Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:43, 13 April 2015

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

Mascot Discussions

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WikiProject Anime and manga v · t · e · rc
Main project page  talk Portal Category talk Guidance Manual of Style talk Online sources talk Reference libraries  → Books talk  → Documentaries talk  → Magazines talk  → Manga magazines talk Templates talk Articles   Quality articles Open tasks    Popular pages Recent changes
Departments   Assessment talk  → Changelog  Cleanup talk  → Category  → Cleanup listing   Deletions archive · talk   Requests archive · talk Topic workshop talk    Yellow pages talk Task forces Biography talk Bleach talk Conventions talk Digimon talk Dragon Ball talk Evangelion talk Gundam talk Haruhi Suzumiya talk Hentai talk Light novels Joint TF! talk Sailor Moon talk Studio Ghibli Joint TF! talk Visual novels Joint TF! talk Yu-Gi-Oh! talk
Related projects Parent  → WikiProject Japan Related  → WikiProject Animation  → WikiProject Comics  → WikiProject Film  → WikiProject Television  → WikiProject Video games   → WikiProject Pokémon   → WikiProject Square Enix
Other Wikipe-tan talk Newsletter archive Character articles

Anime and manga Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

• WT:ANIME
• WT:MANGA

Animage Grand Prix references:

• Animage

Article contains a big list of citations that are formatted as raw urls. First it links to the google translation of it. Second, the pages don't seem to load. The references need to be formatted as proper references, and if needed to use the waybackmachine.

The page also mostly consists of a list of the Grand Prix award winners. The list is big enough to perhaps warrant its own page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the pages probably don't load due to changes to Google Translate as once you strip the url to the source, it works fine. I've made a test change of changing the 1979 entries to a single condensed direct ref, without translation links or archives. I don't believe the archive's are necessary but the need for a translation is up for debate. I haven't changed any more because I want to see if there is any feedback before doing a lot of changes that may need modifying. I don't see any need to split the list as it will simply make the magazine article too short and without sources. Perhaps in the future, but that would mean improvements to the article. SephyTheThird (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine. Keep going. References don't link to translation pages, specifically to avoid those types of issues. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

One way to get sources and/or check notability: Lists of past magazine issues and their contents

One way that editors may use to check for notability of individual manga series is by going through lists of past issues of magazines about manga (in other words they are third parties writing articles about them).

Some possibilities:

• Animerica had a list here, Example. This was published by VIZ Media
• Newtype USA (I haven't found a list for that one yet, but it would be crucial)
• fr:AnimeLand had a list here, Example - AnimeLand is a French manga and anime magazine (if you wish to consult this list, please get the French title of the series that you have in mind as it may differ from the English title)

It would be important to know about the Japanese manga magazines. Having such a list and/or having contacts over at JAWiki who know how to get back issues would be very important. Getting good secondary sourcing from these magazines may "rescue" articles about individual series. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much reviews or mentions add to the notability of a manga on this WikiProject. Perhaps that is what you should be asking here..? More opinions are welcome since I'm interested in this too. —KirtZ 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia as an example of reviews adding to notability. A trivial mention does not add to notability but significant coverage of something does. These principles affect all articles in all subject areas on Misplaced Pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have no problem with this principle. I've never seen that practiced on this WikiProject while I've been active here. The problem with this is that, most manga get reviews if you look in the right places. If we go with this, then most of them that was deleted from in the past was wrongly so. —KirtZ 02:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I think that is up for debate, at various times the amount of manga released per month was way beyond the capability of reviewing (both for time and mag space), so most of the time you were still limited to a handful of titles reviewed.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is true that there are, for example, more novels released per month than reviewers could possibly handle. It means that the unlucky novels not reviewed by "Misplaced Pages-reliable" sources and without coverage elsewhere may not be able to meet WP:GNG. Misplaced Pages:Notability_(books) actually exists mainly to allow articles for works that aren't GNG compliant but may have achieved notoriety in other ways. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have Newtype USA here from December 2006 to the last issue February 2008. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Do you have "Passion and dreams." Newtype USA. November 2007. Volume 6. Number 11. p. 50-51? I would like to have a scan of that article. I used it as a source for Light Yagami and I would like to have a copy of it so I can see if there's any more notable content I can get from the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled by this point being raised frankly. I don't think we really need to be told that we can use magazine articles and reviews as sources, actually I think it's rather condescending to assume we don't already do this. The problem is that when you start collecting magazines it becomes very difficult, very quickly to keep track of what is in each one. Features are only one aspect, for example that Animerica list doesn't tell you what they reviewed per issue and such a list is very difficult and time consuming to build. I started doing my own spreadsheet to keep track of what was in each issue and gave up after 5 issues. Never mind the 60 I now have, just for Animerica. I've got about 160 anime magazines now and it's impossible to keep track of anything but the headline articles. It's extremely tedious and time consuming to list the entire contents of a magazine. We have had a list of user owned magazines for years but it can be a massive pain to edit all that table code so people tend not to use it.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sephy, the particular point was the archived lists of back issues and their contents. These lists allow Wikipedians to determine exactly which magazines they need. Also it is good to keep track of non-US/UK/Canada/Singapore magazines as those may have content previously known to English-speaking editors. Perhaps the average American editor may not realize that a French source may be useful to him or her when writing about a Japanese manga. It's important to remind him/her of this.

It is good to periodically remind the userbase of what tools they may have at their disposal since not everyone is experienced in using and obtaining sources. In fact I would like to have these lists on a permanent "toolbox" type page so all editors are reminded of what tools are out there.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Except they are only partial lists and only useful for major features. The chances are that if a series has notability concerns, you need to be looking for reviews and other mentions which won't be listed on a table of contents (like comparisons to a series within the feature for another series). That's why I'm starting to make searchable PDF's of my magazines. Yes, the lists can be useful, but not really for notability. As for non-english magazines, well that's another thing completely due to the obvious language barrier. I know Kappa has lots of information but not reading Italian or even having access to them means I have to settle for english translations of their articles in Manga Mania etc. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. It is true that the lists may not have all of the information since there may be comparisons to other series and other things not picked up in the summaries. One thing that Viz did with Animerica is actually list all of the series mentioned in that magazine (Archive) with the relevant issue numbers. I wish the other magazines did something like that. Also, I'm glad that you're making the searchable PDFs of those magazines. That will be even more helpful.

It is true that there's something of a language barrier. In addition to using Manga Mania and Google Translate, some ways of getting around it that I've used are Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language, country Wikiprojects, and Misplaced Pages:Embassy pages on other Wikipedias (French, German, etc.) I personally like using ja:Misplaced Pages:Chatsubo on the Japanese Misplaced Pages.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Protoculture Addicts also has a list but again, it's ignoring most of the notability content in the mag. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised the character of Inuyasha didn't obtain an article. There should be a lot of articles reviewing the manga and dvds. At least that's how it worked for the Tsubasa versions of Syaoran and Sakura.Tintor2 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Spanish publications which may have articles: Minami, ¡Dibus!/¡DibuCómics!, Mega Hiro, Guru Guru and Yukiko. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Italian magazines which have had/may have articles about anime and manga: it:Kappa Magazine, it:Man·ga!, Fumo di China and Scuola di fumetto WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

can someone help me find a verifyable proof for this huge anime industry suprise in gundam series

this is going viral on tumblr, tumblr is not reliable, so does anyone know where we can find a reliable source that proves this true!

ther is a lot more, i feel domon kassu is back. But, as per wikipedia rules say, need reliable resourses. :( so I was thinking can we put this for mid to high importance for this week?Doorknob747 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on, but if it's some plot development you can reference it with primary sources. Looking at your recent edits, you seem new at this, and seem to be adding your own opinions and speculations to Gundam Build Fighters. Don't. Look at Tales of Symphonia, no matter how many references it has to another game, it's been limited to two sentences at most. Confirmation it is in the same world, and released with intended connections to the prequel. If you really plan on improving Gundam Build Fighters to something decent, remove the Mecha section, and restructure the character list. An example. No Game No Life DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed your links, all of them. Here are my responses

• I'm assuming you want to restore the Relationship to G Gundam, a section full of speculations people have about whatever's going on. No, WP:OR. Wait for something official. At best, all you can do is add an episode summary saying "with XXX making an appearance at the end". No you can't add "This reveals the series takes place after G Gundam" inside the episode summary." It's a plot summary, not a place to add your speculations
• Calm down. You're acting in good faith but you are acting like a typical disruptive fan editor. Your edits have been rightly reverted. If you want to stick around, you need to write objectively. All your current edits have been unhelpful. Look at the recent GA articles for an idea of the prose style.
• I've already told you how to improve Gundam Build Fighter. Information will most likely be cut, not added. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Doorknob747, let's get a few things straight:

• Gundam Build Fighters and Gundam Build Fighters Try are metafictional series based on the Gunpla kit franchise. The addition of characters from other Gundam series is part of the series' Easter Eggs. Just because Domon Kasshu appears in the ending credits of episode 25 of Gundam Build Fighters Try does not mean the series is a direct tie-in to Mobile Fighter G Gundam. That's like saying both Build Fighters series should directly tie-in to Mobile Suit Gundam because of Mr. Ral.
• As stated by other editors, Bing, Tumblr, and fan sites such as MAHQ are not reliable sources of information.
• Quite frankly, your grammar needs improvement. A lot of improvement.

Let that sink in before you decide to reply. - Areaseven (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a note on Door's talkpage, hopefully it helps to clear up any misunderstandings. I hope he will be a constructive member but there are only so many things you can tell someone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So sources from Turrner Brodcasting and the news📰 are not considered reliable?

Given your history of posting false information on other articles using an IP,(on my talk page) we are not going to take your word for it. —Farix (t | c) 21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Scans

If anyone is interested in working on the following articles, I can give you scans from AnimeUk for them.

• Record of Lodoss War
• Silent Mobius
• Dirty Pair
• Patlabor
• Bubblegum Crisis
• Project A-Ko

As well as Gundam in general. However as the Gundam content requires some experience in distinguishing between useful content and fancruft I will only give that content to experienced editors. The rest is open to all who want to work on it. This list will increase as I go through the scanning process, and if anyone takes up those series I will give you more scans in future from other sources as I come across them. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any articles that cover the Gundam mecha designs in any details? I would be curious as I am anxious to resurrect some of the list of mobile suites articles, starting with Gundam 00 (which was in the best shape before it was deleted) and then the original series. —Farix (t | c) 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gundam is split over 3 issues, consisting of general science, in-universe history and a more general terms+production on the series. I'm not sure there is much on production and design of the individual mechs. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes used for timeslots

These edits don't seem kosher. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

i'm not sure we have an established practice for this. I'm not sure they are necessary or really add anything, but I don't have a strong objection either. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any problem, and what do you mean kosher? Kosher is related to religion, so is Misplaced Pages religious?Doorknob747 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it's just an artistic synonym for "acceptable"; calm down. I don't have a strong opinion on the boxes, anyway. Tezero (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

wikt:kosher defn 2. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly in favor of them and don't see how they will be very useful beyond a very small population of readers. For the most part, they are trivial information and at worst, unsourced trivial information. They do take up a lot of real estate. The one issue I do have with Magicperson6969's edits are the removal of white space from the infobox that are there for readability. That should be stopped. —Farix (t | c) 20:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinged WP:WikiProject Television. —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm strongly against such edits, per what Farix stated. In the edit used as a example, not one of the five other shows even has an article. Are we suppose to catalog every Japanese TV station's schedules for the past 50 years? Xfansd (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

After some thought this probably fails something or another in WP:NOT. And I'd definitely peg it for WP:TRIVIA, since the defining factor of the shows isn't when they aired; I think WP:CLN is probably the most pertinent guideline? --Izno (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE seems to apply here. There is far too much detail in the boxes. WP:TV uses {{Infobox television}} which includes |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, so if there is need for such information, it can be included in the infobox without all the unnecessary information. Of course, it's entirely optional. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't do this with animanga infoboxes because it would create a great deal of bloat. Given that the infobox on some articles can be very large just covering the most essential details, any additional bloat is undesirable. —Farix (t | c) 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

By the looks of it, there doesn't appear to be anyone in favor of what Magicperson6969 is doing. Unfortunately, Magicperson6969 has not participated in the discussion by giving an explanation of why he is adding these boxes (and still continues to add them), despite being pinged. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a notice on his talk page inviting him here to the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

By succession in television, I think more of single positions that are passed to the next person in line as with The Tonight Show hosts and news anchors. It would also not make sense for anime programs as they are frequently broadcast on multiple channels at all sorts of times. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. I find it interesting to know what else was on around the same time, but I can just read the Japanese article for that if we don't include it here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm late...I have a VERY messed-up internet connection. Part of what gave me the idea of doing this is that I noticed that there were some well-known titles that aired on some stations at the same time as some other well-known titles, and figured making succession boxes linking some titles wouldn't be a bad idea. I also dislike when certain things aren't easy to find. Magicperson6969 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In a way it's hard to fault your motivation. However I'd noticed before this was brought up that you have a tendency to do things that while done in good faith, might be worth discussing first - especially if you are going to do it on many pages. I think this was one of them. I think the problems put forward by people outweigh the benefits. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: It should be hard to fault someone's motivation. :) --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this discussion can be summed up as no one supports Magicperson6969's addition of succession boxes and that they should be removed? —Farix (t | c) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's my !vote, but I'd like to see if Magicperson will respond again. Someone should think about pinging him. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

hey guys look what i did

GO to main page of project and you will see this link : Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/doc1

This is a wikipedia essay and you will understand why I placed a link there on the part of this project's main page based of what you read after seeing the essay. Doorknob747 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I put it up for deletion, we don't need an essay to differentiate anime from other media, the main article itself should've done a decent job of that. Door, what do you want to do on Misplaced Pages? If you want to do something useful, I suggest you ask someone here to mentor you, and that you actually try and listen to the advice they provide. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Although this is not part of this Wikiproject, but another, when you say something helpfull you mean like this? link Doorknob747 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll review your edits to LaFerrari and provide you with various advice.().

• You're gathering all the rumors of the upcoming new model. Not useful nor helpful since they are just unconfirmed rumors or speculations as far as I could tell. I didn't review all the sources because you've added too much for me to bother. Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill. You should use citeweb templates also, my user page has an empty template I often use.
• Exclamation mark, are you serious? I'm starting to think you're just trolling now. Your edits and edit summaries also seem to suggest this. What you should do is look for a mentor, and start posting on their talk page instead of project pages for basic Misplaced Pages guidance.
• Next time I see a silly edit summary, I'm ignoring you. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Eureka Seven

Is anyone familiar with the Eureka Seven series? I'm proposing we merge Eureka Seven and Eureka Seven: AO. Being unfamiliar with the series myself, as far as I can tell they are basically the same show with two seasons. The articles have gone the way of a runaway train, consisting mainly of original research and could use a bold cleanup. Thoughts? —Kirt 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of when I tried to get Gundam Seed and Gundam Seed Destiny to merge. As far as I know, the AO has various releases under that name, such as the manga and anime series. It could go either way though depending on who edits and who opposes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well coming from a completely neutral perspective on the series and based on their current states a merge is the logical proposal. It wouldn't be too hard if we trim the excess from Eureka Seven by cutting out the crufty terminologies. Plus the only noteworthy part of AO is the small Media section which can be easily copy-pasted (everything else is unsourced original research. I asked for more opinions but hopefully this makes sense in the spirit of a Spring cleaning if you will. —Kirt 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're taking up the task of merging them, I'd say do it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you can do it much like Last Exile and its Fam Silver Wing. The only parts that wouldn't be merged would be the episode lists as the sequels are set quite apart from each other. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tweak what needs to be tweaking if you guys want. Also, should we PROD List of Eureka Seven mecha? I mean how necessary is this page? After-all they aren't characters, so this might as well be terminology which describes inanimate objects. —Kirt 04:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd PROD the Mecha page. It's unsourced and has no notability beyond the series. If it were a significant franchise like Gundam, that would be different. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It cant be prodded as it has been to AfD twice in the past, you would have to send it through AfD again (3rd nomination). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

" anime OVA series."

Found another phrase to avoid. It's redundant. OVA already explains that it's animation, so "anime" is not needed. It's the equivalent of saying "Animated original video animation". You can just use the full phrase "original video animation" series. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest phrasing it like: "An OVA was released as an extension of the anime series on DVD". Normally the OVA is either an extension of the series and/or episodes that don't move the plot along (for fun). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OVA is rather cryptic and jargony. It is hard to tell if readers will understand that OVA is synonymous with anime/animation or if they even know what an OVA is. In general, we should not presume that they do know. I'm wonder if the term shouldn't be replaced with "direct-to-video anime". —Farix (t | c) 13:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, there should be a link to the OVA article, so if anyone is confused as to the meaning, they can look it up. Direct to video anime series can also work, but be sure to include a link to the OVA article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't rely on wikilinks as a substitute for plain language. But another alternative would be to avoid the acronym altogether or use "original video anime (OVA)" on the first use. As for extra episodes that were released as part of a TV series but never broadcasted, I would suggest avoid the term altogether and use "bonus episode", "extra episode", or some other variation. —Farix (t | c) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there OVA's released for media besides anime? -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think avoiding the acronym would be a step in the wrong direction given how commonplace the term is, especially as it's heavily used by our sources. Introducing the term at first use seems the best way to address it.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are other meanings to the acronym OVA, so it always needs to be disambiguated whenever it is used. —Farix (t | c) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not always, it just needs to be capitalized. OVA leads to Original video animation just as DVD leads to digital versatile disc. While I know you are trying to make things easier for the readers Farix, the term OVA is used more in sources. So if the casual reader comes across the word OVA in the sources we provide, and doesn't know what it means then we would be doing our jobs as editors by providing the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Anime" is literally just the short form of "animation", and for some people a lot of people have forgotten that. And the term OVA is only used in Japanese animation. The reason for the term is that high budget direct to video animation is a uniquely Japanese phenomenon. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying "anime ova" is like saying "automated atm". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not something that is obvious to a general English reader. The key is to write in a way that a general English reader will understand, even if sometimes that means being redundant. An examples the use of "Japanese anime" or "Japanese manga". Given the general confusion over what anime (Japanese animation) and manga (Japanese comics) mean, it is better to be redundant to aid in clarification. —Farix (t | c) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

An anime fan is likely already knowledgeable about it. For new users, it's just one term, and it's not hard to learn. Though we should avoid jargon heavy pages, a single term isn't going to kill anyone. And it's a vital term that for Japanese animation of the mid 80's to 90's. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The convention of using the term plus acronym at first mention would be fine like with Yamada-kun_and_the_Seven_Witches#Anime : "An animated promotional video (PV) was released by Liden Films on August 26, 2013. The video was directed by Seiki Takuno. Ryu Yamada was voiced by Ryōta Ōsaka, and Urara Shiraishi was voiced by Saori Hayami. In June 2014, Liden Films launched a website with news that it would be producing an original anime DVD (OAD). The OAD has two installments: the first was released on December 17, 2014 bundled with the manga volume 15, and the second is bundled with volume 17 for May 15, 2015. They were advertised as featuring all seven witches as well as hot springs scenes."

