Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 20 May 2013

• WT:ANIME
• WT:MANGA

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:05, December 28, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

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

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. -AngusWOOF (talk) 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HigherFive 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. --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think the latter should be used for consistency. Going by MOS:TIME, 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?--十八 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. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a time format. Alright then. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 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 HigherFive〈Ｔ | Ｃ〉 21:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to MOS:TIME and the fact that local consensus can't override guidelines, 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. Narutolovehinata5 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:TIME 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?—Ryulong (琉竜) 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 HigherFive〈Ｔ | Ｃ〉 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I too support the use of standard times and dates, according to MOS:TIME. It applies, because the date is connected directly to the (non-standard) time format. And not all japanese stations do the same thing; NTV and TV Asahi use standard time formatting in their TV schedule. Raamin (talk) 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. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The guideline at MOS:TIME 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 Adult Swim schedule right now 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You can find a similar discussion about an american TV show here; the actual airdate is used (for the moment) as a result. Raamin (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that airdate is directly related to airtime. To say that Attack on Titan 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. Raamin (talk) 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 MOS:DATE – a violation of WP:V to say something other than what the reliable sources say, just because it's technically a different date.—Ryulong (琉竜) 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. Raamin (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, this edit of yours here to continually revert me actually was against WP:V and WP:RS 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 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. Raamin (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed the date in two places; saying I had changed everything back to the "April 7" is overdramatization, giving the impression I made some big changes. Ignoring the named <ref name="natalie"> ref tag was definitely a mistake (I apologize). And again, I don't consider shingeki.tv a primary source for airing dates. Raamin (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's the official website, it's a primary source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of WP:OR, 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). Raamin (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have an RfC so that a consensus can be reached. Any thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this seems to apply to several different projects, we should probably have a centralized discussion at WP:VPP.--十八 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Juhachi's suggestion would be a good start. Raamin (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've started the discussion here. Input is welcomed. Since WP:JAPAN is the parent and was where the discussion was originally suggested to take place, I'll inform them as well. Narutolovehinata5 10:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hentai 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 (WP:GUNDAM, WP:DBZ) were also separate WikiProjects originally, so it's not uncommon to absorb related projects under our scope--十八 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 WP:TREK or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Wars which have smaller scope, limited to a single universe. Its like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musical Theatre being outside of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Theatre. 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 Hideo Azuma 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 Marvelous Melmo 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 WP:ANIME do not want to touch, think about or even cover. GA's like Kanon were originally ero-games, but before the Key capitalized its formula, ero-games like Rance and Dōkyūsei. What about ELF Corporation'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 WP:ANIME's entire topic is relegated to a taskforce, well... I disagree. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Such a long speech for such a simple answer? What proof you have hentai encompasses chinese/korean media?Lucia Black (talk) 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. "Hentai" 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 Talk:Gundam'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.--十八 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 Katawa Shoujo is an example of a bishōjo-style visual novel that WP:HENTAI covers despite it not being Japanese at all. The Teen Titans work and major websites (you know the type) would be included in this, despite also being outside WP:ANIME. 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 Megatokyo-type works, we'd include it if the subject matter was explicit. Afterall... how many people even know Shadman? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Katawa Shoujo is one of a very few exceptions. Besides, that article is already under the visual novels task force, a joint task force under both WP:VG 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 WP:PORNO. And who are you to say that "hentai" should be just defined by what it means in America? Seems pretty biased to me. Hentai as defined in its own article (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.--十八 02:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support task force under WP:ANIME - 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hentai. This topic was discussed before in this 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 List of Japanese erotic video games 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. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • As you said, English. 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. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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 Kiyohiko Azuma, you know he started with ero. Right? Johji Manabe as well. Even Oh! great is one. How about Kouta Hirano 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. Words Worth anyone? Alright.. how about the largest English distributors? Media Blasters? Critical Mass? The defunct Central Park Media? 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT then, articles are being maintained and Misplaced Pages has no deadline for things, it is a work in progress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So we're gonna start this WikiProject to "Fix it" then. Why not? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know why Read or Dream is under the Hentai project, it is not an erotic anime. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A multitude of articles were mistagged by User:ChrisGualtieri; 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 WP:BLEACH 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 WP:NENAW (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.--十八 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, Goku 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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 chicken or the egg. 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 yaoi articles too.--十八 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Square Enix is not calling for it to be a taskforce under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games. Despite a scope that is completely under VG, let alone a single company. WP:HENTAI 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 hentai. 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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 enormous boobs? 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 hentai 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?--十八 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 WP:COUNCIL/G. 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? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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 WP:HENTAI and comment on our talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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 Katawa Shoujo? 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 own.--十八 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The above section is rather long, so I'll provide a nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: User:ChrisGualtieri started up WikiProject Hentai (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, User:Bumblezellio, 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.

--十八 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose it should be a taskforce under WP:WikiProject Pornography -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 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 visual novels task force is a joint task force under both WP:VG and WP:ANIME. This would make sense, though, since WP:HENTAI deals with pornographic material.--十八 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. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 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, WikiProject Birds falls within the scope of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, which in turn falls within the scope of WikiProject Animals, 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? — Mr. Stradivarius 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess I changed my mind. Now I'm fine with either ways. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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 WP:SE which overlaps with WP:VG and it is independent despite having a mere 476 articles. WP:HENTAI basically needs to exist for the independent categorization, assessment and peer review according to WP:TASKFORCE. Another key issue is that our assessment and importance is going to be different, and for technical reasons a full Wikiproject is required. Talk:Toshio Maeda 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 Hideo Azuma 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. Osamu Tezuka 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 Futanari, 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 WP:COUNCIL/G, 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 WP:ANIME 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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 WP:1.0's work anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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 ? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:COUNCIL about this. The official advice on this subject is at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best scope.

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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Its not really a merge but rather renaming to be part of A&M.Lucia Black (talk) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

not exactly a merge. Plus one already game up on the wikiproject idea (out of the two editors).Lucia Black (talk) 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.--十八 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 07:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Prove it.Lucia Black (talk) 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? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That only works if Hentai is a taskforce of WPPORN, not WPAM. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, Hentai'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? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages not a battleground. 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 14:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? A consensus was formed to make a taskforce out of WikiProject Hentai the only reason why it is not is because what is in place, so take your own words stop making personal attacks and WP:DROPTHESTICK with the argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If the people of WP:HENTAI don't want to become a task force of WP:ANIME, then they shouldn't be forced to. I agree with the argument above discussing how WP:WikiProject Birds falls under WP:Animals 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. - Camyoung54 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.Lucia Black (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor 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 WYSIWYG), 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 WP:Notifications (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 Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing 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 Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback 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 my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Lolicon and Shotacon considered Hentai?

I noticed that these articles were placed under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hentai'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? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... Loli and Shotas are also a material for Hentai stories. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess the fact that lolicon and shotacon could and are used in hentai is the matter.--十八 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PROJ#OWN "...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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people." I am deeply concerned about the attempts to coerce and force actions and drive away editors. If you have issues go to WP:HENTAI 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Planning on sending List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters to FLRC

I brought up issues here. Someone can address them if they want. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So User:AnmaFinotera'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, this was probably the last stable version aside from the name changes and a few other cosmetic changes.--十八 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

How about to revert to the last stable version? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 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. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 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. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. We should keep an eye on the article and update where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dirty Pair

Category:Dirty Pair has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Star Blazers 2199#Requested move

Hello. Can some one give an opinion in this discussion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should have never been moved but some IP decided to fuck up the redirect.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

How to determine Japanese title

I've been having several issues with User:Ryulong 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 Ghost in the Shell (film) 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 Ghost in the Shell (video game) 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?

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.Lucia Black (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, on Arise's title, I think the intent is fairly straightforward.—Ryulong (琉竜) 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: Hajime no Ippo 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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, amazon.co.jp returns titles without the English words in there. A strong source with commentary by a reliable source decide this discussion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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 WP:COMMONSENSE and help us move on with our lives. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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.—Ryulong (琉竜) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not the exact same thing. "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" is the official subtitle for the first collection of 攻殻機動隊, which got translated into "Ghost in the Shell" in English.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no real proof. All you have is a cover that only proves THE GHOST IN THE SHELL is under 攻殻機動隊, the same way "the fighting!" is under "Hajime no Ippo". Its the exact same thing. You dont have proof, its all original research to interpret the title as if it were an official subtitle. but if it were official, why hasnt a single retail site, not even the original publishers, add "The ghost in the shell?" they added "sleepless eye" onto the ghost in the shell Arise manga, so its not like they dont welcome english words in a subtitle.Yu have nothing but a cover and not even that helps your case.Lucia Black (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DNA Media Comics

Looking for more views on this redirect deletion here. It currently redirects to Clannad. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Missions Of Love article is up

I could use some help filling in some info here, if anyone here is a fan or has heard of the series, come feel free to help out =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Manga articles that are tagged for possible non-notability

There are a lot of manga articles that don't demonstrate the series' notability. I compiled them with WP:CATSCAN and pasted the result here: User:Brainy J/Manga articles flagged for notability. If anyone here can help out with adding sources or anything, feel free :) - Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well im not completely shocked as these also appear over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force, 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 WP:PROD and/or WP:AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs)

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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So many of these are notable. 2001 Nights 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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 {{notability}} tag on them. If you can show notability for some then go ahead. -- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit extreme. How do you make this determination? Do you have access to every possible reliable source in every language? As long as an article has at least one reliable source demonstrating notability, it shouldn't be deleted, but many of those may not make it to C-class. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of cleanup Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Cleanup listing's link to the toolserver is no longer working, can this be fixed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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.Lucia Black (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That attitude is not helpful or productive, honestly not all anime and manga artworks/artstyle are Japanese only. The Legend of Korra and Avatar: The Last Airbender use the style. Kurokami, Dragon Hunter, King of Hell.. come on... Ragnarok (manga) Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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 WP:N 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Things aside can we start working on the articles? I find it alarming on how many we have that are tagged here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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 WP:ANIME/RS. 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.Lucia Black (talk) 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:Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#MMA_AfD.27s 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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.

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).

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.Lucia Black (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (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.-- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2013 (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 anime 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Akane which is all sourced, and Missions of Love 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 08:40, 18 May 2013 (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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2013 (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.Lucia Black (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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.Lucia Black (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

By definition part of the threshold standards include that. Misplaced Pages:Notability (books), 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. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 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.Lucia Black (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Notability in the Japanese wikipedia shouldn't mean notability in the English wikipedia. Shouldn't manga and anime for the English wikipedia involve some reliable sources in English? If not, it should at least be a manga series that charts, is mentioned by major media sources, or has a notable author. Or at least be WP:BKCRIT. There are tons of books in the Diet building (equivalent of Library of Congress in USA), but that only helps notability for the Japanese wikipedia and is considered a threshold standard. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

More fun at Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as some of the discussion seems to head in that direction. WP:NEGLECT supports Lucia Black's position: "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date." -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll make this as clear as I can. Misplaced Pages has issues with bias, WP:BIAS. There is no requirement of Angelo-centric notability or of a single English source for an article. The assumption of GNG alone is enough for inclusion. Pages from foreign language projects ideally should be translated and covered on Enwiki if they pass GNG, notability does not extend to your view or nationalistic or Angelo-centric, but to a worldview. In short, no English sources need be present for an article to exist in Enwiki, while they are preferred, native sources are enough to meet GNG and are acceptable, notability is not Angelo centric, Japanese views meet GNG the same as English views.

Lastly, if you read that essay WP:NEGLECT, the potential of these articles is already assumed to be Japanese focused. But NEGLECT also mentions, "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors to follow the improvement plan in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it." And the text below gives an example of what Lucia's intentions are faulty and disruptive, "A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process." Which is why I reject Lucia's arguments, even this essay points to the guideline which states such an action is disruptive and problematic. Lucia can make strawman arguments and distract or bloat out a discussion very well, her attempts to make things personal or call them as such is just a way to try and discredit and distract other editors from the simple truth: Her method runs afoul of policy and will damage the project as a result.

Misplaced Pages is ideally run by policies, WP:ANIME is not outside those policies. The damaging and disruptive ideals from years past should never have been fostered and clung to as a standard. Misplaced Pages continues to evolve; its never going to be perfect or complete, to back Lucia's intention is to throw idealism and future growth away, in order to improve temporary appearance of this little corner of the project. Misplaced Pages's editors bring with them a strong bias but they are largely unaware of it, but acknowledging it is the first step in challenging and overcoming such bias. Notability is not defined as English publications or English notability. China is very underrepresented despite a population of 1 billion, some Chinese governors are more notable then most politicians, yet they do not have English articles. Though they still meet GNG and N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem isnt where the C-class campaigne would be a disservice. Its the fact you dont trust me or other editors to fullfill such a campaigne.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. It is disruptive and against Misplaced Pages's core values. I'm not even going to discuss 'trust' or other topics, because this 'campaign' is disruptive. By its very nature it is disruptive and is WP:POINTy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

you find it disruptive because you dont want any editor speedily AfDing an article because they could not find a single source. Isnt that why you mentioned several non-related issues such as library, awards, sales. No one here said we were going to ignore that, so why bring it up? Because it wasnt the campaigne, its the editor youre more worried about. Its not that the actual campaigne itself is disruptive, you just dont think the editors can do it properly. And if thats not the case, then there should be no reason why you would be against it. The campaigne is to find and verify if an article cant make it to C-class, after that, the ones that do have the potential, we work on them until they are at least C-class. It only helps us find non-notable manga. Most of these are just brought by fans. Scanlations. They may not be notable. And stop misusing policy and guidelines. WP:POINT means.i must have a point to disrupt. But what point am i trying to get accross other than remove articles that dont meet notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 May 2013

From WP:V we don't really care if the sources are in English or not, but one must at least provide sources for WP:N. and if there are no sources in the articles themselves, and one cannot find sources on simple searches, it is hard to defend the notability of the articles. Wasting time debating here is not helping at all, but it is also WP:badfaith to just AfD newly created articles. While I support tagging them and come back, say, 6 months later and see if any sources are added, I also think that whoever created those articles should really include sources when creating them, it saves much more time for all parties. Make sure you establish enough notability in the article's draft before you create an article, this can prevent deletionists from nominating it for deletion. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Break

Adding sources is an easy thing as long as one has the kanji to look it up. Assuming good faith is assuming someone is editing in efforts to benefit wikipedia, regardless of right or wrong, so assuming bad faith implies the opposite. That being said it wont be bad faith if a new article is AfD, unless the person is deleting it because fans made them. 6 months is a lot of time. Im a pro-deletionists because their goals are to improve wikipedia, same with inclusionists. However, i will not support talk of it because i hate the whole debate. this has nothing to do with being an.inclusionist/deletionist. those views are flawed and only hurt editors working together. if you wish to call yourself an.inclusionist, than this campaigne shouldnt be an issue. just makes us work a lil harder.Lucia Black (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll let Él (visual novel) be the challenge! Lucia's arguments have no merit and are damaging to Misplaced Pages. Youre the one making it personal. several comments of yours are against the idea of me afding an article rather than the campaigne itself.Él already has a good head start at the Japanese Wiki. And the worst which COULD happen is that the article be pushed into Elf's page, there is absolutely no reason to delete the content. I do not care about Lucia's personal stances, her intent is on making things personal even when they are not. Forcing an artificial deadline is unrealistic, but this one doesn't have an RS on it, but it shouldn't be difficult to fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

youre so Japanese bias if youre going to base this on Japanese wikipedia. if its not difficult to fix, why challenge me to fix it? you dont want to make this personal? then fix the article yourself and dont challenge editors to do it just to prove your point. I have nothing to prove to you. Im not going to do anything for your approval. no one here is against the idea.Lucia Black (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Um Lucia is not even the one who placed the article up for AfD that was me because of it's notability issue, if you find the sources though by all means im happy for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but Lucia didn't provide one to point it out. Nihonjoe disagreed with the nature of Lucia's deletion campaign. And I did add some non-plot stuff and two/three reviews of the OVA. Problem, Nutech's site is totally dead and has been for years. Green Bunny went under and Elf's own webpage is horrendous as always. And I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives or the ability to read them anyways for the visual novel aspect. Sadly... the RSes which do exist are probably way out of my hands here and I don't want to rip the jibberish from a machine translation to fill the gaps. At minimum it should be merged to Elf's page and redirected, its been more then a decade since its release at least I got this much in an hour of work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nihonjoe is being unrealistic about it. 1source does not prove to be notable. it only proves plausible notability. When that article is being questioned of its notability, it has to be proven. with that said stub-start are articles that have little to no sources. Realistically stub-classes are articles that are far too short and no sources to have an article (some compared to them commonly being word definitions and redirected to wiktionary), and start are those that do pass the length threshold but often lack sufficient sources. It may sound extreme, but not damaging if you get a realistic view on whats notable. C-class is basically B-class with flaws. Unfortunately this wikiproject seems to set the standard a lil too high for B-class. And 0 sources absolutely does not mean they are notable. Notability has to be proven. I believe every article that has notability can be upto B-class.

So heres my compromise. ill scale down the campaigne to stub-class. So start-class be spared. Which makes it even easier for us to upgrade these articles to at least start. However, a 6 month period to prove notability within the article. once proven and new sources added into the article, it may be upto C-class. And ill make this even easier, we only do one AfD at a time. So every start class article gets a 6 month wait for editors to search for sources in efforts to expand the article.And incredibly slow process but even new series to have a better chance.Lucia Black (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, can we get a bot to tell us if an article under a certain project have no edit in the past 6 months and no source? That will make the process much easier. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 07:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the bot can notify the clean up task force page so it can be easier to manage. Now that you mention it, a section could be added directly related to bot entries. I'll have to re-propose this so it can be easier to read.Lucia Black (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This maybe a good thing for the whole wikipedia. All articles tagged as unreferenced will be listed by a bot in the related project page(s) and if no project is related, to a certain page for that purpose, it should also notice the article creator at the same time(but not before hand so people can game the system and make useless changes to set back the time). This way, all such pages are managed and we don't have to have articles that are tagged for a long time without any intervention. Someone might want to bring this to a bigger scope project to discuss about it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Straw man arguments again. We don't compromise. Stubs are allowed. Unsourced articles that are not BLP are allowed. Lastly, if you are nominating things for deletion you should execute a good-faith attempt to improve it prior to nominating. Wholesale deletion is a bad move, you also cannot impose a deadline per WP:POINT as you seek to do here. Rather then arguing, find and article and improve it. Japanese sources are perfectly acceptable and will be required for many of these articles, if you have trouble, ask, but don't prod things which can be sourced in 5 minutes of work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this is NOT imposing a deadline, but to make sure people actually get together to act on improving the article, and if no sources are provided, improve wikipedia as a whole. I said Japanese sources are accepted, given that you include them in the first place. If you don't include them, but keep saying there are sources, I'd say you failed the burden of proof and hence have no real grounds to support your reasoning. Having too much articles to work on is a very bad argument, you can always make 1 article very informative and with reliable sources before you start another one, which is much better than starting tons of uninformative stubs with little information that are attracting attention of deletionists. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What helps the article qualify for start? Infoboxes and basic structure? The manga/anime cleanup task force sounds like it could work. I know there's one for WP:AFC which reviews pages created by unregistered users for notability and decent starter sources; they sometimes review articles created by registered users. If, after some significant effort at verifying notability WP:BEFORE just isn't working out, then apply WP:AFD. The "unreferenced" tag according to that policy can be applied to sources that do exist and are potentially good for verification but are just not accessible anymore (old newspapers and magazines not online, websites of defunct companies not archived in waybackmachine) I am not sure about grouping all stubs; there are plenty of voice actor pages that have a ton of credits but close to zero biography; are those stubs? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

going to ignore chris. because at this point, only opposing for the sake of opposing. he does not know what a sub article is. As for the campaigne, this would only be for manga and anime. Usually easy to figure out for anime but manga gets trickier. Voice actors and manga artist are trickier because we dont have the right sources to look up their info. I dont doubt most of them may not be notable if they only published one or two, however, i doubt they cant make it to at least start class. But i rather focus on just media.Lucia Black (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Running time

Me and KirtZJ have used up our three daily reverts for Karneval 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 {{Infobox animanga/Video}} doesn't support that for tv series tho it does for other formats. {{Infobox television}} has a runtime parameter. While I happen to think my favorite anime shows are timeless 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. Carolina wren (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should look in the template history to see who created the infobox and ask the person to add a runtime parameter. --Moscow Connection (talk) 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KirtZJ 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. Carolina wren (talk) 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 Talk:Karneval, 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KirtZJ 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you say this revert 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. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 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 the one 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KirtZJ 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. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2013 (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 {{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. Carolina wren (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This template may be a case of WP:BIAS cause someone thought that all TV series deserved their running times to be known, but anime did not. --Moscow Connection (talk) 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KirtZJ 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 Template:Infobox Television since its creation. Like, "Distributor" and "Production company" (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. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is if this is widely accepted within the English Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga 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KirtZJ 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is widely accepted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(Note) KirtZJ 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. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of strange that the Japanese "TV aniime" template 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 (example) with all start and end times, so they don't need it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Anime News Network has the info (example), so it will be easy to find, nothing will need to be calculated. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Farix 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 bold about changing templates without at least some discussion. Carolina wren (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the addition of a runtime parameter. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where did Farix make a comment here? I'm not seeing it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment he made was on the talk page of the template in question in 2011.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are generally OAV series, and oddly enough {{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. Carolina wren (talk) 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. --Moscow Connection (talk) 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 one recent anime that was 50 minutes, but these are generally rare cases. Having the runtime for an OVA or film makes more sense since those are generally more variable.--十八 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. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (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. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I support having it, especially as that brings it inline with how non-anime TV series infoboxes feature the information. We need to try to be as consistent as possible with how infoboxes present information as people will expect to find that on all TV series articles, regardless of where the series was released or in what format it was released (anime, live action, etc.) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment