. They are designed to allows be in the order they are coded therefore there is no justification for leading zeros.陣内_Jinnai 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving toward consensus

A week has passed since the discussion and from what I can tell, as no additional comments have been made in the past 2–3 days, everyone has contributed what they wanted to say in the matter. From my observation (and someone can correct me if I'm mistaken), the basic consensus is that we can move toward the removal of leading zeros in numbered volume, chapter, and episode lists. We've also acknowledged three concerns:

1. the need to use leading zeros for sortable lists to account for incompatible sorting functions (as raised by Farix),
2. the breaking of anchor links when numbers are changed between the presence and absence of leading zeros (as raised by Farix), and
3. the need for consistency in the use of leading zeros for combined volume/chapter lists (as raised by Juhachi).

Therefore, in consideration of these concerns, we can move forward with the removal of leading zeros from lists with the following conditions:

1. Leading zeros will remain in place where there are sortable lists, e.g. List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes.
2. When removing leading zeros from a non-sortable list, editors must check that no anchor links leading to the page breaks correct broken anchor links that occur when they are removed. This can be done by utilizing Special:WhatLinksHere.
3. If leading zeros are removed from a volume list, leading zeros will also be removed from the applicable chapter list.

Because there may be articles where the absence of a leading zero would be inappropriate, exceptions will be made. The removal of leading zeros will not be mandated, but editors are welcome to remove them on sight according to their discretion. Of course, consensus can change. If you think I've made a mistake, I welcome your correction. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. 2 should be changed to state that they should correct those links if they do.陣内_Jinnai 02:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It actually means that, but I reworded it to be clearer. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely oppose. There is absolutely no reason to go around remove leading zeros from the tables, and doing so will be highly disruptive. In fact, there is more benefit in keeping them as I've already outlined above. —Farix (t | c) 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Farix on this, per the concerns he stated, and the fact that it's a long-standing convention to use leading zeros in these lists. There's no reason to change it when it's never been a problem.--十八 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Long-standing conventions can change. The general consensus above indicates so. The changes would not be disruptive if incoming links to the lists are checked for broken anchors. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While my own inclination towards removal of leading zeros is so marginal that I wouldn't lift a finger to make it happen (much less fight over the issue), my distaste for certain arguments compels me to speak up again. First of all: "There's no reason for X". This implies that whoever is in favor of X is being irrational. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I find this highly insulting. You may find our reasons insufficient or unconvincing, but denying their very existence is impolite at best. Secondly, be it "long-standing convention" or "ancient tradition", consensus—current consensus—is paramount. Thirdly and lastly, "it's never been a problem". The fact we're having this discussion proves that it's a problem, maybe not to you, but to the person who brought it up. Goodraise 22:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Bleach volumes organization

I was wondering that if we could organize the list of bleach chapters a lil more organized. Are they being being split up just for the sake of data issues or more? I think being split for every 20 volumes would be good.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. The first list contains 21 volumes because Viz Media released a box set of those volumes. The other sublists contain 20 volumes thereafter. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's still a bit inconsistent. I just think it would be better to have more of a consistent pattern to them.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific division, 20 is standard division.陣内_Jinnai 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Than why is it split in by 21 each?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of lack of opinions in discussions and consensus to 21 volumes. Anyway, why was the main list moved?Tintor2 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Already answered it on the next one. So then, could we get a consensus now to split them by 20 each?Bread Ninja (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the whole list should be reorganized just for consistency. The first 21 volumes contains one whole story arc and was released in a box set. These two things would support my consensus to have the first sublist contain 21 volumes. As for the other sublists, their divison does not matter in my opinion. On a side note, character books from the series reveal volumes 22 to 48 contains one whole arc. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

SO would we split these into arcs then? consistency is very important. if the 1st 21 volumes are 1 arc. then should we merge some to make one entire arc aswell?Bread Ninja (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought about it, but as the third arc was never named, there would be no title available.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the 3rd arc the current one? I don't think we need to name the arcs. would it be easier if we number them first and put the name as additional feature (until we know what all the arcs are titled)?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If consistency is that important and there are no oppositions, just re-organize it to arcs then. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well of course it's important, if there was a set of minor characters that were too long, how would you split it without making it look completely for that sake? I am in favor of splitting it into arcs, for consistency, and because it'll make more sense.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Popotan PR

The article has been up for a peer review since July 30 with no comments.陣内_Jinnai 01:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added some comments about improvements to the article, mainly minor nitpicks about the article's structure and appearance. But there are some significant issues relating to multiple (perhaps redundant) references and inconsistencies in the date format among the references. —Farix (t | c) 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chapter lists and translations

Why are translations of the original Japanese title excluded from chapter lists, such as List of Naruto chapters (Part I), even if they differ greatly from the original title? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any sources available for the "real" translations? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're being rather cryptic, Kirill. I'll assume, correct me if I'm wrong, you mean to say we should not include literal translations of chapter titles because we usually don't have sources for these translations and instead leave the "official" translations to stand alone. (I realize you didn't use the word official, but, much to my dismay, it invariably pops up in this kind of discussion sooner or later anyway.) If that is indeed your position, then let me point out to you (and anyone else sharing that view) that English language adaptations of anime and manga are exactly that, adaptations, not translations (and much less "official translations"). Some companies' adaptations are quite close to literal translations, others not so much. Chapter titles used in English language adaptations, therefore, can't be considered a substitute for literal translations of the original titles, unless they just so happen to be both. As for sources, it's not like we need any beyond the sources we're already supposed to have for the original titles. (See Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources for why that is so.) Goodraise 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for seeming cryptic; I wasn't actually trying to make a point for or against including the translations, but merely questioning whether there are in fact sources that give a translation other than the one used by the publishers of the English adaptations.

My concern, in broad terms, is this: if we include both the publisher's translation and an alternative, we are stating (albeit implicitly) that the publisher's translation is not the correct one. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources states that "translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians"; and a translation produced by the English publisher—who, at least in principle, employs professional translators and so forth—could arguably be considered to have come from a more reliable source than a translation produced by an individual Wikipedia editor. The best way to avoid this problem would be to provide a reliable, published source for an alternative translation; but I'm not sure whether such sources exist.

(This problem doesn't occur, of course, if the English publisher doesn't claim that their title is an accurate translation of the Japanese one; in that scenario, a Wikipedian-derived translation would merely be additional information provided to the reader, not a point raised counter to the accuracy of the English adaptation.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Many times, the publisher isn't trying to do a literal (or even somewhat accurate) translation of the title, but rather using something else completely. Viz is known (at least "back in day") for coming up with some truly bizarre "translations" for chapter and episode titles (Nihao, My Concubine or Big Trouble in Nekonron, China, anyone?). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I plan on including both the literal and licensed translations for chapter titles in an article I'm working on. However, I can't seem to figure out how to do this with the graphic novel template. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If consensus turns out to be that literal translations should be included, the template would need to be adjusted. But let's do this one step at a time, shall we? Goodraise 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally think it's a lil difficult to do. As the tempalte would be cluttered. But, i'm not opposed to it.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The template could always be adjusted to follow the episode lists, such as the one at List of Case Closed episodes (season 1). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How would that work in the graphic novel list template where the chapters are listed in by volumes?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll note WP:VG uses them on many FAs. I'll note they only use literal translations if it differs "substantially". Obviously that's a matter of opinion that can be debated, but it is usually when they completely ignore the Japanese (sub)title in favor of their own. I do not know how it would fair at FLC.陣内_Jinnai 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on how close the translation is.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like the adjustment will come soon enough, so I will drop all the translated titles from List of Case Closed volumes (1–20) and replace them with Viz Media's which differ quite a bit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Puella Magi Madoka Magica nav box needed?

The series has so far split into three (Original, and 2 spinoffs) should a navbox be made for coverage?

• Puella Magi Madoka Magica - Original
• Puella Magi Kazumi Magica - Spinoff
• Puella Magi Oriko Magica - Spinoff

It is confusing as the characters and chapers for all three are in one article for the orginal series and the three articles are not linked together on the original main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the spinoffs don't need their own articles, since all pertinant information can go either in the main article, character list, or chapter list. What the spinoffs are is already described in the main article. The plot and release info is given in the chapters list, and the character info is given in the character list. What more can be added to either spinoff article to make it anything more than a stub? Anyone who would like to comment further is invited to Talk:Puella Magi Madoka Magica#Merge proposal. So basically, without the spinoffs, you have a main article and 3 lists, certainly not enough to warrant the creation of a navbox, especially because {{PuellaMagi}} was created and deleted just two months ago.--十八 09:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam Seed GA review

The GA review for Mobile Suit Gundam SEED has begun. Could any subject-matter experts please keep an eye on the review in case there is anything that needs to be cleared up? --Malkinann (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Animetric.com a reliable site?

• I know this was discussed by a few people years ago, but I want to bring it up again. Animetric.com is well made review site for anime and its reviews do get quoted throughout the anime industry. Major anime companies notice them and use their reviews to quote from. Anime Fringe magazine put them on their top 25 list. [7]
• Animefringe's 3rd Annual Top 25

21. Animetric http://www.animetric.com/

“ Ayeka in a bathing suit...what's not the love there? Okay, maybe that doesn't do anything for you if you hate Ayeka, but there's a lot to like for review-loving fans because this site specializes in, get this, hentai reviews! Yep, want to know what hentai's worth checking out, Animetric can tell you. Oh, they do have some normal anime reviews also. ”

Their reviews are quoted in ads and announcements for various products.[8] Anime News Network has such quotes from them on its site as well [9] in its news section(click NEWS to filter out other results) as well as press releases [10].

The site seems to be a reliable source, it getting plenty of traffic and links to, not violating any copyright laws, it a legitimate review site. Dream Focus 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting in passing that all reviews are, according to the FAQ, either written by the site's founder or vetted by him. As well, Internet Archive has Animetric.com dating back to August 2000 (11 years ago), and that archived copy has 138 anime reviews already, so the site must be noticeably older than August 2000. --Gwern (contribs) 19:08 21 August 2011 (GMT)

ANN does not and never has quoted Animetric. All the quotes are from a small handful of press releases. And as has been pointed out before, random one line quotes in a press release does not meet the qualifications of WP:SPS to be classified as "expert on the topic". Also the Animefringe "Top 25" contains several websites that engaged in the illegal distribution of copyright material and could not be used a reliable sources. So being on that list is not evidence that the site is a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So those that do illegal things aren't reliable sources, but that doesn't mean everything on the list is invalid. Dream Focus 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It means that being on that list has nothing to do with being a reliable source. Also, based on a previous post, this list is generated from an annual poll, which further demonstrates that there is not connection between being on the list and being a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some stuff since the last time:

• University of California Irvine's Film and Video Center seems to consider them an acceptable resource.
• There's enough circumstantial evidence that WP:IAR could be invoked as it appears to be a well used and connected website, but this should probably bring this to WP:RS/N and get a wider opinion. Even then, it would probably be a low-quality source.陣内_Jinnai 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

At one point I regularly read reviews on animetric.com and know a little bit about the site's history. Gwern isn't correct when he says the site's reviews are all "either written by the site's founder or vetted by him". In fact, the site's founder isn't even a "him" at all. The founder of the site was Rowena Lim Lei, who is credited as the reviewer for most reviews from 2006 or earlier. She initially accepted reviews from other people, but then switched to only writing the reviews herself, and when she maintained the site most of the reviews were by her. At some point, she stopped wanting to run the site, and eventually the home page of the site said that it was for sale. The current person who runs the site is the one who bought it. See this post from Rowena for more information if you are interested. Back when Rowena ran the site, she said that U.S. anime companies would send her anime to review, and they certainly sometimes quoted her reviews on the packaging. However, as far as I know, no anime company has quoted the reviews of the site after Aaron Murphy started running it (the site was not updated much for a while even before the sale, so they might have decided it was dead). I'm of the opinion that being sent review copies by anime companies and being quoted on packaging are enough to make a reviewer a reliable source. I understand that WP:SPS requires someone to be an expert in the field for self-published sources to count as reliable, but I think that was more written for subjects where technical or expert knowledge would be needed. Reviewing entertainment media is much more a matter of opinion, where someone is less likely to mistate facts due to a lack of education or work experience in the field. I think someone who is trusted enough by anime companies to write competent reviews that they are willing to send them review copies is a reliable reviewer (though again, I understand that this is outside what the reliable source policy says). However, since I've only seen any evidence that anime companies sent review copies to the site or quoted the reviews back before it was sold, I would say that only the reviews from before it was sold would count as reliable. I also don't really think the reviews from other people besides Rowena Lim Lei from back when the site was started would be reliable, since I don't know if there was much control of what was accepted back then. So basically, my opinion is that the reviews by Rowena Lim Lei should count as reliable, but probably not reviews by other people on the site. Calathan (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, then. I had noticed the names differing between the archived copy and the live site, but I figured it was changing pseudonyms or possibly a webmaster/content-writer split or something like that - I hadn't known that the entire site had changed hands. --Gwern (contribs) 00:06 25 August 2011 (GMT)

Certainly an interesting review. I would bring that up at WP:RS before we use that standard though or possibly VP policy discussion.陣内_Jinnai 06:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm basically arguing that the current policy on reliable sources is inadiquate for some types of self-published sources, I agree that a discussion with a wider audience about the policies would probably be needed. Calathan (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

“ I would like to take this opportunity to introduce Animetric.com's new owner Aaron Murphy. I truly believe animetric.com is in good hands with Aaron (which is why I accepted his offer among several others), and that he will continue the work I've started." ”

I'd say its just as notable now as before. Whenever someone in the industry quotes them on their product, that should count as notable. You can't expect the competition anime review sites to get a full page coverage about their competition. Dream Focus 23:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• This came up in the current AFD discussion for an article, where the anime companies quote the review from that site. [11] Part of the article had a review in the reception area, but it was removed with the claim that wasn't a reliable source. [12]. Dream Focus 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been demonstrated that the website passes WP:SPS, so it cannot be considered as a reliable source. DF, it's time to put the stick down as Animetric's status is unlikely to change. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Farix nailed it. SPS do not establish notability. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Me and Jinnai say its a reliable source, and Calathan says it is in the case of reviews done by its original owner. Gwern hasn't stated an opinion one way or the other. And the two of you are against it being considered a reliable site under any circumstance. Its status is very likely to change, if most people believe it to be a reliable source. Hopefully more people will join in and share their opinions. Dream Focus 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability, Toddst1? Who on earth here is talking about Notability? No one is trying to write an article on Animetric. My own view is that it's reliable, although Calathan's historical info weakens my opinion a little bit (I would prefer not to have to parse 'was this review from the real Animetric or not?', and would rather just declare them all kosher or non-kosher). --Gwern (contribs) 01:41 25 August 2011 (GMT)

Gwern, What part of WP:SPS does it pass? Because single quotes as part of a press release doesn't appear to pass it at all. Or is this a matter of "reliable because I want it to be"? —Farix (t | c) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in SPS about reviewing. --Gwern (contribs) 02:53 25 August 2011 (GMT)

• Count me with Calathan. I have not seen any evidence in this discussion that suggests it is a reliable source per our usual standards. And even the references (pre-2006) cited above by Calathan are argued to be notable based on a personal evaluation--not on any kind of outside, independent sources. That DreamFocus seems to think that being cited by an anime company is as good as being cited in The New York Times is not surprising, but surely few others would believe that. Oh, that page on the [UCI website, that's a page full of handy links, hardly a list of reliable sources endorsed by some university. We're really clutching at straws here. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is now up at RS/N. It's clear this site is contentious enough (before anyone says its not, it's been brought up 3 times in a ~2 years. That's more often that any other site we've had recently.陣内_Jinnai 02:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The first time was the initial review of the website. All of the other times were by Dream Focus in an attempt have the site declared "reliable" so that he/she can "rescue" an article at AfD. All previous discussion have had near unanimous consensus that Animetric doesn't pass WP:SPS. But Dream Focus will continue to bring this up again and again. —Farix (t | c) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. We'll get a wider consensus (in theory) at RS/N.陣内_Jinnai 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to bring it up and again? Why would you say that? As I said at the top, there was a brief discussion with a very small number of people years ago. And the fact that you and a couple of your friends had a "unanimous consensus" when no one else showed up to participate doesn't really matter. The more people that participate in this, the better off we'll be. Its good to get as many opinions as possible, instead of one guy just stating his as though it was absolute fact and attacking anyone who dares state otherwise. Dream Focus 03:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the second discussion on this subject had far more participates and the consensus was unanimous. There has been nothing in this current discussion that has yet to overturn that consensus. And yes, you have a history of repeatedly bring up a topic again and again until you get the outcome you want. —Farix (t | c) 10:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I only see four participants there. And one of them is here stating something else. Plus it was two years ago. Dream Focus 12:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Farix, not only were there only four participants in the discussion you linked to, it looks like one of them thought the site was reliable. Are you sure you weren't thinking of some other discussion? Calathan (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see Farix has gone through and removed all reviews from this website from every article that had them. Anyway, can we reach a decision one way or the other? Some want it, some don't, and some aren't too specific one way or the other. Dream Focus 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

New category for reverse harem anime and manga?

Some animes and mangas have Reverse Harem genre, but there're no such category for that genre. So is it alright to create a new category or just put them in the same category with Harem anime and manga??? Jakeslogan (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

TFL

Since there is now a TFL and this project does have a number, perhaps we should consider posting a few of them. This would help advertise the quality work that we put into these and showcase that anime fans here aren't just about writing articles on each-and-every pokemon.陣内_Jinnai 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, what sort of interesting list should be submitted? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think something like List of FLCL episodes would be a good one to start with. It's a well known anime that was well received critically, but is not well known outside the anime/manga fandom/industry.陣内_Jinnai 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually scratch that nom. I've checked it again and it needs some serious work including updated, some additional references and copyediting. Looking at the rest...I'd say anything that wasn't Bleach/Naruto/Digimon due to the afore mentioned reasons and probably not Tokyo Mew Mew since we had a TFA of it. Probably something like List of Baccano! episodes which was promoted within the last couple years and doesn't look like a kids show. Although whatever we pick should be run over to make certain it is still worthy of a FL.陣内_Jinnai 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Baccano! is a good choice. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As the FLC nominator for the list, I'd be happy to write the blurb and do whatever needs to be done if there aren't any objections to Baccano! list being chosen. I'll begin looking it over as soon as I can, hopefully tomorrow. ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has any objections. Let us know when you have a blurb. There's no rush.陣内_Jinnai 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

List of new articles?

Hi there,

I've just joined this WikiProject and was wondering if there was a list or page devoted to newly created articles? I ask because I've just created List of The Irresponsible Captain Tylor episodes and was hoping to get some help improving it.

ISD (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DYK. You have to meet some basic minimum criteria.陣内_Jinnai 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he probably means something like WP:VG/N (which is for video games, so don't go listing the article there) instead of WP:DYK. I don't think WP:ANIME has something like that, though. -- クラウド６６８ 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was more akin to what the last poster said that I had in mind. Thanks for helping. ISD (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, there are always tons of articles, espeically episode and chapter/volume lists being split. I don't think we'd really benefit from it.陣内_Jinnai 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There still could be a place for it - for newbies who don't know policy and create articles that don't demonstrate notability, even though the topics might very well be notable. It's annoying to only find out about such articles at AFD. It's part of why populating the list at WP:ANIME/REQUEST is important - resources are listed there which help new articles show their notability. --Malkinann (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan‎

I have an editor who is refusing to get the point that ANN's encyclopedia, MyAnimeList, and the Japanese Wikipedia are not reliable sources while refusing to admit that John Oppliger of the anime retail website AnimeNation is a reliable source because the editor don't agree with John's analyst. They are also demanding that Kodomo no Jikan‎ be unprotected so that they can freely edit the genres the way they want. I'll note that their edit warring over the genres is what got the article semi-protected in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion can be closed now as a denied request, the same editor continues to push his/her point even after the edit rerquest had been answered. - 15:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Izumi Matsumoto

For anyone interested in mangaka Izumi Matsumoto, I have posted on that talk page a link to an article recently published in the Japan Times. It's a pretty big article, and may help expand it from a stub to at least a Start-class article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, if you want that material incorporated, you need to incorporate it yourself. I've been going over my talk page edits from years ago, and so far it's abysmal - it looks like <5% of the material I excerpted onto talk pages ever made it into the articles.

And the rate seems to be even worse for all the reviews KrebMarkt used to post to talk pages. (Such a pity. If she had spent all those hours posting the links to the External links section, like Wikipedians used to do, then the hundreds of thousands of viewers, collectively, over the past years for those articles, would at least have had the opportunity to click through and actually learn about the anime or manga.) --Gwern (contribs) 15:44 30 August 2011 (GMT)

I only posted here to let people know about it, in case anyone was really passionate about the topic. I may get to it in a while, but I have other things on my plate right now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

New AFD

Just thought I give you guys a heads up that I've nominated this article for deletion. Sarujo (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also an AFD for Puella Magi Kazumi Magica at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puella Magi Kazumi Magica.--十八 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buster Keel has going nearly two weeks without a single comment. —Farix (t | c) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign licensors of manga

I thought that this topic had been covered somewhere but I can't find anything on it, so I ask for your opinions. Should one note if a manga has been published in languages other than English, 1) in a bibliography that is part of biography article, and 2) in the article about that manga? I'm pretty sure it was decided not to have such information in the series' infobox, but what about the body of the article? - JRBrown (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note it in the article's prose. If there are a lot, you can just note that it was translated into multiple languages other than English and only not special occurances such as a change of license.陣内_Jinnai 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but what about bibiographies? Yes, no, or only if there is no separate page for the series? - JRBrown (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, if I'm not completely mistaken, it should be foreign licensee, not licensor. They are granted a license by the copyright holder, not giving licenses out. That said, and without searching archives for possible discussions, my reading of consensus is that foreign language publications of manga and anime very much are worth mentioning in an article about the anime or manga in question. Though listing them should only be done if they are more than none and less than many. (No point in listing all the languages Dragon Ball was published in...) For biographies I'd take a similar stance. While having works published internationally is huge, listing in what languages each of an author's works has been published becomes rather trivial. Use WP:DUE. Goodraise 18:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The MOS:WORKS recommends that list of works be limited to the original and English language titles (if any). Publishers should generally not be listed.
2. International publishers should be mentioned in the article's text along with accompanying sources. Source are required because we have had too many IPs inserting false information about international publications. —Farix (t | c) 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help! - JRBrown (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New request for movement

Just thought I pass along that there's a discussion for a new request for page movement for Son Goku (Dragon Ball) to Goku here. Sarujo (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Greetings, WikiProject Anime and Manga. I am currently nominating File:JackXArik.png for Featured Picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/JackXArik.png and an editor has requested input regarding the commonality of Copic markers and pencil crayons in Yaoi. As such, I respectfully request feedback from a member/members of the project, as my own understanding of such things is lacking. If a member has feedback to give regarding the animation styles used in Yaoi, please give it at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Strawpoll. How many want to make being on the bestseller's list proof of notability for a book?

Please come participate in the discussion and poll. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)

Please participate here: Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)#Requested move. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Volumes or manga volumes

We have List of Bleach volumes and List of One Piece manga volumes. We should try and get some consistency with naming here.陣内_Jinnai 23:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe manga volumes is more specific. Volumes could refer to dvd volumes also. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be that specific unless there's an article that is another list of "volumes". it just seems unnecessary to make it that specific if there's no other article.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there is no List of One Piece DVD volumes, List of One Piece Blu-ray volumes, List of One Piece light novel volumes, etc. so why is there a List of One Piece manga volumes?陣内_Jinnai 19:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So would anyone be against if we just simplify it just "volumes" without the "manga" in it?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well before we do that, we should decide if that should be done across the board (noting the exception if there are different media types of volumes like novels and manga).陣内_Jinnai 00:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, are we aiming for consistency among lists of works for each of several formats, or simplicity of naming for series that only appear in one format? If it's the former, then we'd arguably be more consistent by using fully-qualified names (e.g. List of Bleach manga volumes) even if they're not necessary for disambiguation, so that every list of manga volumes would have a similar title. If it's the latter, then unqualified names (e.g. List of Bleach volumes) would be simpler, even though lists of manga volumes for different series would have differently structured titles.

On a related note, should lists of manga chapters follow a parallel scheme to the corresponding list of volumes? In other words, if we were to have List of Bleach manga volumes, would we also move the chapter lists to e.g. List of Bleach manga chapters (1–187)?

In any case, I assume we'll want to have redirects in place from whichever form of the title we're not going to use? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For the first, the very-little commentary this has gotten would assume only be specific when there is a reason to. I would tend to favor that as we don't use List of XXX anime episodes, we use List of XXX episodes unless somehow it would have gotten a live-action series and an anime series and they are both dealt with on seperate pages.

For the latter, yes. That's generally understood. If there is multiple possibilities, then it becomes a disambig page.陣内_Jinnai 00:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note that they both have to fall under the same name such as the example of List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon episodes. I highly doubt that we have to choose between consistency and simplicity. For example, there is List of Blood+ chapters and List of Blood+ light novels.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to begin moving any existing manga volumes to volumes I can without redirect page deletions and check the same for episode lists, etc. I would also add the info to our guideline.

Any objections?陣内_Jinnai 23:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just how many lists will be affected by the move? —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's just a handful of them. i doubt there are many mangas that merited a directory of manga chapters. I was going to think of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, but it seems it already has without the "manga" in it.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So anymore objections? just incase it gets archived.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, but it will require someone with admin powers using AWB.陣内_Jinnai 14:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Iou Kuroda

I just created the french page for this mangaka, and there is a few strange things, as you can see in the talk page (prize won and the origin of the nickname). X-Javier (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WebCite

This is a heads up that it appears that WebCite will no longer archive Japanese websites and that all previous archives of Japanese websites have been removed. For me, that means that the last 8 months of work I've been putting into archiving Web Newtype has now gone down the drain. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for that? All I see on the homepage is news about a hardware failure.

Also, 'I told you so'. Never trust a single archive service; I use at least 3 independent archive sources. And this sort of thing is why. --Gwern (contribs) 14:20 6 September 2011 (GMT)

Well as far as I'm aware, not all of them will capture the java applets, flash and other info stored and linked on the page. Webcite will capture everything on the page.陣内_Jinnai 03:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't matter to my point 'use more than one, you dummy'. What is more valuable, a perfect archive which doesn't exist, or a real one which misses the Flash elements?

"I told you so"? That's a bit disingenuous. As for using at least three independent archive sources, it's unrealistic to expect people to include three archives of every reference in every article. That would be somewhat in the realm of overkill. What needs to happen is that Wikimedia needs to figure out a way to setup a wa to provide automatic archiving/caching of any referenced link. That would prevent the issues described here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing disingenuous about it. Since version 0.1 of my archiver tool, a year ago, my archiving has been done in both WebCite & Internet Archive, and a month or two after that, I began local archiving with wget. This is all laid out in detail in my essay on the topic, which I began back in March. And even if one ignored both what I do and say (easy enough), this is and always has been a standard principle of archivists and librarians and cryptographers and programmers: no single point of failure. Trust no one. Redundancy implies resilience. You always have one less backup than you think you do. Lots of copies keep stuff safe.

As for telling me the WMF needs to do something - I agree. I have complained about this for years (and pointed to it as exhibit A in how the WMF does not care about Wikipedia's content but its own idiosyncratic imperatives). I contacted the IA to try to set up an Archive-It instance for Wikipedia. I've tried to set up a bot for WebCite. I supported the recent discussions on using Linterweb's archive (and was turned down when I asked how I could make use of their archiving service in general). --Gwern (contribs) 13:57 7 September 2011 (GMT)

Actually, in some cases, archives that miss flash elements are completely worthless and shouldn't even be bothered with. FE, archiving video footage run through java applets.

I do agree that its frustrating they don't want to spend the time and resources to secure their own backup for links, especially when there are editors willing and able to give up some of their free time to do so.陣内_Jinnai 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

All the Flash video players I've bothered to watch HTTP headers for always load the video from some third URLs, obtainable only by running the Flash element and snooping on its traffic in order to figure out the time-limited URL and requisite ID or cookie; I don't see how simply downloading and archiving the Flash element would help in such an instance? --Gwern (contribs) 18:34 10 September 2011 (GMT)

WebCite is now back up. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was a server issue (based on the red message on the archive page on the site). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Magazine reference library page

I've split Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines, breaking off all manga anthology magazines into Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Manga magazines. The former page was becoming extremely large, and this will hopefully make both pages easier to use. I've added the new page to the Navbox as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hentai OTRS request

Could anybody possibly request a noted artist, such as Toshio Maeda, to donate a work (preferably previously published) to the project? I have nominated the current lead image in the hentai article for FP, but there are concerns that the artist is not notable enough to warrant FP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Code Geass discussion

There is currently an ongoing discussion in User talk:Valkyrie J.J.#Re: Code Geass and my own talk page regarding addition of material to Code Geass#Plot. To make it as objective as possible, Valyries states that the series' ending is up to viewers' idea, while I find such observations as original research. Nevertheless, discussion is still ongoing, so a third opinion is required to reach a consensus at Talk:Code Geass#Ending. Note: Users already had the same discussion at Talk:Lelouch Lamperouge#Death of Lelouch Status some time ago. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference Format

I was re-hauling some character articles and I'd like to know the projects opinion on the reference formatting on List of One Piece characters and List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters. If this was discussed before, I'd like to see if there's a new opinion. Should I use that? Should I stick with what's usually used? Any thoughts at all? (By the way, this is Itzjustdrama, but with a changed username...) ~TenTonParasol 13:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't which format is better, but the One Piece and Fullmetal Alchemist formats were made to avoid undue weight.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussion about this format involving anyone but Tintor2 and myself. I came up with that format back in the day to make referencing easier. It differs only insignificantly from the standard method in terms of page size and amounts of templates, so that's a not really an argument for using one over the other. A custom style like this makes sense for a series as huge as One Piece, but I wouldn't go with it for most others. Actually, I wasn't really ever very happy with it. I planned to refine it some more, but never got around to it. Back then I went through all relevant guidelines on referencing and didn't find a hint that such an abnormality would be unacceptable, so it shouldn't be a problem at FLC, aside from the lack of visual appeal perhaps. Goodraise 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, then I'll decide later. For reference's sake, I was planning to redraft List of D.Gray-man characters, an ongoing series currently at 22 volumes. Personally, I don't think it has a lack of visual appeal. I think it's a lot easier on the eyes. ~TenTonParasol 22:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering there is no ending confirmed so far for D.Gray-man, it could be the best due to weight from references.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

YuYu Hakusho sales

One or more anons are hell-bent on proving that the YuYu Hakusho manga has sold more than 40 million copies in Japan. After the anon 189.172.113.128 kept posting that it was 47 million with unreliable sources, the page was protected. Now another IP 189.172.108.206 is adding 49 million copies per a Shueisha book, but has no page number from which to references it. Now, I don't doubt that the sales numbers have increased from 40 million since the given citation from 2003, but we need a concrete source on this, as I'm tired of reverting it constantly. Does anyone have any up-to-date sales information? ~ Hibana (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Shueisha site [13] has a the graphics from its top-selling series. It mentions that YuYu Hakusho sold over 49 million copies apparently, being behind Rurouni Kenshin and Hunter X Hunter.Tintor2 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the reference you came up with to the article, so things should be okay now =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article For Deletion

Can someone here helping me with these...? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariko Honda Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuka Saitou been proposed for deletion... article Mariko Honda and Yuka Saitou thank you... --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed story arcs question

After creating two story arc articles for the series (Holmes no Mokushiroku and With a Bang (Case Closed)), I planned to create more from the top ten story arcs voted by fans but I am curious if my edits might be inappropriate or that I am not establishing enough notability in the articles. So I'm wondering if creating more would be a problem against the guidelines. As a reference, the future articles will probably have equal or less than the notability established in With a Bang and the plot length can vary depending on how well I can summarize the mystery. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Both articles are still in the danger zone. There's no problem with creating more articles of this sort. But they may all end up at AfD. Goodraise 12:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Template to help deal with red links

I found a template to use in articles which can help us deal with redlinks by giving a red link and a link to the corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia. This would give the reader somewhere to go if they wanted to learn more about a redlinked topic, but also give the editor something to start from when making a new article based on the subject. The template in question is {{ill}} (for Inter Language Links), and an example of its use can be seen on Chihayafuru. I think this is a good idea, and I hope it catches on. --Malkinann (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an extremely bad idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it is a policy not to include Interwiki links in the body of an article. —Farix (t | c) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's highly discouraged, not actually banned. There needs to be a compelling reason for it. I've seen it used a couple times when it has to do with info about the specific language or there is a special and signfigiant group or organization the English Wikipedia doesn't cover. It's not used for stuff like info on characters, games, etc. Even then, its very very rare, but it there are a few instances out there.陣内_Jinnai 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it an extremely bad idea? Where is this policy? Help:Interlanguage links recommends it. --Malkinann (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't really see the purpose. Five of the six red links in Chihayafuru probably will never get articles here as they aren't notable enough, and the purpose of red links is to let readers know that a notable topic doesn't have an article yet (because non-notable topics shouldn't get articles). Redirecting them to the Japanese site is also not very helpful for the average user, since they're not bound to know Japanese, and if they did, looking them up on the Japanese wiki wouldn't be hard. I can definitely see this causing problems, since the Japanese wiki, at least, often has pages which wouldn't be deemed notable enough for creation here, and if a red link does anything, it gives new and inexperienced editors easy chances to create articles. Usually this wouldn't be a problem if the topic was notable and just didn't have an article, but it seems like 99% of the time, that's not what this template is going to be used for.--十八 20:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is a compelling need for it, there are ways to link to it without a template. Making it into a template will only help promote the idea that it should be when it shouldn't (ie, the idea that a template exists for a reason).陣内_Jinnai 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Red links help Wikipedia grow, by reminding us that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Sending a reader to the Japanese Wikipedia is a good idea because they can use translation software to get a gist of the topic, which is better than a simple redlink. Notability should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and having the Japanese article right there next to the redlink can help provide a first frame of reference in determining that. In the case of Chiaki Morosawa, I was able to use some of the Japanese Wikipedia article to find sources in English which show that she is notable, and to find some further readings in Japanese which may be helpful. Why is it automatically a bad idea because it may be misused? --Malkinann (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, it is unnecessary. It's also highly discouraged. If you have an issue with it, it's best to bring this up at WP:REDLINK.陣内_Jinnai 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Help:Interlanguage links recommends it. Where is it 'highly discouraged'? --Malkinann (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would attribute the reason why these people are less likely to get their articles made than Asami Seto is because we do not have SNGs for animators. --Malkinann (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, will you stop adding interwikilinks to the Japanese Wikipedia into article text now? So far, no one has supported this. —Farix (t | c) 22:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The help page recommends it, and noone has found any contradicting guidelines. I can only conclude that the anime project is out of step with the wider wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been added during a rogue edit. But there doesn't appear to be any discussion about its use on the talk page. But that still does not excuse the fact that everyone that has spoken about this so far have been against adding interwikilinks into the text of articles. —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is determined by strength of argument as well as strength of numbers - I believe that the apparent local consensus here is not founded on a good logical basis. The people who have been against its use here have pointed to a guideline or policy which *does not appear to exist*, and when I have asked where this policy or guideline is, there has been no response. If there were such a guideline on the use of interwiki links in mainspace, it would be simple enough to link it. I have linked to the relevant help page and WP:REDDEAL. There has similarly been no response to my question as to why it is "completely inappropriate". I'm not trying to filibuster here - to me, this template seems like a wonderful idea which could help us help readers find what they're looking for, and help editors start off new articles. I genuinely don't understand how it could be inappropriate for use here, especially given that anime and manga are Japanese topics.

There are many other articles which link to other Wikipedias, such as an example article in WP:REDDEAL, List of Franco-Belgian comic series, without the use of a template. I do not agree with your characterisation of the addition of the template to H:ILL as a "rogue" edit - given that including an interwiki link alongside a redlink has been in the help guideline since this March, it seems to me that someone found the template, and then found it was a good way to automate/standardise the process, much like citation templates standardise citations, and added it to the help documentation to publicise its use. Also, the template {{ill}} is currently transcluded on 849 occasions, across multiple subject matters. More generally, there has been a recommendation to use interwiki links inline in articles in the help documentation since 2003, so the argument that it is against a policy or guideline, or is "highly discouraged" does not hold up.

The argument that most of these people will never get articles because they are not notable is also not based on a firm foundation, because we do not have the SNGs to say 'this animator' or 'this sound director' is probably notable... an equivalent to WP:ENT. To take the example of Asami Seto, who meets WP:ENT now and may meet the GNGs later. Her article is made because it's easily defensible by WP:ENT. Because people don't know why/how someone of the other professions may be notable, articles about people from these professions must meet the GNGs immediately.

I do not feel that this local consensus accurately reflects the broader consensus of the Wikipedia community. --Malkinann (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that way, please bring this up at VP and link to the discussion here.陣内_Jinnai 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Testing {{ill}} at FAC

I'll go ahead and test it out since it was brought up here at an FAC. While its not a part of this project, Dragon Warrior has a case where I can use it. I've edited the page to include the template. We'll see how it goes since I was unable to find anything directly for or against it.陣内_Jinnai 19:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And its use seems to have been accepted there. --Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Trying again...

Given that there has been no response to my question as to why it is "completely inappropriate" for the Japanese Wikipedia to be linked in mainspace, and that this practice has been encouraged by H:ILL for many years, I suppose I will have to try to explain myself again. The use of interwiki linking in mainspace, specifically, {{ill}} seems to be common sense to me, combining the Wikipedia growth potential of a red link with the convenience of a link providing basic information about the subject. This assists in disambiguation, and the Japanese article can be translated if the subject is notable by English Wikipedia standards. While the quality of individual articles on the Japanese Wikipedia is in flux, even as it is here, I feel this is a useful complement to another practice I've seen in anime-manga articles, which is to use {{nihongo|[[Redlink]]|thekanji}}. The use of {{ill}} seems to have been accepted at the FAC for Dragon Warrior, and it has been recommended to link appropriate interlanguage wikis next to redlinks in the redlink guideline for some time. I feel that {{ill}} should be used in mainspace when it is likely that the subject is notable by English Wikipedia standards, be they GNG or SNGs. When it is unlikely, instead I feel a plain interwiki link should be used, as is recommended by WP:REDDEAL and H:ILL. I feel that this measure would help to build the encyclopedia and assist readers to find what they're looking for. I don't intend this to be instruction creep - I just found the template useful and I hope that its use will catch on here. --Malkinann (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers split

Getting the ball rolling on the List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers split-by-years discussion, as suggested in the FAC. Would appreciate comments. --Malkinann (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

List of manga series by volume count

The list is over 100kb and I believe it should be slimmed down. Perhaps the list should be changed to the List of 100 longest manga series by volume count or have its cut off volume raised. I'd like to see more input on this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I myself think this list is rather odd....there's not really enough information about the list itself to justify it...I really think we should reconsider hw these list are made.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should encourage them either, but I think they are generally accepted by Wikipedia so long as the info is verified. I think rather than the "top 100" which could cause issues when there are a number of ties and arguing, you could just push the threshold from 30->40.∞陣内Jinnai 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be moved from 30 to 40 for inclusion. The 30 was picked rather arbitrarily back when the list was first created, mostly because we were doing it off the tops of our heads. Moving from 30 to 40 volumes for inclusion would work the best (removing almost 70 entries) if people want to pare down the list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the threshold is moved to 40, we should keep the entries for those series which are still ongoing, even if they are hidden until they reach the new threshold. That way, we don't have to enter all that information again, but instead just have to unhide a series entry once the new threshold is met. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

seee...thats the problem i see with these list...verify each entry isn't enough.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. It doesn't really make any sense in the context of this discussion. Could you please rephrase it? Also, I've changed the threshold on the list to 40 as mentioned above, hiding those ongoing series with between 30 and 39 volumes so they can be easily integrated into the list without having to redo all the refs and such. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

THere really isn't a strong reason why this list should exist...simply verifying each entry for the list shouldn't be enough to justify the list. Verify why the list is practical. IN which this case it really isn't.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Propose it for deletion then (although I wouldn't use the length issue as a valid reason because as said, that can be changed). However, I feel that it will kept snowball kept since there are other similar "longest running" lists out there.∞陣内Jinnai 14:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jinnai. This is easily verifiable information (for the most part) which people want to know (as evidenced by the many other "longest running" lists out there). I would recommend against wasting peoples' time by nominating it for deletion, however, as it will likely be speedily kept. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point....the list itself seems practically meaningless....It's just not practical at all....and i'm discussing it here. So i can get a more clearer consensus before i do anything. WP:NOTDIRECTORY have any say? Verify that the list itself is "practical".Bread Ninja (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go read WP:LIST, especially WP:LISTPURP. The list is informational and the information within the list is wikilinked to provide ease of navigation to the topics mentioned in the list. Moving on to WP:LIST#List content, the lead of the list is very clear and states exactly what can be found in the list, though it could certainly be expanded a bit. That's okay, though, as it should never be expected to have an article (list or otherwise) which is perfect unless it is a featured list. The list is clearly organized by number of volumes in the series. The fact of the numbers of volumes is verified by multiple references in most cases, and the information is presented in a neutral manner. The criteria for being included on the list are very clear and completely unambiguous (it's a binary choice of whether to include the series or not: if the series doesn't have 40 or more volumes, it isn't included). There is no valid reason to not have the list. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to get rid of it. If you find it meaningless, that doesn't mean others don't find extensive meaning and usefulness in it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that if it's "presented" neutrally doesn't mean it's a practical list. You're still missing the point (or dodging the point becausei made it really clear the second time). You're thinking "as long as the information is properly organized, there's nothing wrong".The list itself, not each entry within the list. What about WP:STANDALONE? As long as there enough entries, and verify each entry, does it matter what the topic of the list is? It just seems like we're leaning for "extensive usefulness" for bias editors/readers (not saying anyone here is bias)Bread Ninja (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as its not List of Manga between 35 and 40 volumes then its fine. A longest-running list is similar to List of oldest people. Yes its not a specific example on STANDALONE, but length topics are items of interest to people. Most exhaustive encylopedias do keep track of certain things that are longest, tallest, shortest, oldest, etc, but in a very limited manner becuase of their limitations. Wikipedia doesn't have that limitation. That said, some cutoff points need to be made. We could change it to the longest 100 manga series, but cutting it off a series that made atleast 40 volumes gives roughly the equivalnet. If it gets too long, we can prune it again.∞陣内Jinnai 14:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the difference between what you suggest, and what we already have. Still, this isn't about length, WP:PAPER is acting as a double edge sword because you're now focuses on "length" aspect, not topic aspect. I still bring up WP:SALAT. Which is why i suggest we verify how popular the specific topic is to verify how common it is. I think the lists are given way too much freedom.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of not being misunderstood i will elaborate even more. List of Manga between 35 to 40 could potentially exist, if it was a common topic per whatever reasons that could exist (such as if mangas between 35 to 40 would gain certain awards for passing that specific threshold or it's a common tradition to end mangas at that specific range of volumes). As long people verified that, there's no problem. The same with List of Manga by volume count(the name is very misleading). If 30 was chosen rather arbitrarily, what makes the volume count up to 40 any less arbitrary?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• So some decided the list was too long, just because they don't like long list, and thus found a way to chop away a large chunk of it. [14] Why not just split it into smaller list? Dream Focus 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because apparently, the 30 threshold was chosen arbitrarily, so 40 somehow makes it less arbitrary. And splitting the list, how would that work? it's not separated by year, it's by volume count. Meaning there's no breaks or anything, unless you split it ongoing from finished series. Still, the topic of the list is questioned. The article list came up because of List of anime series by episode count in horrible state, but even if cleaned up, the topic itself doesn't really hold up.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes as 30 is arbitrary if consensus is that 40 is now a better number then it doesn't make 40 any less arbitrary, just the one the new consensus deems a decent threshold. That is to give appropriate weight in only listing the truly long-running series. As the threshold is pushed higher and higher because more long-running series come out, eventually the goal posts should be moved.∞陣内Jinnai 16:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what Jinnai wrote. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary has a couple of individual meanings. I still thinks its pretty arbitrary in the sense that it's not as reasonable as it is and people agreeing with a certain number isn't going to make it any less arbitrary because the reasoning wasn't exactly thought up well... And here where subjective ideas come into play once again. The list are relied upon user-thought. Can you at least look at the point i was trying to make before Dream Focus came in?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Naohisa Inoue

Can anyone here find reliable sources stating this artist (the background artist for the fantasy scenes in Whisper of the Heart) is a surrealist artist? Another editor is insisting he's not, though I've read multiple articles which stated he is a surrealist (even a combination of surrealism and impressionism), but it's been long enough I can't remember where these articles are. Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever seems to think to try my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 21:04 1 October 2011 (GMT)

I can never remember where to find it. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive ([15], [16], [17]) I believe these sources can be useful here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides fpsmagazine.com, which is the hits in my CSE I was referring to, are any of those RSs? --Gwern (contribs) 22:50 1 October 2011 (GMT)

ActiveAnime restructure

Just a note to say that apparently the review site ActiveAnime has restructured, so all links to their reviews are now 404ed. Their reviews can now be found here: http://activeanime.com/html/category/reviews/ --Malkinann (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made a list of articles that includes those with links to Manga Life as well as Active Anime.

List of pages that may contain dead links.

Any help checking for link rot and repairing it would be appreciated. Allen4names 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed it as it takes up a huge amount of space.∞陣内Jinnai 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added {{done}} to the articles on the list that I checked and/or repaired dead link on. Allen4names 06:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Added two more dones. I'm holding off on Allen Walker as I'm overhauling the page anyhows and it'll get done once I'm finished. ~TenTonParasol 14:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some on the talk pages. I'll note that the one for Rosario + Vampire needs an update (and any additional ones you might find).∞陣内Jinnai 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

One more done and three {{Partly done}}. Some dead links remain and I had some trouble with WebCite. Allen4names 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seven more done and one partly done. YuYu Hakusho has a dead link. Allen4names 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm spidering the current activeanime.com for my archiving bot. Hopefully that would help with any future moves... --Gwern (contribs) 00:27 10 October 2011 (GMT)

One more done. Future updates will be at my to do page. Allen4names 00:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another question due to the rise of NGE-related edit-wars

In The End of Evangelion article, i remove the quotes from the references that already provide the link to the source. However, yet again, gwern feels they must be kept for whatever reason (despite the fact that he puts in bare URLs when adding references and doesn't add quotes to them when i add in proper citation). So i just want to get this out of the way. It would also help if more editors were involved. To get consensus faster.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your summary is misleading; you want to remove not just quotes, but other things as well, and your interest in the page is purely destructive and negative - when sjones removed the category that a quite-clueful anonymous user added, did you bother to take 10 seconds to find a source for it in either Google or my CSE? Of course not. You indiscriminately remove the good, the bad, and the ugly, so why should anyone listen to you? You apparently can't even find the usual iota of backing from random TLA policies or guidelines, or else they would be spattered all over your complaint here.

As for your one concrete complaint: are ref templates really that useful (I have in my life only used them a few times, with Zotero, and wasted a good deal of my life tweaking and updating such templates), and is it so inconsistent to ask that existing references be maintained intact and not always include quotes? I don't think i is. But if you want to press the point, list the bare URLs and I will be happy to add quotes for them. --Gwern (contribs) 00:00 7 October 2011 (GMT)

As for the "avant-garde and experimental" category, I found these sources ([18], [19]). In those sources, I have found sources pertaining to the avant-garde genre. Does these sources make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a content problem you've got here. It's a problem of conduct. Edit. Revert. Revert. Revert. Ask for help at WT:ANIME. That's not how disputes should be resolved. I've tried to get you (the two of you) on the right track, but you just won't listen. I'm repeating myself, but I haven't given up hope yet: Follow WP:BRD to the letter. If that fails, do the same with WP:DR. At the moment, you're both misbehaving (each in your own way) and dead-locked in that state. And while doing so, you're disrupting Wikipedia. I'm tired of it. If you're not coming around now, I'll report you to WP:ANI. Regards, Goodraise 02:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I did do BRD, it's in the talk page, problem is he doesn't discuss it. I came here because he won't discuss about it there. That and for now it's only just two editors working on the article. And one other that doesn't seem to want to get involved with the other edits. He's not only reverting what i've done, but reverting what has already had consensus in the talkpage in previous discussion.

@gwern: I didn't revert it, because i wasn't even sure at the time. It's like reverting what you don't know. If you had a problem with it, why didn't you revert it instead of making some trivial point? It's not misleading, what i removed was trivial and other things that already had consensus in the past. Look in the talk page. WE already discussed about multiple translations. We also discussed about

Goodraise, I've done what i can. It may be "disruptive" by grabbing everyone's attention every time there's an edit war, However there's not a lot of options for me, the article again is only in control of mainly 1 person. And it's doing things more of personal preference at best.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit other people's comments, BN, especially to make them worse. (All part of your usual editing incompetency, though, along with how you apparently managed to mangle your own comment.)

I'll try a different tack. BN, if quotes are so terrible that they must be removed, why do the templates have the quote parameter? --Gwern (contribs) 14:38 7 October 2011 (GMT)

It was an accident. I'm not entirely sure how....regardless, the reason why the refs have a quote option i have no idea if it already provides a link to the source. But even so, many featured and good-articles of WP:ANIME don't uses the quote option when it already provides a link. Why must the rest of the NGE articles be so Quote-Centric when they would look much more organized if we summarized it while keeping the key details?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the particular issue of quotes, my opinion is that having long quotes, either within the body text or in the citations, does not help to improve the quality of an article (see WP:NOTDIR), especially not when they overcrowd an article. In The End of Evangelion article, I find unnecessary the length of some quotes for the citations, some of which have eleven sentences instead of a specific text. By comparison, none of the featured manga and anime articles, Shojo Beat, Madlax, Tokyo Mew Mew and School Rumble, abuses of quotations. In fact, none of them have full quotations for their cited sources, so I believe that they are unnecessary for The End of Evangelion. Even when checking featured film articles like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Jurassic Park and Transformers, it becomes evident that the usage of overblown quotes is not needed for a featured film article. I also note that The End of Evangelion has failed the referencing and citation criteria of the assessment quality scale, which shows that such long quotations do not help to improve the quality of the article. As stated in WP:QUOTEFARM, I believe that long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information and using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. Seeing that featured articles do not favor too many long quotes, I believe that the Wikipedia community does not support them either, so removing them from The End of Evangelion helps improving the article quality towards being a featured-class article. From my perspective, the current state of The End of Evangelion is quite bad considering the wide availability of reliable secondary sources in English and this same situation appears to be present in other Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, so I believe that removing these unneeded quotes to improve these articles is justified.

From my point of view, it seems that the conflict is that one editor is reverting what others change to try to improve the Neon Genesis Evangelion articles because said editor believes that the current state is better that the suggested improvements, which seems to verge on WP:OWN. I suggest that, before WP:ANI, if a consensus cannot be reached yet, it would be better to request editor assistance or posting this situation at the dispute resolution noticeboard. An uninvolved external point of view should help to solve this situation. Jfgslo (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cutting down articles is not improving them, and that's just the articles lucky enough to have notability so extraordinarily clearcut that Bread Ninja will not nominate them for deletion or simply redirect them without discussion. FAs and GAs are in-bred corners of Wikipedia with idiosyncratic requirements, and I am not the first editor to give up in disgust on them - look through some FA nominations sometime to see the profundity & wisdom of their prognostications. FAC does not define quality for Wikipedia, as much as it aspires to and as much as blind veneration like your own may think it does.

WP:QUOTEFARM, besides having failed to reach consensus to become a guideline, does your position no favors; its very first line is that quotations are an "indispensable" part of Wikipedia, while Bread Ninja has always tried to remove as many quotes as she could! Look at the main NGE article where she tried to remove every single one (check the archives); or most recently, the EoE edits - what separates the quotes she removed from the ones she did not? Nothing at all. If anything, the targeted quotes were the least obtrusive quotes in the article. --Gwern (contribs) 23:41 8 October 2011 (GMT)

THe only quotes i removed were the ones that already provide links. I haven't actually removed any quotes. However, i will be willing to summarize the quotes. And what other quotes have i removed? I don't remember, but if it has to do with references, i think that's easily justifiable. The ones i "Didn't" remove were the ones that have no link. Those were ones i couldn't remove right away.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting can be important for WP:Offline sources, or where material is contentious - for example, when Akiko Hatsu was AFDed, the most prolific writer about her in English (a RS) consistently misspells her name as "Rinko". Hatsu met WP:CREATIVE due to her contributions to the yaoi genre. Because of the misspelling, the online sources were questioned - as I recall it, it was only after the book was produced and quoted from that it was accepted that she met WP:CREATIVE. WP:NONENG may also prove helpful for any Japanese sources. --Malkinann (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why i didn't remove any quotes from offline sources. And at this point Gwern, you're admitting your biggest problem. You want to stem off from the general articles and make NGE completely different from WIkipedia's standards for quality articles (and for some reason when it comes to the very important stuff you intentionally look for different words to describe simple things), yet at the same time you use WP:QUOTEFARM as not a guide, and use that as your reasoning to go against it. Is it me, or am i the only one seeing a pattern to how the discussion is played out?Bread Ninja (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the way you put it, "those were ones I couldn't remove right away", made it seem like you intended to remove those quotes from offline sources in the future, so I felt I should point out why having quotes from offline or foreign-language sources can be a good thing. --Malkinann (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't remove them in the future, but i will question them just in case because i do see other articles that are featured and use books even more than online links without references.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That distinction is not relevant. Every online source is simply a source that hasn't gone offline yet. Linkrot is endemic - in fact, I am deeply amused to note that on this very page, in the very previous section, we are discussing linkrot in the form of ActiveAnime killing all its links! Your perspective is incredibly short-term - those links have a good chance of dying in just a decade (do you remember how the Mainichi Times references disappeared off the face of the earth, save that which I had quoted in our articles? No, I imagine that has slipped your mind.), much less any real timespan. Please read linkrot or see the citations in the opening of http://www.gwern.net/Archiving%20URLs

And to the extent that one might hope one day to find the Eva-related links preserved in the Internet Archive or WebCite, that is because I have devoted a very substantial amount of my time to finding ways to preserve links and those links are some of my most frequent targets. Just as with finding references or formatting pages or the CSE, you have never contributed anything that might actually help or preserve the articles. --Gwern (contribs) 00:18 10 October 2011 (GMT)

SEe, you're putting your own ideas of things that stem out of Wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I justify my use of quotes in exhaustive detail with many citations, and that's my own ideas. I see. --Gwern (contribs) 20:57 10 October 2011 (GMT)

that's the thing, your reasoning comes out of wikipedia. You're worried about dead links with no archive, and because of that you say online references are merely temporary until they become offline. Which is pretty warped idea. Not everything will be offline especially with reviews. Even so, the thing is many articles out there don't use them. It just clutters the article unnecesarily. It seems though wikipedia doesn't see it as a major issue....but even so...the quotes are either used to their full extent yet disupt the flow of the article or they mainly being used to cite small things yet have a huge quote for them to say something simple. They're superflous when used in the prose and. Over quoted when they are use as sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of this dispute

In the following I'll try to provide a complete timeline of this dispute prior to the first post of this thread. I'm doing this not to help solve this dispute, but to help solve future ones. When one editor misbehaves, it's easy to block him or her, to force her to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as the following outlines, neither Gwern nor Bread Ninja seem willing or able to be the good guy (or good gal) here. If I missed anything, please let me know. All times given in UTC.

1. 07:21, 29 August 2011: Bread Ninja (BN) adds several pieces of information to references present in the article. Simultaneously, she removes excerpts from those references. She fails to explain or even mention this removal in her edit summary ("fixed some refs").
2. 16:50, 29 August 2011: Gwern (G) reinserts the excerpts removed by BN. His edit summary for this edit is equally vague as BN's ("fix references"). He does not use this opportunity to explain why he thinks the article is better off with the excerpts than without, just as BN did not explain why she thinks the article is better without the excerpts than with.
3. 11:46, 28 September 2011: BN re-removes two of the three excerpts re-inserted by by G (the third following one minute later, at 11:47, 28 September 2011 and an additional reference is changed in this manner by her at 12:06, 28 September 2011). She justifies her action in her edit summary by opining that the excerpts "complicate" the references, while there is no reason to do so. With this edit B has gone against BRD and, at least technically, started an edit war.
4. 16:23, 28 September 2011: G re-re-inserts the excerpts. His edit summary ("restore references") merely summarizes his edit. It does not include any form of reply to BN. No attempt to communicate with BN is made. G wastes his chance to follow BRD, opting instead to edit war with BN.
5. 21:44, 28 September 2011: BN continues the edit war by re-re-removing the excerpts. Her reasoning apparently being that the references have not been removed by her, as G's last edit summary could be taken to suggest, that she had only removed an unnecessary component. Following what is happening becomes increasingly difficult, as both G and BN tend to do more in their edits than plain reverts of the other's individual edits, which is all the more reason to take the issue to the talk page, which, so far at least, neither has done.
6. 23:58, 28 September 2011: G continues the edit war by re-re-re-inserting the excerpts. His edit summary refers to a part of that edit which is unrelated to this dispute. Pertaining to this dispute the edit summary only states "rv removal of references", an incorrect statement, as the edit only adds one reference to the article. Well, incorrect edit summaries may be an inconvenience, but they are nothing to get worked up about. However, the fact remains that G is still not even attempting to communicate with BN as far as the dispute discussed here is concerned.
7. 00:27, 29 September 2011: BN continues the edit war by re-re-re-removing the excerpts. In her edit summary she again points out the inaccuracy of G's edit summary and repeats (in other words) her opinion that the excerpts are not of benefit to the article.
8. 14:22, 29 September 2011: G continues the edit war by re-re-re-re-inserting the excerpts. In this edit, for the first time, he provides a piece of reasoning by opining that the references were not in fact left intact by B. He compares the excerpts to page numbers, implying (please note that this is my personal interpretation) that, just like page numbers, the excerpts make the article more easily verifiable by pointing the reader to the exact passages the editor thinks support the facts in question.
9. 04:40, 30 September 2011: BN continues the edit war by re-re-re-re-removing the excerpts. She argues that the excerpts are unnecessary because they are redundant to the URLs given in the references and because excerpts (so she claims) aren't even provided by featured articles.
10. 05:03, 30 September 2011: BN finally sees fit to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Despite her later claim to the contrary ("I did do BRD"), this was not done in line with BRD, for two reasons. 1) She edit warred before turning to the talk page. 2) She was the last person to revert, thus inviting further edit warring instead of discussion.
11. 22:15, 6 October 2011: G happily ignores BN's talk page thread and continues the edit war by re-re-re-re-re-inserting the excerpts.

Judging by this behavior, I'd say you've both registered yesterday. This is not how senior Wikipedians like yourselves with thousands of edits under your belts should act. Seriously, pull yourselves together! I'll comment more on this, once I've recovered from analyzing this flabbergasting display of immaturity. Goodraise 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not helping the situation and you know it. Over analizing a simple situation? And not only that but you add your own personal view. What you're doing isn't helping.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You think I'm over-analyzing? Then I'll put it in simple terms for you. You're edit warring instead of discussing. Eventually you get tired of edit warring and come here to let others sort out your problems before you have even talked to each other. And, yes, you can force Gwern to talk to you. If he doesn't, that's tendentious editing -- a blockable offense. When this is over, one of you will have gotten his or her way. Then you'll find something else to remove from an NGE article and the pattern of behavior I just described will start over. This time it's excerpts, last time it was translations, ... The real problem is that neither of you sees anything wrong with what you're doing, but there is. Goodraise 04:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're adding yourself, more than standing neutral. You're in neither party, but at the same time, you're not acting like you're taking it nuetrally. And that's another thing. We already made a consensus over the translations, yet gwern is still reverting it. If you look closely to that, it's a reference in the quote as an excuse to add multiple translations. It's like verifying what the quote says is true instead of simply stating it. BRD has been done before. It's tiring, these aren't unreasonable edits aswell. To Gwern, Quantity and Quality are the same and you can see it in his reasoning.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, you see this as his way-her way. It's not about that.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not make him or you correct. Quality can sometimes be met with quanity better. Sometimes it cannot. That needs to be dicussed when their is a disagreement.∞陣内Jinnai 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly...I believe quantity os significant...I just don't believe those are the things we must focus on in order to make a good article. Its not quantity that I'm having trouble. Its quantity-centric.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be neutral? Last time you claimed Gwern was unreasonable and unwilling to discuss. I offered to help you, guide you through the dispute resolution process, but you simply stated that that wouldn't work and returned to edit warring. There's only one conclusion for me to draw here: You're both unreasonable, disruptive editors. In my opinion the best thing to do would be to forbid both of you reverting each other's edits more than once until you've learned how the consensus building process works. Goodraise 00:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I thought I had been more careful to not edit so much on one day and risk 3RR; I guess not. Thanks for the timeline, Goodraise. Better I find out that way than with a block.

In any case, when was consensus reached on the translations? The last time I checked that discussion, BN had gotten maybe... 1 reply? Did I miss a big discussion somewhere else? --Gwern (contribs) 00:22 10 October 2011 (GMT)

You didn't even defended your point why it's so necessary. . And i still do find it to be unreasonable...and you've seen it first hand, if not twice. And for the record, these aren't unreasonable edits at all. ANd i do find it unreasonable..it get's to the point when we discuss things, people tend to want to "Stop" discussing it. And that's what happens, no consensus, yet they put their 2 cents,and that's it.

For the Translations gwern, You had the chance to make your point, and instead you didn't reply. That's like not wanting to defend your revert. When it comes to discussing, it tends to get to personal ideas. The one thing you get upset the most is about "length". The articles aren't goign to get better simply putting more.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on not replying. And yes, they do get better if they have more material; it's nuts to think otherwise. That's like saying more money doesn't make you wealthier; you don't provide readers with information on what they want to know by not providing information! --Gwern (contribs) 20:57 10 October 2011 (GMT)

You yet to make a point about that, and when you do you don't counter it or when you do you don't really bring in something up to wikipedias standards...I proved my point at the time very well. And goodraise saw it clear as day. And that analogy is way too vague.

For one wikipedia isn't about having the most money it can possibly have if we consider all material money. Some material might be more relevant in one topic than the other. Which is why the Multiple Translations of the word within the topic were unnecessary and not relevant enough. I did however agreed to the mention of the translations used when they discussed about the main topic but the other translations that were extremely similar enough to say they were exact same thing were unnecessary because 1)they were nearly exact same translations 2) they werent about EoE translation controversy. That's why it was removed, because it wasn't relevant enough to the topic or the section of the topic.

The same with merely mentioning fan translations which btw the source didn't put much of an effort to state the relevance. It was more of a Q&A and just asked where they can find fan translations. Its not really helping the article, there is usually fan translations and usually or eventually they'll mention it in some reliable source but it has to be more of a topic to make it relevant in the article. "Oh btw fan translations of the book exist". Do you think that's a significant contribution to that section? I myself don't think so. To me quantity is good for starting off an article up to b class or more. It has to be most relevant to the topic. Not be related and add it in. The references of the translations did not discuss about the translation controversy within the film. The mention of the fan translations of the theatrical pamphlet was extremely trivial. Other than that just restructuring the article to a more organized format will help. Removal of quotes won't change much. If it sticks to the most relevant. What's wrong with summarizing? There's absolutely nothing wrong about it. In fact a lot of articles tend to summarize. Summarizing doesn't mean removing material.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're worried about size, not material.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

More focussed discussion on quotes in EoE

Please see here for a more focussed discussion on quotes in the End of Evangelion article. --Malkinann (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal

For Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal, a user has been insisting the article should look like Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's. I disagree and have been reverting the edits; mostly citing them to be over detailed. Here are the things the user insists on.

• Opening and Ending themes should be placed on the article.

I have been firm that the themes should remain on the episode list since its the norm I see on decent articles. The user argues by Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. My counterargument would be clutter and unimportance in the article since the theme music was not a product of the anime series like its soundtrack.

• A more detailed sections on what XYZ monsters are.

User argues that 5D's has two complete sections with in-universe concepts being explained and cites my reverts as a dislike of information. As the series goes on, and the English adaption gets aired, I believe other users will insist upon this. As this goes on, do I use WP:Game Guide as an argument for my revert?

• Flag icons should be used in the info box instead of the words North America

This is minor but I feel flag icons are messy and outdated and should be placed in words. What are the guidelines on this?

Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, apologies for the wall of text for the 3rd point.

First point, why do you even need them? Most articles don't use them even when the artists are famous.

Second point, throw back his words at him WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I know its not always best, but if someone is trying to assert that, they should be prepared to have it used on them. Also tell him that its not a high-quality article and a lot, if not all, of that would be removed or moved to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. As for GG, yea it goes to far. If something looks like its telling you how to play a game properly in detail its too much. If its giving vague concepts like "A syncro monster is a special summoned monster using tuner type monsters." it may be okay. It gives some detail, but you can't figure out how to play the game from that detail. If there is very signifigant commentary on this mechanic, a bit more detail may be in order to explain why there is so much commentary. So if he wants that level, tell him to find suitable RSes with that level of commentary on the mechanics. However, that commentary should probably still be discussed primarly in the TCG article. If there truly is plenty of overlapping commentary on the anime's game mechanics and the TCG itself, perhaps a seperate Gameplay of Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game would be in order.∞陣内Jinnai 06:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain to them that episode lists give the most detail about a topic. I will note that Wikipedia:MOS-AM#Media gives no guidance as to whether songs should be covered only in the daughter list articles or not. As the show is currently airing, it lends itself to recentism - it's hard for us to know how important the new monsters will be at this time. Perhaps revisiting the issue once there is likely to be some reception on the show might be the best approach. --Malkinann (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful responses. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bolding Lead Roles on VA articles

I just realized I may be fighting a very slow edit war on Aki Toyosaki over the bolding of lead roles. I personally feel a lead role may be subjective in some anime (alright a weak argument) and I think it adds very little to the articles. What are the project's thoughts on bolding leading roles? ~TenTonParasol 22:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing we bold are the first instance of the article's title and, if applicable, the first instance of any of its alternate titles. If the first instance is wikilinked, we don't bold it though.∞陣内Jinnai 23:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty standard in articles on anime voice actors here for the lead roles to be in bold, but I don't think there is any sort of style guideline or anime/manga wikiproject guideline that calls for that. I personally am not sure it is a good idea to bold the roles in the way people here normally seem to. It seems to me that people are bolding the roles that are bold on the voice actor's page in Anime News Network's encyclopedia. That seems problematic to me, both since Anime News Network's encyclopedia isn't a reliable source, and because ANN's encyclopedia bolds both lead and secondary roles ("secondary" in ANN's role importance classification is generally used for major roles that are not a lead character). I often see voice actor pages here that say something along the lines of "lead roles in bold", but have some roles in bold that are clearly not a lead character. So basically, in bolding the roles I think people are regularly copying a non-reliable source and then also misrepresenting the information from that source. It does seem like it would be useful to note which roles a voice actor has performed are lead roles, but I think a reliable source would need to be cited for each role that someone wants to claim is a lead role. I think it is correct to remove the bolding when there is no source saying the role is a lead role (or when the role is bolded but isn't a lead), but it might be even better if reliable sources could be added indicating the roles are lead rolls. Calathan (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be fairly cautious about removing this - as WP:ENT#1 states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Having that sense of whether a character is background or main can be important in actors' articles. --Malkinann (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally bold lead roles myself. It's necessary to do it every time too, because a character in one film or series may be one of the main roles, while not being as such in another film or series while reprising the same character. Silverseren^C 04:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't bold lead roles. For one, it might sound too subjective and we might not find any sources out there that help differentiate which role of a given series is. Merely listing them is also a difficult thing to do. I think it would be easier to just List them in a table to make it easier. I don't think it matters much if there's two films playing the same character, but the roles change. In fact, i think bolding them would make things more confusing.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Then how are you supposed to determine if the person has been involved in main roles, per notability requirements? Bolding them makes it simple. If you take that away, there's pretty much no way to tell. Silverseren^C 16:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you only take a quick look at the article, but reliable sources are used to determine notability, not if a given actor was cast as a main character. I agree with Bread Ninja that it's much too subjective for an editor to arbitrarily decide if a role is lead or not. I've seen a lot of inconsistency about this among editors, where I see names bolded for characters I know wouldn't be considered lead roles in reliable sources. In short, it's just another form of original research and shouldn't be employed by this or any project on Wikipedia.--十八 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The only time where you might be able to claim someone is a lead role is if they are the titular character. However, even that is not a guarentee. I've never bolded any roles. The prose in the plot should be enough to indicate lead role.∞陣内Jinnai 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this under scope?

I made this article about two months ago, and it's been assessed as not being under scope, so I thought I'd seek a second opinion.

• Boys' Love Manga: Essays on the Sexual Ambiguity and Cross-Cultural Fandom of the Genre - an academic book about the Boys Love genre and its fandom.

I feel it is under scope as part of the "Notable Japanese or international publications and websites meant for review and commentary of anime or manga". Also I feel it is under scope because it discusses "Major aspects of fandom ... terminology and concepts such as otaku, and other practices.". Could I please get a second opinion? --Malkinann (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed that one because it appeared to be a general topic about boys love. While anime and manga do have titles that deal with that, its no different than any other medium. As such its not a topic that we specifically cover except for narrow instances like yaoi and a few others and speciifc titles. That's not a knock against the article, just its not really a part of this projects scope anymore than Japan is.∞陣内Jinnai 02:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The book discusses the tension between scanlation and publishing BL manga, glances on the German manga boom, analyses BL storylines (including Madness (manga) specifically), discusses Kaze to Ki no Uta, and talks about some visual conventions of the genre. In the book, manga is not merely the medium by which BL is transmitted, and so I feel it should be included under the parts of the scope that I have mentioned above. If the scope of the project does not include the study of genre and fandom, then I am inclined to think that the scope is too limited. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it a substantial portion of the book? As a comparison, we don't cover albums or artists who have a few anime songs listed. They have to have a track record with the medium. From the way the description read, it did not appear like it met a similar level.∞陣内Jinnai 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is enough of the book to be included in the project's scope, especially when "major aspects of fandom" are considered. Please don't judge the book by the quality of the article. Part of the problem is that I was not sure of how much to go into detail in the Contents section. A full table of contents can be found here. --Malkinann (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, given that info I'd be willing to change my opinion.∞陣内Jinnai 03:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)