Obviously something like DVD would not need to be expanded upon but there are still plenty of jargonistic terms and acronyms that wouldn't hurt to clarify. -AngusWOOF (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Magicperson6969 again

Magicperson6969 is once again editing in a disruptive manner, this time, blanking the talk pages of several redirects that had discussions on them. Anyone want to spend the time to roll them back or have an administrator do it? —Farix (t | c) 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if I do roll them back, will this behavior continue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rollbacks done but you should watch this editor and report them if they continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Genres

I may need some assistance. After returning to my genre watch (a rather tedious task), an editor has started text walling me about requiring reliable sources before making any changes to the genre. The main dispute is around Unbreakable Machine-Doll when the editor, 赤羽 雷真, added a bunch of new genres to the article. (diff) I reverted the genre change on the bases of it being original research and then found a source (an ANN article) that mentioned the genre. (diff) Afterword, the editor started text walling my talk page with explanations as to why all sources are original research, the genres on the article are wrong/incomplete, that ANN is not a reliable source because they engage in original research and insert their views into articles, that other articles have unsourced information, and that I should not be editing articles if I don't know their subjects first hand. —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There's WP:ANALYSIS which says that the secondary source can add their own interpretation on the primary source (they most often do in reporting the situation). The WP:NOR is supposed to cover interpretation by the Misplaced Pages editors themselves. -AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, this editor doesn't appear to be willing to acknowledge that WP:NOR applies only to Misplaced Pages editors. If you fill up to wading through the text wall, you can read their comments on my talk page. —Farix (t | c) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nihon review

Would this be a reliable website for reviews? Link. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on their staff and about page, no because they are a self-published source. If they are to be considered a reliable source, their reviewers need to establish that their previous reviews have been published by reliable third-party publications, which is hard to do when you use pseudonyms. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

if it is not reliable then I would suggest it's removal from the reception sections on a number of articles it is used in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Only used by 7 articles (search), so there shouldn't be an issue with removing them. —Farix (t | c) 22:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on possible vandal

Be on the look out. I've noticed an IPv6 editor making massive changes to dates on some articles. One of which is Kimba the White Lion, which I've gone through and verified against the Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs' Media Database. I would recommend reverting unless the dates the IP is changing are checked against their sources. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Replace Syoboi references with Media Arts Database?

Given the rather sketchy status of this being a reliable source post broadcast, should we try to replace as many references from it as possible over to the Agency for Cultural Affairs's Media Arts Database? Being published by the Japanese government, it wouldn't be difficult to establish a claim that isn't reliable. Currently, we have 52 articles using Syoboi as a references, so it isn't too big of a task. May even throw in replacing AllCinema references as well, which is also of questionable reliability. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I thought Syoboi was already discarded as unreliable already. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Can you shows us the link to its database? Are you willing to change every instance of Syoboi or are you asking for help? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The link is on on the Online Reference Sources page, but in case you can't find it, here it is: http://mediaarts-db.jp/ Not every reference to Syoboi can be replaced. However, it should be replaced whenever possible. Here is an example of where I replaced the reference in one article.

Another reference that should be replaced when possible is WebNewtype. I've not don't a search on it, but I don't think there were many articles that used it as a reference. —Farix (t | c) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Should mech pilot be a category and are Newtypes psychic?

Mech pilots are substantially different than aviators and there's a whole lot of giant mechs in anime. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article Ghost in the Shell (manga) has been placed on hold for over a week. The nominator User:ChrisGualtieri is apparently busy. Should I fail it or will somebody solve the few issues I noted? RegardsTintor2 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't receive a notice from the bot - but I will work on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates discussion at Village Pump

I have started a discussion about verifiability of future air dates at the Village Pump. Comments are welcomed. —Farix (t | c) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sailor Moon RfC

An RfC regarding the addition of LGBT as a main theme is taking place at Talk:Sailor Moon#RfC: Is it relevant to include LGBT as a main theme?. Comments from project members are appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class anime and manga pages
• NA-importance anime and manga pages
• All WikiProject Anime and manga pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists