| Revision as of 15:43, 18 May 2013 editLucia Black (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers17,382 edits →Manga articles that are tagged for possible non-notability← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:46, 22 January 2025 edit undoSjones23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers102,529 edits →Princess Mononoke: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:ANIME|WT:MANGA}} | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell| | ||
| {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-09-07/WikiProject report|writer= ]|| | |||
| ||day 7|month=September|year=2009}} | |||
| {{to do}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Index | |target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Index | ||
| Line 6: | Line 11: | ||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |leading_zeros=0 | ||
| |indexhere=no | |indexhere=no | ||
| }} | |||
| }}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 77 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 23: | ||
| |index= /Index | |index= /Index | ||
| |search= yes | |search= yes | ||
| |bot= |
|bot= lowercase sigmabot III | ||
| |age= 30 | |age= 30 | ||
| | <hr><center>] | | <hr><center>]</center> | ||
| }}{{shortcut|WT:ANIME|WT:MANGA}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navbox}} | |||
| == Airdates after midnight == | |||
| I've seen networks use a programming schedule from 04:00 to 27:59, so technically shows can air after midnight, yet count towards the previous day. For example. Monday April 8, 2013, 24:30-25:00 is the same as Tuesday April 9, 2013, 0:30-1:00. So in the listings, should they be posted as April 8, 2013 or April 9, 2013? The sources I've seen appear to support the former, although I have seen networks use the latter as well. Is there some sort of footnote standard we can use for such show airtimes? This impacts all those anime shows that tend to air at those wee hours. -] (]) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think I've seen the former anywhere outside of Japanese networks' programming schedules. It doesn't seem to be at all common anywhere else. Either way can be confusing, unless the air ''times'' are listed as well, or unless which date is listed is noted. | |||
| :In my opinion, the latter should be used in all cases, regardless of networks' listings, for consistency across articles and because the former can be confusing for a reader who is unfamiliar with it. ー]<sup>]]</sup> 02:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would prefer the former. If an airdate has been set by the network then it is set. I don't really think using the latter would do much help in keeping track. However, if either the former or latter is to be used, then there should at least be an indicator to show that the shows ''first'' aired after midnight to avoid confusion to the readers, something like my personal experience though. --] (]) 08:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would think the latter should be used for consistency. Going by ], it says "24:00...should not be used for the first hour of the next day (e.g. use 00:10 for ten minutes after midnight, not 24:10)." So if a network says it airs at 25:00 on April 8, I believe MOS:TIME is telling us to render it as 01:00 April 9, right?--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 09:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As Juhachi mentioned, MOS:TIME should be the standard. The most popular anime databases (MyAnimeList, AniDB) also employ this format. If there is further need for input, WikiProject Japan will be an appropriate place to ask. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">] ('']'' + '']'')</font>— 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I didn't realize there was a time format. Alright then. --] (]) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm taking this out of the archives because I've got something to say about this. This isn't how things are formatted in general across the project. They advertise that it airs on Saturdays, even if it is after midnight, so we should note that it premiered on that ''broadcast'' date rather than the actual calendar date. American TV shows with similar schedules are treated in this way as well.—] (]) 16:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| It seems that nobody holds a strong opinion on this subject. Can we simply adopt either of the two formats for the sake of consistency across articles? ー ]〈] | ]〉 21:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Due to ] and the fact that ], for now, we should probably stick to the actual broadcast date instead of the official one (for example, if a show is advertised to air on February 12 but actually airs on February 13, the latter date should be used). Or perhaps an RfC is in order? That would be a good way to determine consensus. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::] does not in any way state anything that you're suggesting. If something is said to premiere on April 6, even if it is at 25:30 or 26:45, then it's still part of the April 6 broadcast day. This confusion doesn't seem to happen to American programs that say have new episodes Sunday night at 12:30am so why should Japan be any different?—] (]) 19:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think the text on MOS:TIME really applies here. It was written with only "00:mm" vs "24:mm" in mind. ー ]〈] | ]〉 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I too support the use of standard times and dates, according to ]. It applies, because the date is connected directly to the (non-standard) time format. And not all japanese stations do the same thing; and use standard time formatting in their TV schedule. ] (]) 19:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just stumbled here, and not like it's big news, but A+/Animax here in Hungary uses (at least used) such 24+ hour air times in their teletext feed. Not sure about their website schedule though. --] (]) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The guideline at ] states "do not present times as 24:mm, but rather as 00:mm". It says '''''nothing''''' about changing the date of something just because it is after midnight. Again, American television shows do this all the time. I can go look at the ] schedule and it says that a new episode of ''Bleach'' is airing at midnight on Saturday, May 11, 2013, even though the date is technically May 12.—] (]) 19:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You can find a similar discussion about an american TV show ]; the actual airdate (for the moment) as a result. ] (]) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I haven't seen that done for any other AS program, though. I know Venture Bros uses the broadcast day date rather than the effective date.—] (]) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is clear that airdate is directly related to airtime. To say that '']'' started on April 6, 2013, without stating the exact time (that is "25:58") is misinformation. There is no consensus here to use non-standard time in articles. ] (]) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. An airdate is part of a broadcast schedule. And there is no misinformation, because reliable sources state that the Japanese premiere was on April 6, 2013. It's honestly – and I'm stretching this as much as you are stretching the meaning of what's written on ] – a violation of ] to say something other than what the reliable sources say, just because it's technically a different date.—] (]) 20:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Again, airdate and airtime are related (not debatable), and using non-standard formats for time is absolutely not recommended. ] (]) 20:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't see how it's a "non-standard format" when the actual time the show airs isn't listed. All we are doing is saying the airdate according to the network's broadcast schedule rather than the actual calendar date.—] (]) 21:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Also, to continually revert me actually was against ] and ] as you are falsifying sources to state that it is April 7 while just hiding the fact that it's April 6 at "25:58", you have replaced a secondary source with a primary one, and as I use that reference to state that Daisuke Ono and Romi Park are appearing in the show you've made two sourced statements into further falsified sourced statements.—] (]) 22:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I didn't falsify anything. I provided a source with detailed information about schedule (exact time and date on different stations), and edited it to comply with Misplaced Pages's guidelines (to my understanding). Also I don't find the source provided was against WP:V or WP:RS. ] (]) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You changed everything back to the "April 7" date when "April 6" is still written over everything, and replaced the secondary source I had used with the primary one, despite the fact I used the same source elsewhere on the page to source other statements.—] (]) 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I changed the date in '''two''' ; saying I had ''changed everything back to the "April 7"'' is overdramatization, giving the impression I made some big changes. Ignoring the named <code><nowiki><ref name="natalie"></nowiki></code> ref tag was definitely a mistake (I apologize). And again, I don't consider ''shingeki.tv'' a primary source for airing dates. ] (]) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::If it's the official website, '''it's a primary source'''.—] (]) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::This is your interpretation of ], I assume. It doesn't say that "all contents in an official website are primary sources". ''shingeki.tv'' belongs to Pony Canyon, and this company doesn't run the TV stations airing the show (no direct relation). The airing dates in the website aren't ''original materials'' published by Pony Canyon, they are a collection of informations provided and published by different TV stations (primary sources). ] (]) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I think we should have an RfC so that a consensus can be reached. Any thoughts? ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this seems to apply to several different projects, we should probably have a centralized discussion at ].--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think Juhachi's suggestion would be a good start. ] (]) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've started the discussion ]. Input is welcomed. Since ] is the parent and was where the discussion was originally suggested to take place, I'll inform them as well. ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 10:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] a task force? == | |||
| Since this new WikiProject is directly related to content already under this project, shouldn't it just be a task force under WP:ANIME? Several of our current task forces (], ]) were also separate WikiProjects originally, so it's not uncommon to absorb related projects under our scope--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :While the overlap is strong, the project includes non-Japanese works including Chinese, Korean and English 'hentai', broadly. A Wikiproject should cover hundreds if not thousands of articles in its scope, our scope is a subset of yours, but we work together, but our editing area and topics are about explicit and erotic content. Last I checked, Japan is related to WP:ANIME, and COMICs include manga. Our scope of articles renders in the thousands, while WP:ANIME is governed by 10x that number. Smaller defined topics exist for Wikiprojects with singular topics like ] or ] which have smaller scope, limited to a single universe. Its like ] being outside of ]. With more then 60 titles being released every month in Japan, and literally thousands of examples I believe the group is distinct enough to remain on its own for now. Single franchise/universe scope would be under a taskforce in my opinion, if 2000 topics under our initial scope is a fair estimate of said "hentai" works then we have about 1/5th of the WP:ANIME as our targeted subject with a focus on artists, producers and organizations related to producing or censoring hentai. We don't even have an article on CASPAR for instance. What about the ero-gekiga publications of the 70s and the 80s? Tezuka is the beginning of your movement, where as ] is the beginning of our subject. Why Hideo Azuma you ask? He's the connected figure that was the impetus behind the pornographic revolution and depiction of anime and manga into something erotic, fantastical and of unique focus. WP:ANIME has so many issues with its own articles, that even publications like Osamu Tezuka's ] is sadly lacking, despite being the very first instance of an anime serving as an introduction to sex education. And those were Tezuka's own words! Our scope is about improving the content and dirty little secrets that regular editors of ] do not want to touch, think about or even cover. GA's like ] were originally ero-games, but before the ] capitalized its formula, ero-games like Rance and Dōkyūsei. What about ]'s as a whole? Our coverage of these topics are so spotty and so broad that some forty years of content is undeveloped. If a span of 40 years, thousands of notable works, a unique distinct history and the actual development of ]'s entire topic is relegated to a taskforce, well... I disagree. ] (]) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Such a long speech for such a simple answer? What proof you have hentai encompasses chinese/korean media?] (]) 23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Whoa. First of all, the entire scope of what "hentai" covers has to be something animanga related per it's own definition. "]" is a Japanese word pertaining to erotic Japanese media. I don't know why you'd think you could apply that to Chinese or Korean works, or anything non-Japanese in origin. Besides, the difference between a task force and a WikiProject is purely cosmetic; instead of it's own banner, it would get a line in the existing WP:ANIME banner; see ]'s WP:ANIME banner for what it would look like. Having the WikiProject as a task force under WP:ANIME just facilitates a central discussion related to articles under the scope of WikiProject Hentai. Having the project completely separate from this project makes little sense.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Juhachi, the Wikiproject is not a taskforce, it uses the Americanized definition. As no "hentai" genre exists in Japan. Furthermore ] is an example of a bishōjo-style visual novel that WP:HENTAI covers despite it not being Japanese at all. The ] work and major websites (you know the type) would be included in this, despite also being outside ]. Our scope is not limited to Japanese focus, but all sexually explicit or erotic depictions in the art style, which include clearly American works. So just like WP:ANIME avoids ]-type works, we'd include it if the subject matter was explicit. Afterall... how many people even know Shadman? ] (]) 23:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is one of a very few exceptions. Besides, that article is already under the ], a joint task force under both ] and WP:ANIME. Keeping the WikiProject separate because of a few outliers makes no sense. The point of any WikiProject or task force is for centralized discussion to better improve a group of articles with different editors who share the same interest. They don't exist just for the sake of existing. WikiProjects and task forces go inactive if no one is actively improving the articles under its scope and/or if there's no discussion going on. How many editors do you know of who would be interested in actively improving hentai articles? I mean, other than the people already under this project, WP:VG, or ]. And who are you to say that "hentai" should be just defined by what it means in America? Seems pretty ] to me. Hentai as ] (per Oxford) is "a subgenre of the Japanese genres of '''manga''' and '''anime''', characterized by overtly sexualized characters and sexually explicit images and plots". Now tell me that isn't under the scope of WP:ANIME.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 02:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support task force under ]''' - Our project covers so many Hentai titles that keeping the projects separate for the sake of a handful of articles (if there are those) makes little sense anyways. What our project doesn't cover other's do. - ] (]) 23:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hentai'''. This topic was discussed before in section, I was the first to suggest the '''Hentai Task Force''' at that time. However, now I can see that it should be a WikiProject. The scope of ''Hentai'' is wider than you know, not just limiting itself to R-18 Anime and Manga. These can also include Japanese non-Anime style Pornography, but that's according to the original definition. If you apply the English definition itself, then that will limit your understanding about the subject in mind. Check on ] and you'll find a list that's barely supported by 3 WikiProjects, and to think a '''Hentai Task Force''' can clean the mess up under ''WikiProject Anime and Manga''? This is why I agreed to start the new WikiProject instead of a new Task Force. --] (]) 04:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **This is the English version of Misplaced Pages though not the Japanese, if reliable sources define the word under anime and manga's scope we should follow this. - ] (]) 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***As you said, ]. I want to say that I'm not the offensive type of person, but this is '''Not''' a 💕 limited to the American knowledge. And about the definition of Hentai, what do you mean by "English" definition? I have implied "itself" on my previous above statement, saying that there is some sort of misunderstanding as far as I can see. --] (]) 10:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : {{edit conflict}}Honestly, it is not a voting matter. Another Wikiproject cannot compel or force to be tied to another and they can be similar like the Theater splits as noted above. With more then 2000 notable articles that need to be created or covered, many works are not even addressed. How about ], you know he started with ero. Right? ] as well. Even Oh! great is one. How about ] and the Pokemon manga artist Toshiro Ono/Toshihiro Ono/Kamirenjaku Sanpei? Pen names and such a real pain to deal with, but its not the artists that are lacking coverage. The actual games are really lacking and even key ones that made major advances in the genre are horribly insufficient. The entire Rance series and most of the Elf works, I don't care if VG has a taskforce with you to deal with it, our coverage is sub-par. Even ones with animes are terrible. ] anyone? Alright.. how about the largest English distributors? ]? ]? The defunct ]? Seriously you can't even get more then two sentences on US Manga Corps? WP:HENTAI needs to be a full Wikiproject because of its size and scope includes thousands of articles and much of the material which it will focus on is abandoned and left aside. By properly categorizing and setting our own importance and criteria and centralized discussion the Wikiproject can address these issues in a way that mere Taskforces cannot. Again, if it was 100-200 articles I'd agree, but we are dealing with 10X that number at minimum. ] (]) 05:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] then, articles are being maintained and Misplaced Pages has no deadline for things, it is a work in progress. - ] (]) 05:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So we're gonna start this WikiProject to "Fix it" then. Why not? --] (]) 10:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, this '''is''' a voting matter. A wikiproject isn't made onthe number of articles fall in its scope. Its how distinct it is to merit one. And so far the range is pretty much tied to anime and manga related to not split from anime&manga. And I don't doubt that there are a large number of hentai (devil's advocate) but I doubt the number of "notable" hentai articles are reaching 2000 articles, and if they do, then most of them may not be notable.] (]) 06:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't even know why ] is under the Hentai project, it is not an erotic anime. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::A multitude of articles were mistagged by ]; I tried undoing some of them, but many still reside. And this is a general reply to Chris. When you say "the Wikiproject can address these issues in a way that mere Taskforces cannot", I feel you don't understand that the difference between a WikiProject and a task force is purely a difference in wording; they both function the exact same way, whether it was apart of WP:ANIME or not. The difference, however, if that if the WikiProject is separate, it is more likely to fall into inactivity sooner and thus likely to die within a year or less. I thought you might realize that if it were a task force under this project that it might survive better, but if you really want them separate, be my guest. I've been on Misplaced Pages for over 7 years, so I've seen my fair share of projects and task forces come and go. The project will merely die within a year or so and fall into obscurity the likes of ] or similar. | |||
| ::Even if I'm wrong, it's unlikely that a large number of editors wanting to improve hentai-related articles will show up out of no where, thus defeating the purpose of having a WikiProject/task force. At this point, it looks like only you and Bumblezellio are willing to do this. General editorship on Misplaced Pages has declined over the past several years, and is still declining. You should have seen this place back in its heyday around 2007-2008; you would have seen more support for something like this back then. If people were going to improve hentai-related articles, they would have done so already because, as I've been explaining, all hentai-related articles are already under the scope of WP:ANIME per its own definition. To take a quote from ] (which I would suggest you read): ''have in mind that interested editors will not appear out of nowhere just because there is a WikiProject''. I would suggest you take this to heart and heed the suggestions of other, more experienced editors here and let us absorb the project for its own sake.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 10:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No one is tied to working solely on a Wikiproject and becoming a member to work on things, I have worked on articles under ANIME scope without being a member. Same with video games with the G-Zay matter. Did I miss tag a few Yuri articles, yes, but I'd be fixing that if I wasn't spending time here dealing with this. If we became a taskforce we lose our categorization, ratings and a fair amount of direction and push our NSFW content into here. Frankly, hentai is anime's dark secret, the sort of material that parents don't want their kids seeing and many editors of this project are not supposed to even be viewing such material. While Misplaced Pages is not censored, WP:HENTAI will be a platform to monitor and improve standards for all the articles. And yes that includes organizing and publishing our own pool of resources and such, though I must admit this will be as much of a cross-wiki matter with the Japanese Misplaced Pages content and editors. So yes, while Misplaced Pages's editor base has declined and more and more content is done by established editors, our coverage is still lacking. And that is why, unlike the defunct Bleach group, WP:HENTAI will not run out of material to cover. NENAW is an interesting essay, but we are a defined sub-genre of a major art form. We are the horror of movies, where even if the Wikiproject seems defunct or slow our article alerts will persist for ALL editors who wish to be involved with the more behind the scenes issues of Misplaced Pages. Now I reject the taskforce on all fronts, but I did initially begin by wanting to create a taskforce because of the overlap, but it is just detrimental to this group to do so. I know you may not agree with me, but in all this time, I have never labeled myself a member of the Wikiproject and I do not believe Wikiprojects really matter to wide-scope editors. Agree or disagree with me, I do not have to convince anyone here, mere existence will drive improvements and efforts around the focus the same way the defunct Dragonball taskforce does not mean the end of DBZ work, ] continues to improve and same with the merge of terms like Saiyan. WP:ANIME absorbed the Dragonball Wikiproject and for good reason, it is of very small scope, like a band or TV show, ours is a large genre which consists of numerous sub-genres and that's reason enough for HENTAI to exist. ] (]) 13:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And those genre's are also connected to anime&manga. In the end, its just not worthy of a project. Taskforce is better suited.] (]) 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"...mere existence will drive improvements..." That was exactly what I was trying to say will ''not'' happen, especially in this day and age. Misplaced Pages is not getting any younger, and more experienced editors are becoming an endangered species. Think of it like the ]. Articles do not get improved because a WikiProject exists. A WikiProject exists to facilitate (i.e. coordinate) the improvement of articles. In short, if there isn't an interest to improve articles, WikiProjects or task forces wouldn't exist, and forcing the creation of one when interest is minimal or lacking is not going to magically "drive improvements" because of its "mere existence". But you can believe what you want to believe, I guess. And you also mistagged a bunch of ] articles too.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Just putting this out there but one of the reasons why I dont look for sources for hentai that often is the computer virus risk, you have to be very careful when looking for reliable sources when it comes to hentai. - ] (]) 20:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : To those who oppose, this is not a fair assessment. For instance, Lucia Black has a strong and established grudge on me. Lucia, who is currently part of ] is not calling for it to be a taskforce under ]. Despite a scope that is completely under VG, let alone a single company. ] is not governed by this project, while related we cover adult content and that includes some sexology-related side projects. I intended to announce the formation here, Juhachi raised the issue first. While you may not share my sentiments and some of you have reasons to rail against anything I do, I sincerely believe that ENWIKI will grow and develop from it. Who cares if it starts with 2-4 editors, it is not even half functional or developed. Editors like Knowledgekid87 are the reason I want to make this Wikiproject, Google is useless on just about anything pornography related, but there is no shortage of academic articles and books preventing me from getting this far on ]. It has a long way to FA, but the Wikiproject's journey and development has just begun. Embrace it or shun it, just be glad I don't hammer the topics here and drive away the younger editors. Even this conversation is risking comfort zones of the watchers. ] (]) 03:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::This seems a little odd. First you want to talk about it and want more support, and yet you are not keen to the idea of talking about it openly and thus want it separate from WP:ANIME for those reasons. Am I understanding that right? Do you honestly think less people would be interested in contributing to WP:HENTAI if it was a task force under WP:ANIME because it might risk "comfort zones"? I don't even know what to say to that, honestly. I doubt you'd "drive away younger editors" if you talked about hentai-related content on this talk page. Anyone who's watched even a little bit of anime or read a little bit of manga knows how sexualized the media is, even in the most mundane circumstances. Hell, why do you think most shounen series have women with ] ]? So it pretty much comes with the territory. | |||
| ::Not to mention that your goals seem a little short-sighted. If you wanted to try to get ] up to FA, I don't think you needed to establish a WikiProject to do so. Indeed, I doubt you'd get much help either way if the article has been stagnant and cruft-filled for as long as it seems to have been. Sure you can say that starting the WikiProject ''might'' help improve some kind of development of hentai-related articles, but I personally don't see it happening. Who else, other than you and Bumblezellio, are in support of the project? Has anyone else come forward?--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Before I begin, I will like to apologize for any of the following offensive statement. So what is the harm to others for forming a WikiProject at this point? From my view, it's seems more like a threat rather than a comment. What's done is done. WP:HENTAI is already up and running at this point, so you don't need to continue barking at our business. Please refrain from hindering us any longer, and just reread ]. We editors are trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and you're interrupting, saying that we need a ''Hentai Task Force'' instead? Why do you think I rejected the Task Force idea? --] (]) 13:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If that wikiproject becomes a task force, so be it. Previous attempts were that it handled media unrelated to video games such as the anime films, TV series, and CGI films. But consensus can change. Challenge it, I might even support. But at this point, you're not providing good arguments. Rather you admit you have no argument.] (]) 07:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: WP:ANIME is its own project, WP:HENTAI is the 'adult' version with coverage of explicit works and non-Japanese works are included. We are related to WP:ANIME, but not bound to this project. The same way as Lucia is in the SquareEnix wikiproject and that wikiproject is not a taskforce of VG. We are a separate entity and will not discuss our matters here. For any issues or further discussion please go to ] and comment on our talk page. ] (]) 14:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah okay, even though the majority of titles are under the anime/manga scope you just keep telling yourself that. "'adult' version" are you serious? - ] (]) 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, so basically WP:ANIME can't discuss or improve anything that's 'adult'? You keep saying non-Japanese works, but what are these works? Are there any examples other than ]? But I can see this is getting us no where, as you seem to not even want to comment here anyway, instead wanting to split the discussion to WP:HENTAI under some supposed 'right' that you have to form this project outside of WP:ANIME against consensus. Have fun being the only two in your little project, because I can see you do not want to discuss anything with other editors. Instead, you seem to just want to go off on your ].--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===RFC=== | |||
| {{rfc|proj|rfcid=ED19835}} | |||
| The above section is rather long, so I'll provide a nutshell: | |||
| {{nutshell|] started up ] (WP:HENTAI), a project who's scope is largely (if not entirely) under the scope of this project, WikiProject Anime and manga (WP:ANIME).|A discussion started as to whether it should be a task force under this project, but ChrisGualtieri and another user, ], are against this under a supposition that WP:HENTAI should be kept separate.|Several other users agree that it should be a task force under WP:ANIME, but Chris and Bumble refuse to go along with consensus.}}--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 21:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I just want to say that this not a matter of butting into other's business or saying how one project is better than the other but as an idea that has a consensus and makes sense. I hope that we can all agree to a solution one way or the other and no bitter feelings last from the outcome. - ] (]) 00:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' it should be a taskforce under ] -- ] (]) 07:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:Eh, it wouldn't have to be one or the other if it came to that. For example, the ] is a joint task force under both ] and WP:ANIME. This would make sense, though, since WP:HENTAI deals with pornographic material.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::That would work better, if it were a shared task force, than if it were an ANIME task force. Though, it is porn, so the porn project is the most logical parent. It already covers JAV. -- ] (]) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Whether the scope of WikiProject Hentai falls within WikiProject Anime and manga's scope isn't such a great argument, because this can be true for both WikiProjects and task forces. For example, ] falls within the scope of ], which in turn falls within the scope of ], but no-one is arguing that WikiProject Birds should be turned into a task force of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles or WikiProject Animals. Rather, the usual metric for whether something should be a separate project or not is the number of editors who are interested in getting involved. At this point there only seem to be two editors involved, which makes me think that a task force would make more sense. Are there any technical aspects of the project infrastructure that wouldn't be possible if the project was turned into a task force? — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 08:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:Most of the bots and related infrastructure play nicely with task forces. AFAIK the only truly insurmountable problem is if the task force wants to support a page that the parent doesn't want to have associated with it. Any page tagged by the task force is also counted in the parent's stats, with no exceptions. ] (]) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per my reasons above, I just want to ask what harm is going to come if it is turned into a taskforce? Yes it wont be a project but has the potential to get more editors from WP Anime and manga involved. - ] (]) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **I guess I changed my mind. Now I'm fine with either ways. --] (]) 12:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - While there is overlap, article count is in the thousands and that is proper under the scope. Far smaller Wikiprojects exist like ] which overlaps with ] and it is independent despite having a mere 476 articles. ] basically needs to exist for the independent categorization, assessment and peer review according to ]. Another key issue is that our assessment and importance is going to be different, and for technical reasons a full Wikiproject is required. ] is low importance for WP:ANIME, but he is top importance for Hentai. As he created genres of hentai and is really responsible for a major shift, just like ] is responsible for starting the hentai movement under the cartoon-cute Tezuka art style which was a shift away from realistic art styles of the 1970s. ] is outside our scope, actually 90% of the projects TOP articles are outside the scope. Even more for the HIGH priority. No one is going to remove WP:ANIME's banners from these overlapped pages either, focus can be shared and overlapped. Thus we need to remain independent for more then just the banners, but the organizational reasons as well. | |||
| *(courtesy space) | |||
| *If not for technical reasons we need to be separated at least consider the content. Many ANIME editors are probably not of age to even view this content, a separate task force page for discussion essentially needs to be made, which is why a full Wikiproject is easier. If we were to combine, WP:ANIME would have numerous topics about the explicit content as this talk page would be the main discussion point. Books like ''The Erotic Anime Movie Guide'' and ''Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society'' are key resources for our project, but would the group be content to have numerous explicit links be published here? I know Misplaced Pages is not censored, but a full Wikiproject is really necessary because a separate Taskforce will have a murky split and no vehicle for assessment and review and stifle growth in the long run. So combined with low importance tagging of WP:ANIME for pages like ], do you really want a Hentai taskforce to be dealing with this subject matter right here? And to be completely fair, just about everything in this sector is terribly covered and wrong. Futanari stems from religious depictions and says absolutely nothing of its imagery and doesn't even offer up insight as to why. Its vulgar material, incredibly so, but it is best covered in its own Wikiproject for technical and content reasons. While we are under no obligation to be apart of ANIME, as under ], our scope and technical requirements are only served by full Wikiproject status, overlap or otherwise, any number of projects can express interest and tag the page. I'd PREFER WP:ANIME to consider us a taskforce or a related project and come to us like a taskforce page for discussion, but WP:HENTAI really needs it own space, I welcome any editor to join us and given the nature of the work, expect a larger service as a resource, guide and page for editors who do not formally identify themselves as such. A recent change/watch system (again... Wikiproject) will allow for monitoring and improving those articles in our scope and answering questions raised by other editors without flooding our watchlists. Not even ] uses it, and if its 11,000 articles say anything, it'd probably be a waste of time, but for us it'd be key. In summary, many reasons point to full Wikiproject status, not Taskforce, the decision to do so was not careless and was the result of over a week of research and weighing of the options. Hopefully, with these reasons you'll agree with my actions and see my reasoning. Thanks for reading this important wall of text. ] (]) 14:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:BannerMeta fully supports different importance/priority ratings for parents and task forces. I don't know whether it supports different quality rankings, but these should have less variation, since they're supposed to be at least somewhat comparable between groups for ]'s work anyway. ] (]) 18:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:If your concerns are about age appropriateness, wouldn't that argue for listing WPHENTAI under WPPORN instead of WPMANGA ? -- ] (]) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I saw the note at ] about this. The official advice on this subject is at ]. | |||
| It is ''usually'' not a good idea to have two separate groups working on the same subject (because there are ''usually'' too few editors anyway), but it is '''not prohibited''' and you '''cannot force a merger'''. Ever. | |||
| The reason that we do not permit forced mergers is because a WikiProject is people, not articles. Imagine that your groups were real-world groups, like student clubs. And imagine that someone came along and said, "Why should we have a "Student Club for Anime and Manga" and also a "Student Club for Manga and Anime? We'll just force the second one to join the first." Do you think that would work? Or do you think a lot of the students in the second one would just quit out of disgust for someone interfering with their free choice of which people to spend time with (and which people ''not'' to spend time with)? | |||
| So here's what you can do: You can invite the new group to freely join you. You can offer to provide technical and bureaucratic support for them, such as making your banner display links and logos for their group. You can offer to host their pages as subpages. You can offer to provide practical and moral support. In other words, you can make joining you seem as attractive as possible. But ultimately, the decision about whether to join your existing group or to strike out on their own is entirely up to them. ] (]) 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Support''' Its not really a merge but rather renaming to be part of A&M.] (]) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, this is a proposed merger of two separate groups of people. You cannot "rename" ''people'' to be part of another group of people. ] (]) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :If this is the case and the project creator seems to have no intention of agreeing to a merge here I don't see how this convo can go forward. Seems to me like the result would be yes there is a consensus to merge and a lot think its a good idea but there can be no outcome. I would revisit this in another few months and check back on the Hentai project then, if no or very very few members have joined up then it might be a better idea to bring up a merge discussion again then. - ] (]) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Does the creator automatically become the owner? Creating a project is a big deal and usually needs consensus first, so pushing a hentai wikiproject was a bad move.] (]) 20:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with you I just don't know what the guidelines or rules if any there are for this. - ] (]) 21:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :What WhatamIdoing said. Even if a merge would seem to make sense by other metrics, there's no way you can ''force'' it to happen. As the WikiProject Hentai editors don't want to go ahead with a merge, there's really not much to discuss here. Let's give the project a few months to develop and revisit the situation after that. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::not exactly a merge. Plus one already game up on the wikiproject idea (out of the two editors).] (]) 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure I understand this logic. Assuming the project doesn't gain many members in a few months time, a merge would still be impossible as long as ChrisGualtieri was against it, right? Are you suggesting that in such a situation Chris might be inclined to rethink the merger? I personally don't think so, seeing how strongly he thinks the two projects should be kept separate.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Chris is a rational person; given more time and information, he might change his mind. And if he doesn't, then you ''still'' cannot force him to join your group. ] (]) 17:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| He doesn't have to, and "rational" is circumstancial. What I will say is, creator of a wikiproject doesn't mean they have ownership, similar to how an article or a policy is created. That said, not all wikiprojects are based on "people", some are based on just being a portal of helpful info and a place to CANVAS appropriately. Otherwise, people would wikiprojects left and right knowing full well consensus won't matter because they created it. With that said, someone can move the project into a task force within A&M's wikiproject and it won't be considered vandalism or disruptive.] (]) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree here, it makes little sense to have a one person project with no support for it, it would be one thing if this was thought out but wikiprojects have not one person in charge but groups of people who make choices per consensus, something which was done here. - ] (]) 04:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''sigh''' If s/he does not want support from this project, let him/her be. Hentai includes non anime and manga, so logically speaking, if it does not want to be a TF of WP:ANIME, I am perfectly fine with it. The only problem is the support given, but since obviously s/he does not want it, then why force him/her to? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 07:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Prove it.] (]) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::So all hentai video games are "anime games"? Including Japanese video (photographic) strip mahjong games using real women models? -- ] (]) 06:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Some live-action is part of A&M's scope. And a lot of video games featuring anime and manga artwork is part of A&M's scope too. But even then, can there even be a hentai article dedicated to a mahjong game? I am well aware there are even panchinko machines with hentai on them. How about a compromise. It turns into '''Hentai Taskforce''' similar to Visual Novel taskforce, unlike bleach taskforce that has WP:AM as part of the title.] (]) 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That only works if Hentai is a taskforce of WPPORN, not WPAM. -- ] (]) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't have to prove anything, ]'s meaning is not limited to Anime/Manga/Games/Light Novels as per the article, or any Japanese dictionary, and whoever created WP:HENTAI, from all the comments up there, obviously does not want our help. Like I said, if s/he does not want our help, why do we want to force him/her to receive our help? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Actually it can be a task force of both. Also If you don't have to prove anything, then be prepared for any of your comments to be dismissed. I'm not taking you seriously.] (]) 17:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Lucia, it is not up for debate. That is final. You do not respect policy and have control issues. I try to be as nice as possible, but you continue to persist and be disruptive and disrepectful to any editor who disagrees with you. Being loud and having the last word does not mean you win, remember ]. You have been warned about personal attacks and your behavior before. It is becoming as childish as your essay which is all bad-faith and attacking. Consider this the last warning. ] (]) 18:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lucia, if you don't even know the definition of Hentai, you are the one at fault. Hentai is not limited to Anime, it includes all forms of media, the burden of prove is on you if you say it is limited. However, the linked article's second source already give hentai in Japanese have 3 different meanings, and thus whatever the project/TF will be, it will cover more than things covered in anime, given the term is currently used as its second form in our case. What it is most usually being used for recently does not limit it to just that. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 14:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>Are you kidding me? A consensus was formed to make a taskforce out of ] the only reason why it is not is because what is in place, so take your own words stop making personal attacks and ] with the argument. - ] (]) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)</s> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' If the people of ] don't want to become a task force of ], then they shouldn't be forced to. I agree with the argument above discussing how ] falls under ] but they remain separate. There are definitely some similarities between the two projects, but also some differences, so if both sides do not agree on merging together, they should just stay separated. I don't see anything wrong with that. - ] ] 02:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Differences are minimal, they both share the same scope though. However you say oppose but your explanation says support. In the end, then we cn only compromise. This "wikiproject" can still be a wikiproject but still fall under A&M.] (]) 02:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == VisualEditor is coming == | |||
| The ] is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka ]), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs '''currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013'''. | |||
| About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will '''not''' be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that ] (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages). | |||
| The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to ] and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the ''top'' of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note ] about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar. | |||
| Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. '''The old edit window is not going away''', so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new. | |||
| If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on ], and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. ] (]) 01:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by ], not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. ] (]) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] considered ]? == | |||
| == Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters == | |||
| I noticed that these articles were placed under ]'s scope and I agree that some were made into Hentai per reliable sources but is it valid to lump in the terms with Hentai as a whole? - ] (]) 18:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Well... Loli and Shotas are also a material for Hentai stories. ] ] 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess the fact that lolicon and shotacon ''could and are'' used in hentai is the matter.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] "...'''if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article''' per ]." I am deeply concerned about the attempts to coerce and force actions and drive away editors. If you have issues go to ] and do not bring it up here. The hostile and petty nature of this dispute stifles cooperation and growth. And to clarify according to the NPA 30% of seijin manga material falls into this category. ] (]) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Inactive talk page over at ], so I'm putting it here as well. (Please respond at the source page, linked directly below) | |||
| == Planning on sending ] to FLRC == | |||
| {{Excerpt|Talk:List of Pokémon anime characters|Article Split}} | |||
| I brought up issues ]. Someone can address them if they want. ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :So ]'s legacy is finally starting to unravel, huh? Not that I'm surprised since this is what happens to abandoned articles. Still a shame though, seeing how much work she put into the project back then. For all intents and purposes, was probably the last stable version aside from the name changes and a few other cosmetic changes.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about to revert to the last stable version? ] (]) 04:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with that. We should keep the legacy of Wikipedians alive as well. AnmaFinotera was one of my major influences during my time on Misplaced Pages. ] (] - ]) 04:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Accuracy is still debatable due to new translations. I would've reverted it if that was the only issue. ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see. We should keep an eye on the article and update where necessary. ] (] - ]) 05:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for featured list removal == | |||
| == Category:Dirty Pair == | |||
| I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> ] (]) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 04:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to ]. ] (]) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Second opinión == | |||
| Hello. Can some one give an opinion in this discussion? ] (]) 18:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a while but the reviewer requested a second opinion about size. Could somebody provide it? Cheers ] (]) 02:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Search for Japanese language sourcing? == | ||
| Can someone assist in looking for Japanese language sourcing for ]? It's currently up for AfD and while I think it's very likely to pass AfD, it wouldn't hurt to do some searching for Japanese language sources. | |||
| I've been having several issues with ] with one particular issue: Japanese naming conventions. For example, Ghost in the Shell japanese cover shows as "攻殻機動隊" with "The Ghost in the Shell" under it. And because of this Ryulong includes "The Ghost in the Shell" alongisde the kanji within the nihongo template. So it looks like Ghost in the Shell (攻殻機動隊 The Ghost in the Shell, ''Kokaku Kidotai Gosuto In Za Sheru'') when using nihongo template. I've attempted to explain to the editor that there are no japanese reliable sources (or any source) includes "The Ghost in the Shell" with the kanji unlike other adaptations ] that has its japanese title as "Ghost in the Shell/攻殻機動隊" (despite the cover NOT having a "/" on the logo) and ] in which its title is "攻殻機動隊 Ghost in the Shell". I know this sounds difficult to follow. But basically there's no proof that "The Ghost in the Shell" is part of the Japanese title for the original manga. Can someone help form a consensus on this? | |||
| I'm not fluent in Japanese at all and searching with Google Translate is difficult since I don't really have a way to limit the results so that the garbage sources are lessened. It's also possible that it would be referred to more casually by the date and author rather than the full title, which also complicates search attempts. Can anyone help search? I'm going to post in the Pokemon WP as well. Thank you! ]<small>(formerly Tokyogirl79)</small>] 20:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Another is Ghost in the Shell: Arise, in which all reliable sources including the official site refers to the series as 攻殻機動隊ARISE but Ryulong insists on 攻殻機動隊ARISE -GHOST IN THE SHELL- because of the url title in google search for the official site.] (]) 02:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you still going on about this? If multiple sources close to the subject include these words in some form then it should be considered part of the Japanese title.—] (]) 08:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, on Arise's title, .—] (]) 10:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::But logos and cover art is a stretch and you know that. The only source out there is the cover and japanese wiki (which also adds "control preferences to second volume). In that very site, they refer to it as 攻殻機動隊ARISE. No other source adds "-GHOST IN THE SHELL-" and no source refers to the manga as 攻殻機動隊THE GHOST IN THE SHELL unlike the film and video game. EXample: ] apparently translates as "The first Step" but adds "The fighting!" under it. But its not part of the title despite the video games adding it as a subtitle because no sources add the english title as part of the japanese one. Both are in the exact same boat. Not to mention Kodansha USA renamed all of them as "The Ghost in the Shell", and its not like naruto where.primary.sources specifically refer to the series.with the english name alonside the kanji. Even bilingual editions dont sell it as 攻殻機動隊THE GHOST IN THE SHELL. Just 攻殻機動隊.] (]) 18:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm pretty sure the English words Ghost in the Shell, is just the translation the creators wanted for the Kanji. Anyways, returns titles without the English words in there. A strong source with commentary by a reliable source decide this discussion. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Well the translation is different. However i know the first two kanji can be translated as "ghost" and "shell". Still, falls in the exact same situation as hajime no Ippo situation.] (]) 01:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :攻 is "attack". 殻 is "shell" in some forms at least. Nothing in the name is "ghost". Still, you have "GHOST IN THE SHELL" plastered all over the official website for ''Arise''.—] (]) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::So your willing to remove "the ghost in the shell" as part of the japanese title? And "plastered" everywhere is an exaggeration considering the developers themselve refer to it without the "-GHOST IN THE SHELL-" several times. All you have data info. Even production I.G doesnt add it in. See . Its similar to how officially Dissidia 012(duodecim) Final Fantasy even though the names are interchangable.] (]) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No matter what reliable sources I can dig up, I always see ''Ghost in the Shell'' as it's Official English/Romaji Title. If we put up a different title that's unfamiliar with the general view then that is going to mess up 18 years worth of knowledge about one title. So please do us a favor; use ] and help us move on with our lives. --] (]) 21:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the longest time the manga was just with the kanji. Unlike the film and video games that have the english text as part of the japanese title and.is properly sourced. The english title wont change, the Japanese one is in question. No source adds the english title as.part of the japanese one for the manga.] (]) 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The collection for the original manga has on its cover both "攻殻機動隊" and "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL". Obviously, "攻殻機動隊" is the name of the manga when it was in serialization only. However, the first collection is clearly subtitled "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" so drop this nonsense already Lucia.—] (]) 17:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Why state the exact same thing? No source calls it that. You know better than to rely solely on a cover because a.cover says a thousand things but has to be confirned through reliable source. Hypothetically, even if the creator intended to call it that, there are other first party sources who make the final call. Example: Oh My Goddess!/Ah! My Goddess! Situation where the anime is known as Ah! My Goddess! despite the creators intention being closer to "Oh My Goddess". Its not "obvious" if the only thing you have is cover art. You have to bring a reliable source. Hajime no Ippo is a perfect example here. Address it.] (]) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :], nothing left to do here. ]@] 21:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == DNA Media Comics == | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Looking for more views on this redirect deletion ]. It currently redirects to Clannad. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 90's shojo manga series clean-up == | ||
| I |
I've been cleaning up '']'', '']'', and '']'' for the past month and hoping to expand them, but this is the most I can do for now. If someone has additional sources and reviews, that would be great. Cheers. ] (]) 23:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ==New message from Emir of Misplaced Pages== | |||
| == Manga articles that are tagged for possible non-notability == | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ].  I thought you were a WikiProject which might be interested in this discussion. ] (]) 21:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == Discussion at ] == | |||
| There are a lot of manga articles that don't demonstrate the series' notability. I compiled them with ] and pasted the result here: ]. If anyone here can help out with adding sources or anything, feel free :) - ] <small>(previously Atlantima)</small> <font color="138808">~</font><font color="602F6B" size="3">✿</font><font color="138808">~</font> (]) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ], which is within the scope of this WikiProject. ] (] - ]) 06:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- Template:WikiProject please see --> | |||
| :Well im not completely shocked as these also appear over at ], it would be great to get some help with those articles though yes. Right now I am in the process of taking your list and incorporating it to the list over there, my suggestion is for the clearly non-notable works ] and/or ]. {{unsigned|Knowledgekid87}} | |||
| :: I will see what I can do about this. I'm waiting on a few matters, but in the future why not just use the template clean up listing from the toolserver for this? Seems a bit much to reparse everything with CATSCAN when the work has been done for you already. ] (]) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So many of these are notable. ] and half this list have plenty of coverage at ANN to start with. A lot of Japanese sources are required for these works that never came to America, but doubt many of these need to be PROD or AFD'd. Some of the entries are archived at the Japanese National Library (there is only 1 btw) and that counts for something as well. ] (]) 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please don't take my post as judging any particular series. It's literally just an automated list of articles in category: Manga series that had a {{tl|notability}} tag on them. If you can show notability for some then go ahead. -- ] <small>(previously Atlantima)</small> <font color="138808">~</font><font color="602F6B" size="3">✿</font><font color="138808">~</font> (]) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Not all anime is notable, especially with manga as few reviews are out there. It might be good to start a AfD campaigne for articles that cant be above C-class.] (]) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: That is not how Misplaced Pages works. Just because we don't have detailed coverage on it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Most of the sources on this material is Japanese language only, but many have reviews listed under our RSes. Not every work is reviewed by the same group either. By trying to remove those that are not developed you will be reducing coverage and the likelyhood of them all improving later on. ] (]) 12:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::you're quick to assume despite what little ive said. I'm saying we should AfD articles that "can't" make it to C class. An AfD campaigne has been done before. It takes more than news coverage to make an article notable. For media, it would need third party reviews too.] (]) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| While we are on the subject of cleanup ]'s link to the toolserver is no longer working, can this be fixed? - ] (]) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Lucia: An article can have zero sources yet still be notable. I do not know what you think I am assuming, but I'm pointing out mere fact. It has also been seen to be disruptive to the process to mass nominate anything you feel can't get above C, just because it is foreign does not make it not notable. I'm fairly certain almost any series could pass GNG/N with a few hours of research on it. Putting fire under editors to do so is a bad proposition, I've done quite a bit of work on the notability tags before, and can safely say that a lack of content does not mean a lack of notability. Knowledgekid87, I've been asking about it since yesterday, but the toolserver does this regularly and I was a little disappointed because it's been down for so long. I cannot even get my tasks run through because of it. It will be fixed when the Toolserver goes up, so don't remove or alter the link, its just a temporary issue. ] (]) 14:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Question on Fair Use Images == | |||
| ::It can have several sources and still not be notable either. I'm going to drop a hint. Im saying we should Afd articles that '''cant''' be C-class. I'm not saying we should afd articles that '''could''' be C-class. Not all manga is notable especially when theres little reliable reviews and sources. This has nothing to do with me not being able to move an article upto C-class, its the fact that there is alot ofmanga article that arent notable. Mostpeople create them out of being their favorite manga by scanlations. Im not saying we should speedily delete them without verifying that it cant go any higher. If youre not assuming, then dont bother pointing out facts that arent being brought to question. And all manga and anime are foreign. I know that.] (]) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That attitude is not helpful or productive, honestly not all anime and manga artworks/artstyle are Japanese only. ] and ] use the style. Kurokami, ], ].. come on... ] ] are all Korean examples of manga alone. They may be outside a&m's scope but the art direction and form is pretty obvious. If it wasn't for the country of origin they'd be classified as such. ] (]) 23:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"An article can have zero sources yet still be notable." I disagree with this, if an article has zero sources than it can fail ] I have seen it done many a time, and can not think of an example when it would'nt. As for it having several sources and still not being notable, this is true while there are sources out there each one adds different weight, for example a link to a fan forum or blog would be considered of little value. - ] (]) 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Attitude is the same as yours. For once i wish you wouldnt derail a discussion. Why bother mentioning merican/korean based shows inspired by anime? If it doesnt fall in A&M's scope, then you have nothing to worry about.] (]) 00:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I proved all anime and manga are not Japanese only (I assume by foreign you meant this). Secondly, I'm pointing out that your opinion is subjective at best because 99% of our sources are still in Japan. My Japanese is not good enough to make use of the National Diet Library, but part of notability is that the works are archived in the national libraries and I am sure the manga libraries count as well. Most of them are not self-published and instead have RSes for them and international publishers in many countries, far more then most works. Many manga works sell in the tens of thousands in these publications, with circulations of 100,000 being commonplace. Streaming and publisher websites reach millions more. I'm not going to argue with you about this, removing content because you think it won't get 'C' is a terrible idea and will be disruptive because of the burden that gets placed on the editors. I'm working on some things and improving others, but I really need to improve my Japanese to make it worth my while. I just started learning in fact, to improve Misplaced Pages's articles. ] (]) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not well-versed on the topic of images and what is or isn't fair use and when they should or shouldn't be used, especially within the context of Japanese copyright law vs US copyright law and photos/representations of people. | |||
| Things aside can we start working on the articles? I find it alarming on how many we have that are tagged here. - ] (]) 00:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yeah, I agree I didn't EC the last post.. not sure how, but since the Toolserver is down, I guess the notability ones are fine. And some of the tags were removed prior to this list going up. ] (]) 01:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You provided an opinion, you didnt actually "prove" anything. Regardless, thats not what is being questioned here. Theres a ton of articles under the radar. Youre assuming all manga is notable. And thats fine, but even mangas exclusive to Japan arent notable either. Sales do help but it wont be enough especially if released in Japan only. 99% of our sources being Japanese is also a huge opinion. Other than publishing sites, ranking sites and the occasional news exclusive to Japan, we still need other third party sources such as reviews. Look at ]. Its definitely not 99%. You havent actually explained why it would be disruptive to find articles that cant make it to C-class. Stub-Start are more on size than notability when you read the chart. I dont know if you know this but WP:ANIME is a little. Low on members and high on fans who make manga/anime articles (mainly manga) with only covering anime episodes/chapters and plot. Obviously if an article covers both anime and manga. You're assuming we would axe these articles without actually looking for sources to verify they can make it to C-class. But if we look for the info and see if many articles cant pass to at leastC-class, it wont be a probem.] (]) 02:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: My opinion is simple math, with more then 60 new titles released every day we do not go out of our way to label the untold thousands of manga that are not as notable. Hentai Kamen movie is notable and remember it recently hit 100,000,000 yen in a very small theater showing of around 27 screens. Anything which hits in the bestseller lists(as I suspect most of these international releases did) have to be given the benefit of the doubt, less then 1% of manga makes it to America and since Tokyopop went under even fewer releases do. Scanlations may be one major source, but the dearth of sources about them belies the simple popularity facts. Many of these ones tagged for notability have hundreds of thousands to millions of views, and websites that stream licensed content like Hulu and Crunchyroll count towards notability. Call it what you wish, but Comic Megastore is notable and doesn't even have an article yet. Many of the works here are proper publications and not doujinshi, they are stored in dozens of libraries including the National Diet Library. Even the obscure 2001 Nights is notable, GNG only requires a handful of sources covering it in depth and detail, but even uncited articles can exist because the assumption that such works exist. It would be extremely disruptive to mass AFD these. The last major issue I remember was the personal war over MMA articles, bogged down AFD and disrupted Misplaced Pages to the point that ANI had to be involved numerous times. An example is this discussion:] You may not like having stubs or starts around, but you do not endorse mass deletions of content. And its not a polemic argument either, because there is nothing contentious about my position. My argument is rooted in simple policy and history. There is no requirement or suggestion that articles which are not currently C-class need to be deleted, it goes against the very tenets of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| That logic is flawed. Just because we get 1% of manga (which i higly doubt is lower than 5% ) that doesnt mean 99% of the sources are Japanese. You keep ranting on about how their sold in stores, and makes sales, but that doesnt help your case. Its like saying all books are notable, in which their not all notable. Your argument is based on your own opinion and you try to use policies to justify your reasoning when they dont help your reasoning at all. | |||
| :] currently has no image as no free images of him exist, they're all protected by copyright. | |||
| Its like if i wanted to delete an article because i hate the series but i also say it doesnt pass GNG. Obviously GNG is a good factor, but the rest is affecting my judgement (this is all hypothetical to prove my point). | |||
| :Of those that do exist, about half were taken by . Could these be used under Fair Use rationale and limitations? | |||
| :There are also things like which were featured in one of his columns in ] magazine. Would that be something that could be used in Fair Use? | |||
| I'd like to note that this is an example as there are various creators I know of with similar circumstances, so I'd like to know what Wiki's guidelines are for this. I don't know if this is the correct spot to ask, but since I'm speaking within the niche scope of JP-related copyright and this specific WikiProject, I'm hoping someone knows. Thanks. ] (]) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I personally would not use any of those images, as none of them are free, and because Akiyuki Shinbo is still alive (meaning that there is still the possibility that free images can be made available in the foreseeable future), it makes it even harder to justify the rationale of using them. ] (]) 01:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You have an obscure non-wikipedia way of seeing manga. For instance mentioning view count as a factor. GNG only goes so far and doesnt exactly mention how many sources one needs to promote to start. Subs and Start are mainly size related classifications, that dont involve sourcing and verification. If an article is at start size and has a handful of sources, it can be promoted to C-class. And again, you assume mass deletion without verifying if an article can make it to C-class. I made it clear that its not about the current status but verifying that it can be upto C-class. That means checking for sources and such. Mass deletion isnt even an issue. It doesnt even have to be C-class for the moment, just adding a list of sources in the talkpage would help. But stubs usually are heavily flawed articles that often need to be proven to have notability in order for them not to be AfD,by wikipedia's standards, a stub may be a short paragraph, start is barely better in size but doesnt need verification so it might aswell be a strong stub.] (]) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] says that non-free images cannot be used for living people. ] (]) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see. ] (]) 05:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Christ, I didn't know it would start such a shitstorm to just compile a list of pages that need work and bring it to the relevant Wikiproject.-- ] <small>(previously Atlantima)</small> <font color="138808">~</font><font color="602F6B" size="3">✿</font><font color="138808">~</font> (]) 21:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Mink == | |||
| :I agree this is nuts, anyways I will look over the articles as soon as I can I dont have the time this weekend but im convinced some of the ones listed can be prodded that have had the tag up for awhile for starters (XXXX - May 2008) thats 5+ years as tagged with a notability issue. - ] (]) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I want to recreate ] after the original article was deleted in 2009 per ]. I have since found several sources that can establish its notability. It says I should contact the person who deleted the article, but {{u|Jayjg}} was last active in May 2024, and the person who made the original delete request is no longer on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There are actually more articles than you think or did with your scan (Although it was very helpful thanks =) ) Using toolserver which is up and running now and using F3 to highlight the word "notability" a total of 582 articles come up. - ] (]) 00:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|lullabying}} Well, it's been over fifteen years, so if you think they cut it for notability, feel free. ]@] 02:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Arguing with Lucia is a waste of time, but I'll state this one final time: Anime and Manga articles coming from Japan by definition, have the majority of their RSes in Japanese. Considering you cannot even get coverage of major awards, let alone articles about the works awarded, I think this Wikiproject has more pressing concerns then trying to prod or afd works without committing to research them in their own language and in their own country of origin. The National Diet Library alone could provide enough sources to get most of these articles past GNG, let alone media alone. Time with the tag or an undeveloped stub are not reasons to start a deletion rally. If you aren't fluent in Japanese and its culture, I doubt you will be able to contribute much to some of these articles. Considering the focus of this project, the ] article isn't FA and is a far cry from being a GA, I doubt it is even a B. This Wikiproject has lots of work to do and deletion is a last resort. How about you pick some articles to work on improving existing articles. ] (]) 01:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you sure? Usually undeleting is for preserving edit history on the same topic. ] (]) 02:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you want to get the edit history restored, my best advice would be to message an administrator in ] on their talk page and explain your reasoning. They should be able to fulfill this request for you. ] (]) 03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this ]? == | |||
| :::Just because I do not understand Japanese does not mean I have a hard time finding reliable sources, rather than blaming the project why dont you get to helping the articles as well, a-lot of the hentai articles I saw in the articles with notability issues are Hentai ones. Sitting here pointing fingers is not going to solve anything. Anyways some articles I have worked on include ] which is all sourced, and ] to be more recent. The articles I PROD or Delete are articles that have no place to redirect to or have notability issues when it comes to the redirect target. Redirects are cheap and save the work for when better sourcing comes along. - ] (]) 02:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::: Fine. I guess if I am going to be working with this group as much as I have lately, I guess I should formally take the tag. And I didn't mean to make it sound like knowing Japanese is a prerequisite, I was pointing out that much of that list requires searches in Japanese. Plenty of other articles have issues that English sources are fine for. Let me deal with a few issues, I was busy researching hentai in foreign sources... which are time consuming to translate for me. ] (]) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::::My 2 cents, if you refuse to get help from this project(insisting WP:Hentai being an independent project but not a TF of this one), why would you be in the position to complain about the people in this project not helping you at all? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 08:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| In my continuing project of , I found , and I am reasonably sure it is ]. But not completely. My knowledge of Japanese voice actresses is ... sparse. Can someone who knows more about the subject please confirm or deny, so I can grab a frame of the video for the article, or not? --] (]) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You misunderstand, I help this project a LOT as is. This is not about WP:HENTAI, its about Lucia trying to start an AFD campaign on articles because of their tags/assessment. I don't think it is right to AFD works simply because of it, it goes against the process. We do not even have coverage of major award winners, and we've axed others that have major awards behind them already. That is the equivalent of cutting your foot off because you broke a toe, unless you got gangrene I wouldn't even consider it! A notability tag or start/stub should not be purged by AfD, and lastly, I want Hentai to be likened to a taskforce, but it requires a Wikiproject on technical means alone. Call it what you want, the original plan was a taskforce and only because of Misplaced Pages's technical limitations was a full project required. Not sure why you think this has anything to do with that WPP either. ] (]) 13:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply to|GRuban}} I admit that I am not much more knowledgeable here, but she posted on on the same day the video was uploaded the she was at an event in Taiwan and she looks like the photo on her , so it's probably her. ] (]) 19:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Arguing with me is useless because you repeat the same stuff and i correct you everytime and you still say it again and again and again. When i say youre assuming something is because you are. Not all manga articles are notable, especially if what you claim about 60 manga coming out every week. Im not saying we should afd them before verifying if it can at least make it to C-class. Im saying articles that have no chance of getting upto C-class can be afd, merged or redirected. So not only is the stub-start class are being removed by afd, but their also some that are being upgraded to C. Its not a bad idea considering A) over 500 articles and most of them are in the dark. B) most of them are being added by fans which is only limited to volume releases and plot.] (]) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope, that's ]. Here is her to match. This is the for the event, the Pier 2 Animation Festival in Kaohsiung, which mentions You Kikkawa was holding a mini live show there. ] (]) 02:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Lucia, your argument is wrong, but your intent is correct. The majority on this list have international releases, many have anime or OVA as well. This is a sign of notability. Being held at the national library is another sign of notability. One that 'can't' make C is subjective. I do not think you know how much work it personally takes to clear one of the major backlogs, it took me months to do an easy one. I can't even do half my list because it will 'churn' the pages. There are over 250,000 different manga in circulation, we have a fraction of that, doujinshi are even more numerous. Let's test your theory. Let's pick one on the list that you don't think can pass C and let's give it a week or so. If it passes GNG, you reconsider my words. Let's find one. ] (]) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the correction. Admittedly I didn't put too much effort into checking. ] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem. You Kikkawa currently has no free images uploaded to Wikimedia, so a screenshot of the video featuring her is still a good find regardless. ] (]) 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Awesome awesomeness - thank you both! I made the best full length and headshot I could find, and added them to ]. Want to do more? That YouTube channel seems to have , but as demonstrated, I have no ability to identify who is who in them. If there are any performers that you can identify that we have articles about without images, I would be happy to grab more screenshots and illustrate those articles. --] (]) 16:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I got the event name wrong! The official English title is actually , according to their official website. I looked through the videos and most of them are cosplayers. ] and ] were at the event but they were doing a talk session (basically a Q & A panel) and there is no footage. Other than that, these feature Taiwanese singer {{ill|Soso Tseng|zh|曾威豪}}, who currently does not have an English article. ] (]) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you! That article on ZH seems to already have a reasonable image, though, so I don't think grabbing a screenshot is necessary. Thanks for your help, and I will be sure to come to you with any more anime performer issues; feel free to ping me if you need to search for images in ... a western alphabet, let's say. {{smiley}} (My success rate searching for a free image for a given subject is about 10-20%, which isn't great, but isn't zero either.) --] (]) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Licensing clarification on the infoboxes == | |||
| :: Chris, i dont care if its released in international library or that they have manga/anime/OVA adaptations or awards. Thats not whats being questioned, if that info helps it in notability, then fine. But what i dont like is how you try to use 1 of these things as sole reason for keeping an article from being afd. 1 award may not be enough to gain notability depending on the award and voting. It helps, but its not enough to prove notability. If it had awards, sales, and even OVA/Anime adaptation, then fine, its notable.i dont believe international library helps notability either. It would be too trivial to mention. why you derail the discussion to your ideas and argue against them. And how is it subjective for articles that cant make it to C-class? If an article cant pass stub or start no matter how much research, then it cant be lromoted to C-class.] (]) 13:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: By definition part of the threshold standards include that. ], states "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." So yes it does help. Your argument does not hold weight; you have to research them in Japanese and unless you are capable of doing that and combing archives, you should not be the one to decide whether or not it is up for deletion. Honestly, at the very least the serial works should be pushed to their magazines if they can't stand on their own. International publication and adaptations by definition lend credibility to notability. Arguments should be made with policy and proper research. I rather have 500/11000 articles have questionable notability then lose them because they didn't make 'C' class and that a native language search wasn't done. There is no requirement of X class for inclusion and consensus on that comes from the community itself. ] (]) 14:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| A)im proposing every1 participate, not just me. B) obviously were going to be careful about it. And even if adding and you oppose you can fight for it if you find sources. C)partly that reasons against it are personal, you assume the worst and you have no room to make those assumptions.] (]) 15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| It has come to my attention that most of the links on the infoboxes labelled "Crunchyroll" linked to the ] instead of the ] in several anime articles. Many of the shows that are licensed by them have streaming rights globally (for the most part) and home video rights in selected regions such as North America, ], ] and ]. Take '']'' and '']'' for example; those are linked to the streaming service rather than the company itself as with the case of '']''. Should we propose to change the links for Crunchyroll from the streaming service to the company? Feel free to share your opinions. | |||
| == Running time == | |||
| As with the case of Sentai Filmworks, I may propose to include a small hatnote that ] is distributing its titles on home video in North America while ] has the streaming rights in US, Canada, UK, Ireland and Australia. Crunchyroll (before Sony bought them) streamed the titles and Funimation's branches outside of North America had the rights to several Sentai titles. Hope this helps. --- ] (]) 15:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Me and ] have used up our three daily reverts for '']'' over this. He removed the running time for the episodes, which I had added to the article sometime earlier. (I'd originally added it to each episode, but once it became apparent that each episode was the same length, I had trimmed it back to the one mention.) I'd gladly have left such information to the infobox, but {{tl|Infobox animanga/Video}} doesn't support that for tv series tho it does for other formats. {{tl|Infobox television}} has a runtime parameter. While I happen to think my favorite anime shows are ] I don't mean it in that fashion. Just because some think it is useless infomation does not make it useless. Nor do I see any particular reason why anime shows should be treated differently than live action shows, the articles of which do include such information. ] (]) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Years ago back when Crunchyroll and Funimation were two separate companies there were a bunch of discussions and confusion about licensing. A common scenario was a show would be streaming on Crunchyroll and have a home video release from Funimation. But it was often unclear which company had actually licensed the show. At one point Crunchyroll just outright published a list of all the shows they had the "master license" for, but even then editors were still arguing about it lol. Anyway, getting back to your original question, I'm assuming that shows that link to Crunchyroll (streaming service) were originally licensed by Crunchyroll directly, and ones that link to Crunchyroll (company) were originally Funimation instead. So technically shows in the former category were never licensed to Funimation (now Crunchyroll LLC) and linking them to that page would be incorrect. But honestly it doesn't really matter either way now since the two companies merged. Unless other editors feel particularly strongly about it, my suggestion would be to just leave it alone and not waste your time trying to "fix" it. ] (]) 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::IMO but actually, it would also appear that many of the pre-2022 licenses that were formerly held by Ellation (which owned Crunchyroll, VRV and Otter Media) are now held by Crunchyroll, LLC (as seen on the on their DVDs with the disclaimers: "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC" (2022-present), "Licensed by Funimation Global Group, LLC (2019-2022), Licensed by Funimation® Productions, Ltd. (before 2019), vice versa.) After all, they are the same company as @] tried hard to fix the edits. Sentai was also the one releasing many Crunchyroll titles IIRC while Discotek did a few. ] (]) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean if you want to go check the back of the DVD box for all of these and update the links accordingly I don't think you'll get much opposition here. Like I said above, personally I don't think it really matters either way since they're the same company now, so fussing with the links seems like a waste of time. But if you're really passionate about this, don't let me stop you. ] (]) 19:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hm... | |||
| ::::I hope this could be right but I have edited '']'' and decided to propose to link Crunchyroll LLC to the Funimation Entertainment label. The series prior to 2022 rebranding should stay as is. ] (]) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Comment}} Why do they continue to get carried away with the advice given by the IP, this is the user who repeats the same entry in the forums at the beginning of the previous months here on Misplaced Pages with the same topic in which we will not listen to him because the IP is the sockpuppet of {{u|Imperial meter}} owned by his original sockmaster {{u|Silence of Lambs}} and for me it's just a ]. ] (]) 23:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == GA for ] - still looking for someone who could help with Japanese sources == | |||
| :I think you should look in the template history to see who created the infobox and ask the person to add a runtime parameter. --] (]) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just to clarify something, I ''reverted'' that edit twice, refraining a third time to avoid an edit war where it was most likely heading. I'll stick to my point about maintaining consistency. If you're going to take responsibility for an article, then you should at least be familiar with the layouts of articles under the same WikiProject Anime and manga. I wonder what would have happened if I had removed the terminology section as well. ー]<sup>]</sup> 22:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Nothing from me. The terminology section predated my involvement in the article, which began when I started watching the anime, and probably could use at minimum a rewrite. Since I had never read the manga, I was hesitant to touch it since I was unsure how relevant it was to the manga. As for two or three reverts, that depends on how one defines revert. You deleted the running time three times from the article today, and I added it back three times. Depends on whether that first edit of yours counts as a revert. But in any case, the point of controversy is now here to be resolved. ] (]) 22:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Revert'' as in I clicked undo twice, and with reason. My first edit was a legitimate edit on my part, following my experience with these articles. But we digress. As I mentioned on ], I have no qualms about running time. It is just that right now as articles stand within WP:A&M this isn't seen definitely. Again, my experience editing numerous articles under this category, I am surprised this exploded into what it is now. As for the terminology subsection, I was hesitant to remove it since I only noticed it after this discussion on both pages, and felt that would have also been an issue with you, hence I left it. ー]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you say was simply to avoid an edit war, then I think you should allow the addition next time. The info is encyclopedic. If you said it was your conviction, I would suggest you to start removing the running times from all the movies in Misplaced Pages. :) --] (]) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I cannot believe you're an experienced Wikipedian and yet you ''completely misunderstand''. Of course, I expected you to check the article's history which you clearly didn't do. This was I didn't revert, to avoid an edit war, my good man. That information on articles related to WP:A&M is trivial. You and Carolina are taking this to incorporate the entire television series project on Misplaced Pages, when articles related to the ''subset'' of WP:A&M don't follow this. Emphasis placed on subset. In converse, to what you said "If you said it was your conviction, I would suggest you to start removing the running times from all the movies in Misplaced Pages."- why don't ''YOU'' take it upon yourself to edit ''every single anime and manga article on the English Misplaced Pages'' to include running times of the respective animes? ー]<sup>]</sup> 00:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I saw that the next edit was your "-84" (removing 84 bytes) and I thought you reverted it too. I can't edit every single anime and manga article on the English Misplaced Pages, but I can add this info to 100 articles over some period of time. --] (]) 01:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| This is being reviewed for GA, I expect it to pass. But I still would like to find someone interested in this enough to help check Japanese sources - for now this is based solely on Polish (since English don't exist; the manga was a big hit in Poland but has never been officially released in English). It would be interesting to learn what reception manga got in Japan, but that's beyond my ability to write about. Would anyone here be interested in helping out? (I expect there's not that much - the manga doesn't have a ja wiki article, either). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 09:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I referenced the broader set of television articles as support of the fact that while some personally think the information is meaningless trivia, there are others who do think it relevant enough for a brief mention, just as other technical factors such as aspect ratio or HD availability are relevant to some people. I'll grant that anime articles need not follow the guidelines of the generic television series articles, however I'd prefer some better reason than you personally don't care about running times. It's clear that while some find it useless trivia, others do not. Also, it would simplify {{tl|Infobox animanga/Video}} if it were changed to allow the inclusion of the running time in any anime rather than everything except a TV series. That is something to not be sneezed at for a template used in roughly 2700 articles. ] (]) 01:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This template may be a case of ] cause someone thought that all TV series deserved their running times to be known, but anime did not. --] (]) 01:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: And what of the rest of articles Moscowconnection? You'd basically be responsible for creating an inconsistency among all the articles within the scope of WP:A&M. Let me explain with imaginary figures. There might only be 2% of articles that include this trivial data within WP:A&M, you'd basically be upping that percentage to say around maybe 4% with the hope that others pick up the slack. This could very well take years. Carolina, how do you keep inferring that this is my personal opinion? "I'd prefer some better reason than you personally don't care about running times." Didn't I mention that I have no qualms about this information? <-- for the third time now? While this is true, I must support consistency here and you seem to agree with this within this subset of articles when you said "I'll grant that anime articles need not follow the guidelines of the generic television series articles." Now let me once and for all clarify. ''Consistency'' would be to follow the current norm and not include this data which isn't present in almost I'm sure 98% of articles within WP:A&M. I'm not sure you quite grasp the scale of what you're are trying to impose on this large amount of articles here. ー]<sup>]</sup> 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I don't think this is relevant. When the template was created, there were 0 articles that used it. For consistency, Misplaced Pages should not have used any templates whatsoever. There were many tags added to ] since its creation. Like, (the first I've found). On the other hand, it you remove the running time parameter from it (for consistency, cause I'm sure some articles don't use it), it will only take a minute of your time. --] (]) 02:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: All I'm saying is if this is widely accepted within the English ] I'm all for it. It's just that it really isn't the case right now. With that, I'm out of this discussion. ー]<sup>]</sup> 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: It is widely accepted. --] (]) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: (Note) ] has just added "within the English Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga". An hour ago, I replied in general. It is certainly widely accepted to know the running times of anime series. --] (]) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: This is kind of strange that the Japanese ] doesn't have the parameter (could it be the reason why it wasn't included in the English Misplaced Pages template in the first place?), while the "TV show" template has "放送分". But the Japanese TV anime articles have giant tables (]) with all start and end times, so they don't need it. --] (]) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: ] has the info (), so it will be easy to find, nothing will need to be calculated. --] (]) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == There seems to be a contradiction between the Japanese GFantasy[REDACTED] page and the English Misplaced Pages Page? == | |||
| ::Unfortunately, ] made it clear back in 2011 on the talk page for that template in response to a request form another user that he considers it useless trivia. More unfortunately, he has not edited the Wiki since November and his abrupt departure suggests he will not be doing so for the foreseeable future, tho I did leave a note on his talk page. Editing the template to include it would not be difficult, but since some editors are of the impression this is an unstated policy, I'm not inclined to be overly ] about changing templates without at least some discussion. ] (]) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I posted this on the Gangan comics[REDACTED] Talk page as well, but I figured it might be helpful to post this suggestion on this talk page too. There's contradictory information about GFantasy's editorial demographic between the English and Japanese Misplaced Pages articles/sections on it. The Japanese[REDACTED] page for GFantasy magazine lists the editorial demographic as unisex middle and high school students (中・高校生男女), while the english section for GFantasy on the Gangan comics page says its editorial demographic is Shonen (少年). Additionally, the source used to cite this statement of the magazine being in the shonen editorial demographic is a blog post where the comments under the blog dispute the magazine being under the shonen editorial demographic. This does not serve as robust evidence to support the statement that GFantasy Magazine is a shonen magazine, which is in contradiction to the Japanese article on it. This seems like a conflict that should be addressed to make the Gangan comics[REDACTED] page as accurate as possible. ] (]) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I support the addition of a runtime parameter. --] (]) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The demographic of this magazine has ]. The source the article uses is from Manga Bookshelf, which ]. Additionally, and ]: Second Arc, Vol. 6, User Enhanced (2011), pp. 81 (a peer-reviewed journal) both describe Monthly GFantasy as a Shōnen magazine. Meanwhile, the Japanese Misplaced Pages is not a source per ] (just because they state something doesn't mean we have to as well) and the Japanese page currently has no source for that statement to begin with, so I don't see any problem with calling it a Shōnen magazine. ] (]) 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for bringing up the Manga News and Mechademia sources! One issue with citing the Manga Bookshelf blog specifically is, in the comments of the cited blog article, the author Melinda Beasi says she, herself, used the fact that the English[REDACTED] article section on GFantasy describing it as a Shonen magazine to inform her blog post. Thus, using her article as the supporting source for the statement that GFantasy is a shonen magazine, when she herself used the english[REDACTED] article to conclude that GFantasy was a shonen work, indicates that some other citation should be used instead. (This is the link to the blog post with her comment stating this in the comments section: https://mangabookshelf.com/2010/11/05/fanservice-friday-a-girls-gfantasy/) | |||
| ::Here is the direct quote I'm referencing from her comment in the comments section on the blog: | |||
| ::"Thank you for coming by! | |||
| ::Can you tell me if that has always been the case? I realize as someone who does not speak Japanese, my ability to research this is limited. But English Misplaced Pages articles for the magazine & indeed for every single title serialized in it, past or present, list the demographic as shonen. That seems like a huge disconnect. | |||
| ::Indeed, every single thing I can find about the magazine in English indicates it is shonen, though I’ll grant that there is very little to be found overall, which was part of the frustration that led me to write this article. :) | |||
| ::http://comipedia.com/magazine/gangan-fantasy-gfantasy | |||
| ::http://en.wikipedia.org/Gangan_Comics#Monthly_GFantasy | |||
| ::http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?pubname=GFantasy" ] (]) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another interesting source I found when looking is article by ], a noted anime critic, which discusses how ''Monthly GFantasy''{{'}}s demographic shows the issues with using that system. In a somewhat related note, I'm surprised the English Misplaced Pages doesn't have articles for the Square Enix magazines. Based on this discussion, it seems like there might be enough to create at least a '']'' article. ] (]) 17:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the additional article! I'll definitely try to get around to changing the citation on the GFantasy section with the sources you provided as they offer better support of the magazine's categorization in this instance/context (I also found the Mechademia article an interesting read!). On a side note, it seems like GFantasy is in a similar situation to Comic Gene, just without explicitly stating that they're "shonen for girls" like Gene does. I'm a bit inexperienced in article creation, but it would probably be worthwhile to begin drafting a Monthly GFantasy magazine article. ] (]) 18:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Princess Mononoke == | |||
| I agree with The Farix here I see runtime as useless triva as well, mot only that but some episodes in other series have longer or shorter runtimes per apisode than the others so it is impossible to cover all the episodes in one number alone. - ] (]) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Those are generally OAV series, and oddly enough {{tl|Infobox animanga/Video}} does support including runtime for those. The only instance in which it does not is in the case of a TV series which has episodes all the same length. In the case of a series with variable time episode, the running time for each could be shown in the episode list, with the infobox being either silent or mentioning the length of the shortest and longest episode. ] (]) 23:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : I think the info is very important. It is no more "trivia" than the number of episodes. The typical running times are 12, 25, 50 minutes. This info is essential for a TV series. --] (]) 23:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the runtime should only be specified if it is outside the normal 25 minute range that the vast majority of TV anime are in. There are some anime, more numerous today, which run in 5-10 minute short episodes, and at least ], but these are generally rare cases. Having the runtime for an OVA or film makes more sense since those are generally more variable.--<span style="background:white;color:">]]</span> 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The discussion is mostly about the infobox template, so if a parameter for the running time is added to it, we will be able to choose whether to fill it or not. I think it would be reassuring to see it everywhere. If not, there will always be the question of whether it is left blank intentionally cause it is 24 minutes, or not. --] (]) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| There are some ongoing discussions regarding certain sections on the '']'' article. They can be found at ], ] and ]. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, ] (] - ]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I think this would have been a non-issue if the runtimes were added with a source reference. Usually OVAs and films have that, but some official anime websites and published videos will list it explicitly (e.g. Romeo X Juliet season boxset: 24 episodes, 580 minutes). Also, should it include commercials (time slot) or be pure programming time? It does not need to be precise to the particular episode; no one cares if it ran 23:56 one week and 24:11 the next, unless it's like a sports show where it has widely varying overruns that disrupt the next show's programming spot. -] (]) 14:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:46, 22 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anime and manga and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | WikiProject Anime and manga was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on September 2009. |
|
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters
Inactive talk page over at List of Pokémon anime characters, so I'm putting it here as well. (Please respond at the source page, linked directly below)
Section 'Article Split' not foundNomination of Bleach season 2 for featured list removal
I have nominated Bleach season 2 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bleach season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bleach season 5 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Second opinión
Kiruko has been nominated for a while but the reviewer requested a second opinion about size. Could somebody provide it? Cheers Tintor2 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Search for Japanese language sourcing?
Can someone assist in looking for Japanese language sourcing for Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu? It's currently up for AfD and while I think it's very likely to pass AfD, it wouldn't hurt to do some searching for Japanese language sources.
I'm not fluent in Japanese at all and searching with Google Translate is difficult since I don't really have a way to limit the results so that the garbage sources are lessened. It's also possible that it would be referred to more casually by the date and author rather than the full title, which also complicates search attempts. Can anyone help search? I'm going to post in the Pokemon WP as well. Thank you! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- AFD closed as speedy keep as withdrawn, nothing left to do here. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Dragon Ball
Dragon Ball has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
90's shojo manga series clean-up
I've been cleaning up Tenshi Nanka ja Nai, Last Quarter, and The Devil Does Exist for the past month and hoping to expand them, but this is the most I can do for now. If someone has additional sources and reviews, that would be great. Cheers. lullabying (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
New message from Emir of Misplaced Pages
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth § How should we organise Death & Rebirth?. I thought you were a WikiProject which might be interested in this discussion. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga § Music parameter
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox animanga § Music parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Question on Fair Use Images
I'm not well-versed on the topic of images and what is or isn't fair use and when they should or shouldn't be used, especially within the context of Japanese copyright law vs US copyright law and photos/representations of people.
- Akiyuki Shinbo currently has no image as no free images of him exist, they're all protected by copyright.
- Of those that do exist, about half were taken by Yuuichirou Oguro for WEB Anime Style. Could these be used under Fair Use rationale and limitations?
- There are also things like this portrait by Ume Aoki which were featured in one of his columns in Newtype magazine. Would that be something that could be used in Fair Use?
I'd like to note that this is an example as there are various creators I know of with similar circumstances, so I'd like to know what Wiki's guidelines are for this. I don't know if this is the correct spot to ask, but since I'm speaking within the niche scope of JP-related copyright and this specific WikiProject, I'm hoping someone knows. Thanks. Sarca sc (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally would not use any of those images, as none of them are free, and because Akiyuki Shinbo is still alive (meaning that there is still the possibility that free images can be made available in the foreseeable future), it makes it even harder to justify the rationale of using them. lullabying (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NFC#UUI says that non-free images cannot be used for living people. Link20XX (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see. Sarca sc (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Mink
I want to recreate Mink (manga) after the original article was deleted in 2009 per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga). I have since found several sources that can establish its notability. It says I should contact the person who deleted the article, but Jayjg was last active in May 2024, and the person who made the original delete request is no longer on Misplaced Pages. lullabying (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Well, it's been over fifteen years, so if you think they cut it for notability, feel free. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Usually undeleting is for preserving edit history on the same topic. lullabying (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to get the edit history restored, my best advice would be to message an administrator in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles on their talk page and explain your reasoning. They should be able to fulfill this request for you. Link20XX (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Usually undeleting is for preserving edit history on the same topic. lullabying (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this Azumi Asakura?
In my continuing project of finding free images for articles, I found this Creative Commons Attribution licensed YouTube video, and I am reasonably sure it is Azumi Asakura. But not completely. My knowledge of Japanese voice actresses is ... sparse. Can someone who knows more about the subject please confirm or deny, so I can grab a frame of the video for the article, or not? --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GRuban: I admit that I am not much more knowledgeable here, but she posted on her blog on the same day the video was uploaded the she was at an event in Taiwan and she looks like the photo on her agency profile, so it's probably her. Link20XX (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, that's You Kikkawa. Here is her agency profile to match. This is the official website for the event, the Pier 2 Animation Festival in Kaohsiung, which mentions You Kikkawa was holding a mini live show there. lullabying (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Admittedly I didn't put too much effort into checking. Link20XX (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. You Kikkawa currently has no free images uploaded to Wikimedia, so a screenshot of the video featuring her is still a good find regardless. lullabying (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome awesomeness - thank you both! I made the best full length and headshot I could find, and added them to You Kikkawa. Want to do more? That YouTube channel seems to have filmed multiple acts of that festival, but as demonstrated, I have no ability to identify who is who in them. If there are any performers that you can identify that we have articles about without images, I would be happy to grab more screenshots and illustrate those articles. --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I got the event name wrong! The official English title is actually Pier-2 Art Center Anime Festival, according to their official website. I looked through the videos and most of them are cosplayers. Kaori Ishihara and Azumi Asakura were at the event but they were doing a talk session (basically a Q & A panel) and there is no footage. Other than that, these two videos feature Taiwanese singer Soso Tseng , who currently does not have an English article. lullabying (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! That article on ZH seems to already have a reasonable image, though, so I don't think grabbing a screenshot is necessary. Thanks for your help, and I will be sure to come to you with any more anime performer issues; feel free to ping me if you need to search for images in ... a western alphabet, let's say.
(My success rate searching for a free image for a given subject is about 10-20%, which isn't great, but isn't zero either.) --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! That article on ZH seems to already have a reasonable image, though, so I don't think grabbing a screenshot is necessary. Thanks for your help, and I will be sure to come to you with any more anime performer issues; feel free to ping me if you need to search for images in ... a western alphabet, let's say.
- I got the event name wrong! The official English title is actually Pier-2 Art Center Anime Festival, according to their official website. I looked through the videos and most of them are cosplayers. Kaori Ishihara and Azumi Asakura were at the event but they were doing a talk session (basically a Q & A panel) and there is no footage. Other than that, these two videos feature Taiwanese singer Soso Tseng , who currently does not have an English article. lullabying (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome awesomeness - thank you both! I made the best full length and headshot I could find, and added them to You Kikkawa. Want to do more? That YouTube channel seems to have filmed multiple acts of that festival, but as demonstrated, I have no ability to identify who is who in them. If there are any performers that you can identify that we have articles about without images, I would be happy to grab more screenshots and illustrate those articles. --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. You Kikkawa currently has no free images uploaded to Wikimedia, so a screenshot of the video featuring her is still a good find regardless. lullabying (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Admittedly I didn't put too much effort into checking. Link20XX (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Licensing clarification on the infoboxes
It has come to my attention that most of the links on the infoboxes labelled "Crunchyroll" linked to the streaming service instead of the company itself that was once known as Funimation in several anime articles. Many of the shows that are licensed by them have streaming rights globally (for the most part) and home video rights in selected regions such as North America, Europe and Quebec, the UK (fka Manga Entertainment) and Australia (fka Madman Anime). Take Welcome to Demon School! Iruma-kun and Rent-A-Girlfriend for example; those are linked to the streaming service rather than the company itself as with the case of Frieren. Should we propose to change the links for Crunchyroll from the streaming service to the company? Feel free to share your opinions.
As with the case of Sentai Filmworks, I may propose to include a small hatnote that Section23 Films is distributing its titles on home video in North America while Hidive has the streaming rights in US, Canada, UK, Ireland and Australia. Crunchyroll (before Sony bought them) streamed the titles and Funimation's branches outside of North America had the rights to several Sentai titles. Hope this helps. --- 174.93.39.93 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Years ago back when Crunchyroll and Funimation were two separate companies there were a bunch of discussions and confusion about licensing. A common scenario was a show would be streaming on Crunchyroll and have a home video release from Funimation. But it was often unclear which company had actually licensed the show. At one point Crunchyroll just outright published a list of all the shows they had the "master license" for, but even then editors were still arguing about it lol. Anyway, getting back to your original question, I'm assuming that shows that link to Crunchyroll (streaming service) were originally licensed by Crunchyroll directly, and ones that link to Crunchyroll (company) were originally Funimation instead. So technically shows in the former category were never licensed to Funimation (now Crunchyroll LLC) and linking them to that page would be incorrect. But honestly it doesn't really matter either way now since the two companies merged. Unless other editors feel particularly strongly about it, my suggestion would be to just leave it alone and not waste your time trying to "fix" it. CurlyWi (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMO but actually, it would also appear that many of the pre-2022 licenses that were formerly held by Ellation (which owned Crunchyroll, VRV and Otter Media) are now held by Crunchyroll, LLC (as seen on the back covers on their DVDs with the disclaimers: "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC" (2022-present), "Licensed by Funimation Global Group, LLC (2019-2022), Licensed by Funimation® Productions, Ltd. (before 2019), vice versa.) After all, they are the same company as @Sonic Phoenix tried hard to fix the edits. Sentai was also the one releasing many Crunchyroll titles IIRC while Discotek did a few. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean if you want to go check the back of the DVD box for all of these and update the links accordingly I don't think you'll get much opposition here. Like I said above, personally I don't think it really matters either way since they're the same company now, so fussing with the links seems like a waste of time. But if you're really passionate about this, don't let me stop you. CurlyWi (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hm...
- I hope this could be right but I have edited Future Diary and decided to propose to link Crunchyroll LLC to the Funimation Entertainment label. The series prior to 2022 rebranding should stay as is. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Why do they continue to get carried away with the advice given by the IP, this is the user who repeats the same entry in the forums at the beginning of the previous months here on Misplaced Pages with the same topic in which we will not listen to him because the IP is the sockpuppet of Imperial meter owned by his original sockmaster Silence of Lambs and for me it's just a WP:DUCK. 64.32.125.197 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean if you want to go check the back of the DVD box for all of these and update the links accordingly I don't think you'll get much opposition here. Like I said above, personally I don't think it really matters either way since they're the same company now, so fussing with the links seems like a waste of time. But if you're really passionate about this, don't let me stop you. CurlyWi (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMO but actually, it would also appear that many of the pre-2022 licenses that were formerly held by Ellation (which owned Crunchyroll, VRV and Otter Media) are now held by Crunchyroll, LLC (as seen on the back covers on their DVDs with the disclaimers: "Licensed by Crunchyroll, LLC" (2022-present), "Licensed by Funimation Global Group, LLC (2019-2022), Licensed by Funimation® Productions, Ltd. (before 2019), vice versa.) After all, they are the same company as @Sonic Phoenix tried hard to fix the edits. Sentai was also the one releasing many Crunchyroll titles IIRC while Discotek did a few. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
GA for Ten no Hate Made – Poland Hishi - still looking for someone who could help with Japanese sources
This is being reviewed for GA, I expect it to pass. But I still would like to find someone interested in this enough to help check Japanese sources - for now this is based solely on Polish (since English don't exist; the manga was a big hit in Poland but has never been officially released in English). It would be interesting to learn what reception manga got in Japan, but that's beyond my ability to write about. Would anyone here be interested in helping out? (I expect there's not that much - the manga doesn't have a ja wiki article, either). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
There seems to be a contradiction between the Japanese GFantasy[REDACTED] page and the English Misplaced Pages Page?
I posted this on the Gangan comics[REDACTED] Talk page as well, but I figured it might be helpful to post this suggestion on this talk page too. There's contradictory information about GFantasy's editorial demographic between the English and Japanese Misplaced Pages articles/sections on it. The Japanese[REDACTED] page for GFantasy magazine lists the editorial demographic as unisex middle and high school students (中・高校生男女), while the english section for GFantasy on the Gangan comics page says its editorial demographic is Shonen (少年). Additionally, the source used to cite this statement of the magazine being in the shonen editorial demographic is a blog post where the comments under the blog dispute the magazine being under the shonen editorial demographic. This does not serve as robust evidence to support the statement that GFantasy Magazine is a shonen magazine, which is in contradiction to the Japanese article on it. This seems like a conflict that should be addressed to make the Gangan comics[REDACTED] page as accurate as possible. AlexBW0524 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The demographic of this magazine has come up before. The source the article uses is from Manga Bookshelf, which the project considers to be reliable. Additionally, Manga News and Mechademia: Second Arc, Vol. 6, User Enhanced (2011), pp. 81 (a peer-reviewed journal) both describe Monthly GFantasy as a Shōnen magazine. Meanwhile, the Japanese Misplaced Pages is not a source per WP:CIRCULAR (just because they state something doesn't mean we have to as well) and the Japanese page currently has no source for that statement to begin with, so I don't see any problem with calling it a Shōnen magazine. Link20XX (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing up the Manga News and Mechademia sources! One issue with citing the Manga Bookshelf blog specifically is, in the comments of the cited blog article, the author Melinda Beasi says she, herself, used the fact that the English[REDACTED] article section on GFantasy describing it as a Shonen magazine to inform her blog post. Thus, using her article as the supporting source for the statement that GFantasy is a shonen magazine, when she herself used the english[REDACTED] article to conclude that GFantasy was a shonen work, indicates that some other citation should be used instead. (This is the link to the blog post with her comment stating this in the comments section: https://mangabookshelf.com/2010/11/05/fanservice-friday-a-girls-gfantasy/)
- Here is the direct quote I'm referencing from her comment in the comments section on the blog:
- "Thank you for coming by!
- Can you tell me if that has always been the case? I realize as someone who does not speak Japanese, my ability to research this is limited. But English Misplaced Pages articles for the magazine & indeed for every single title serialized in it, past or present, list the demographic as shonen. That seems like a huge disconnect.
- Indeed, every single thing I can find about the magazine in English indicates it is shonen, though I’ll grant that there is very little to be found overall, which was part of the frustration that led me to write this article. :)
- http://comipedia.com/magazine/gangan-fantasy-gfantasy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Gangan_Comics#Monthly_GFantasy
- http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?pubname=GFantasy" AlexBW0524 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another interesting source I found when looking is this article by Erica Friedman, a noted anime critic, which discusses how Monthly GFantasy's demographic shows the issues with using that system. In a somewhat related note, I'm surprised the English Misplaced Pages doesn't have articles for the Square Enix magazines. Based on this discussion, it seems like there might be enough to create at least a Monthly GFantasy article. Link20XX (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional article! I'll definitely try to get around to changing the citation on the GFantasy section with the sources you provided as they offer better support of the magazine's categorization in this instance/context (I also found the Mechademia article an interesting read!). On a side note, it seems like GFantasy is in a similar situation to Comic Gene, just without explicitly stating that they're "shonen for girls" like Gene does. I'm a bit inexperienced in article creation, but it would probably be worthwhile to begin drafting a Monthly GFantasy magazine article. AlexBW0524 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another interesting source I found when looking is this article by Erica Friedman, a noted anime critic, which discusses how Monthly GFantasy's demographic shows the issues with using that system. In a somewhat related note, I'm surprised the English Misplaced Pages doesn't have articles for the Square Enix magazines. Based on this discussion, it seems like there might be enough to create at least a Monthly GFantasy article. Link20XX (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Princess Mononoke
There are some ongoing discussions regarding certain sections on the Princess Mononoke article. They can be found at Talk:Princess Mononoke#Reception summary in lead, Talk:Princess Mononoke#Casting details and Talk:Princess Mononoke#Development and release sections. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: