Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 47#Featured episode list questions

This has been brought up before by another user but the discussion was archived a little while back, it should be in the most recent archive box. The Black Rock Shooter article, more specifically the Black Rock Shooter characters article is in need of some cleanup. As it looks to me, the character page could be trimmed and fit into the main BRS article quite nicely as all the info is in-universe and rather fancrufty. Roughly half of the article is devoted to unnecessary and non-notable characters who did not even appear in the OVA. As well, there is a major slew of non-free images which have been bot-tagged for deletion due to improper licensing and template issues. There isn't any secondary sources or out-of-universe info to justify keeping the article and once cleaned up I don't think size will be a reason either. I'm trying to clean it up but not quite sure where to start aside a complete trim down and merge to the main. However, my initial attempt at clean up resulted in a revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=383894431&oldid=383787476] . Fox816 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:I've been performing some cleanup such as an article move to the appropriate titling, replacing excess non-free free with group shot, removing non-notable non-ova characters and adding categories. I'll try and go over to improve the prose and hopefully find some out-of-universe info to add. Fox816 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

::This is exactly why I staunchly opposed the creation of such an article. I've basically washed my hands of the issue for now; I'll probably perform a merge in say 6 months if no one does it sooner.--十八 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

::::i'm sure there is already enoughn otability, though the problem is it has too many details about trivial things, and it seperated in an inuniverse style and no reception (which i'm sure there is)Bread Ninja (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

::::In light of the past issue with these articles, there's a chance of edit warring in regards to editors wanting to retain separation as well as most of the information deemed unnecessary in the article. I'll attempt a merge upon consensus when the article is entirely cleaned up since it's still quite a bit away from done. When that's completed everyone can see what is left and that should make a merge smoother if permitted. Fox816 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If possible, some input here about character notability would be appreciated. Added Note: May be on the verge of an editor war as user Mad Doggin 7 has decided to revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=385243714&oldid=385233980] before discussing. I'm not going to revert or edit the article until this is resolved. Fox816 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i was looking over at rurouni kenshin article and saw it had the last volume cover on it rather than the first where i quickly discovered that the first volume cover wouldn't fit in the infobox. So i was talking to tintor about maybe about adding the intregral edition (kanzenban) cover instead of the last ocver of the tankobon,, since he uploaded them. well he said no due to the rule about it being the first cover of the first edition. so i thought on you're thoughts on it. should we keep the last volume or add the first volume of the kanzenban version.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:As for the cover, we should keep the the Tankobon edition covers per our project's guidelines. The tankobon/first edition covers are important, so adding the Kanzenban versions are not necessary here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:Status quo Main article should remain with last volume cover while Chapters list should stay with first volume cover. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

::Sounds like the rules are brought u[ as they come by...but since this is a consensus i'll just let it stay.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Well we usually go with the first cover unless their is a good explanation. I don't know the facts here, but if there is a good reason, then it should remain.陣内_Jinnai 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Just feels off to have the last volume than the first. there really is no difference between tankobon and kanzeban format. it's just that kanzeban shows that it's complete.Bread Ninja (talk)

::::(e/c) I can't find any explanation; I can, however, say that the current image, which was uploaded by Tintor2, was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rurouni_Kenshin&diff=193033618&oldid=193032708 added] in February 28, and the image it replaced was originally uploaded by RadicalBender in March 2004 as a cover scan of the English volume 1 - another user uploaded a scan of English volume 28 in February 2007 without explanation. The only arguments I could see for sticking with volume 28 are "status quo" and "volume 1 is double-width", although it might be argued that volume 28's cover is a better example of the mangaka's artwork than volume 1's cover. *shrugs* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::I dont know. the kanzeban shows the main character Himura kenshin pretty well unlike the last volume of tankobon. And kanzenban cover could further imply that the series had finished.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}

I asked for status quo because manga covers can lead to edit & upload war as demonstrated by Dinoguy1000. The leaning consensus was first or last volume cover of the Japanese or English edition on a basis that no one should replace one cover meeting those loose criterion without a very good reason other than "I like it". --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember you asking for status quo. not entirely sure what that means but i get the idea. I say kanzenban edition is good, because it shows the series is complete (well manga is) along with a good image of the main character himura kenshin, where as the first cover doesn't fit and the last cover doesn't do the best in showing the main character. if it were for "ilikeit" i wouldn't have mentioned this in the first place due to me liking this cover a little more than the kanzenban or the 1st volume cover.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:Do as you please then. I will neither support or oppose you but do not complain if someone replace this cover with the Viz Media, VIZBIG Edition http://www.viz.com/products/products.php?product_id=7431 last volume cover arguing that it's more significant because it's prove that this series is complete and English release is complete. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

::that's why i put this up to discussion so we can have some form of consensus on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just curious here, I have added this award to Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject and credited User:DarkAp89 for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

:It originated in this discussion. I'm not sure there's any one person who could be credited with it, though; DarkAp89 originally uploaded the barnstar image to Commons (as you noted), sephiroth bcr then found the image and proposed its use in the current project award, Masamage was the one who suggested a second project award, erachima suggested the name, and Darth Panda [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:BarnLoli_Award&oldid=254299108 created] the template (albeit almost two months after it was suggested and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G.A.S&curid=7110173&diff=242438724&oldid=242302134 first awarded]). —{{User|Dinoguy1000}} as 67.58.229.153 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

::Okay then =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pass it along that the anime and manga exclusive Transformers character Ginrai is up for deletion. I don't know why this and other Transformer characters aren't cover by this work project. I would be beneficial if you guys (and gals) were. Sarujo (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:We can't cover articles we don't know about, and we only get to know about articles if editors tag them with {{tl|WikiProject Anime and manga}}. So, if you find articles which fall within our scope, don't hesitate to add the banner. Goodraise 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

::Just out of curiosity, could Transformer characters like Optimus and Megatron meet the criteria to be included in this work project's watch? They have featured in the Japanese exclusive anime and manga series. Japan holds as much of a hand to their production. Sarujo (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Fictional characters that play major roles in at least one anime or manga series are most certainly within our scope. Goodraise 15:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

::::That's all I need to know. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

::::No I would beg to differ otherwise we open the floodgate to Star Trek, Batman, Highlander (series) and tons of historic figures, Japanese or non-Japanese because those have all had manga and many anime adaptations.陣内_Jinnai 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::As of right now, the scope does include those characters. If you want to change that, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&action=edit§ion=1 go right ahead.] Goodraise 02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::I would argue that we do want to include such characters and figures in our scope; as it is, popular perception of such characters (whether it's masquerading as a trivia-filled "in popular culture" section or is actually a well-written, -referenced, and -integrated part of the article) tends to be very US-centric, and their appearance in anime and manga can be used to counter that bias; the major problem is sourcing. No one is arguing that we should move in and take control of such articles; that's not what we're here for, and other projects are much better equipped to do so. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::I would argue that this should be treated per "Although its scope is broad, this project maintains an essential focus on anime, manga and related merchandise originally meant for consumption in Japan. This does not include works with incidental or minor association.". Thus, if the anime and manga link is incidental, unclear or unknown, i.e. when the anime/manga component is a passing mention (and likely if there is insufficient information for a dedicated section) the article should be excluded from our scope. I rather also that one consider whether our style guideline and infobox would be used when writing the specific article. G.A.S^talk 11:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any information about this series. As far as I can tell, Fuji TV has never broadcast an anime series by this title. None of the Japanese references I have for TV series (which are pretty close to comprehensive as far as I can tell) have anything about this series. Anyone know anything about it? I've tagged it as a hoax as I can't find anything myself, online or offline. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:If that series exists, it can't be from 1974 like the article says. TV anime series at the time were already in full color and the screencap, uploaded by the same user that created the article, shows that it would be in black & white. Even Kamui the Ninja, which was also broadcast on Fuji TV, was in color despite being aired in 1969. Also, the original run doesn't make sense for six episodes, as the custom was to make weekly episodes for TV anime. Jfgslo (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:(EC) I just spent a regrettably huge amount of quality time using a bunch of search engines and studying the contributions and talk page history of the only significant contributor. What I didn't find is a reason to believe that the article is not a hoax. Not a single one. Goodraise 03:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::I've gone ahead and deleted it. The character in that image reminded me of one of Tezuka's characters from one of his older series or movies. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Temple the Balloons is clearly the correct title in English since its on the official website as the offical title see [http://www.tatsunoko.co.jp/english/box05.html#3] Dwanyewest (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:Do we have any other sources for an English title? My suspicion is that it's a typo on the Tatsunoko website—"Temple the Balloons" makes no sense, while "Temple of the Balloons" would at least be a reasonable translation of the Japanese name (albeit a somewhat confusing one). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::ANN lists "Temple the Balloonist" as an alternative title. --Mika1h (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Looking at the source for the ANN "Temple the Balloonist" name, that also comes from the official site (to see sources for information in the ANN encyclopedia, click on the "lookup sources" link at the bottom of the page). It looks like the organization for the Tatsunoko site has changed since the link was entered in ANN, but I was able to find this page that uses the "Temple the Balloonist" name [http://www.tatsunoko.co.jp/english/works.html]. If you click on the link from that page, it takes you to the page that calls it "Temple the Balloons". Since "Temple the Balloonist" is also given on the official site and "Temple the Balloons" makes no sense (either as a traslation of the Japanese name or in English generally), I think that "Temple the Balloons" is just a mistake. However, we may want to move the article to "Temple the Balloonist" as that name is given in the official site and doesn't seem to be a mistake like "Temple the Balloons". Calathan (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I would support Temple the Balloonist as that title at least makes sense. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::I would definitely prefer "Temple the Balloonist" over "Temple of the Balloons", unless there is a good source that suggests "Temple of the Balloons" is an official or commonly used title. When I first saw the title "Temple of the Balloons", before actually reading the article, I thought the anime was about a temple (i.e. a place of worship) with balloons in it. Both the Japanese title and the title "Temple the Balloonist" make it clear that Temple is a person. Calathan (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Okay, I've moved it to Temple the Balloonist. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.animecons.com AnimeCons.com] has been listed by this project as a reliable source for over a year.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&diff=prev&oldid=278938803] Our online resources library describes it as "A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions." I've been trying to answer the question of what makes it a reliable source, but so far my searches have come up empty. Anyone got anything? Goodraise 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:NOTE: I am in no way condoning or condemning the site as a reliable source.

:The basic explanation is that its a lexicon of information that while user submitted comes entirely from what we would consider reliable sources. Other types of lexicon sites that can show this kind of clear sourcing from such reliable sources have been deemed reliable for that content in FACs and FARs.陣内_Jinnai 04:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{user|Dairi no Kenkyo}} has created a fair number of "List of...episodes" articles, but he has used very weird wording and formatting in them, especially in the episode summaries. I'm all for having these episode lists created, but they need to be understandable by the average person, and these don't even come close. I'm posting here to see if anyone is willing to help clean them up. It may be quicker to do some of it using AWB or some similar tool, and I don't use that since I run on Mac OS X and it's a Windows-only program. I've also noted the former titles (in parentheses) these articles were at before I moved them. Here's the list of articles:

• List of Space Symphony Maetel episodes (formerly "Space Symphony Maetel Analogy Account Anthology")
• List of Kokoro Library episodes (formerly "Kokoro Toshokan Karstic Anecdote Tabulation")
• List of The Kabocha Wine episodes (formerly "The Kabocha Wine Commiseration Compilation Cellar")
• List of Creamy Mami, the Magic Angel episodes (formerly "Magical Angel Creamy Mami Dairy Flavor Gallery")
• List of Super Doll Licca-chan episodes (formerly "Super Doll Licca-chan Campaign Ambition Recapitulation")
• List of Yume Tsukai episodes (formerly "Yume Tsukai Speculative Aspiration Corridor")

He also has some he's working on here:

• List of The Story of Perrine episodes (formerly "Perrine Monogatari Bouken Bestiary")
• List of Katri, Girl of the Meadows episodes (formerly "Katri Paimen Pika Ja Emanta Expository Exhibition Emissary")
• List of Ashita no Nadja episodes (formerly "Ashita no Nadja Osculatory Ordonnance Odyssey Omphalos")
• List of Persia, the Magic Fairy episodes (formerly "Magical Fairy Persia Incantation Imbrogilo Inventory")

Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think, he/she continues to do his/her way meaning that it will leave trails of messes behind his/her edits for us to clean-up and this is deliberate. He/she can't pretend to not be "aware" of our usual formatting, naming & editing practices after 4 editors pointed her/him to the right direction. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

::That' what i thought when i first saw the previous names of the articles....i'll try to fix some of it since i have had previous expirience with specific wording like this.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Well if they continue to do this, he/she can have steps taken to stop it like disallowing them from creating new articles.陣内_Jinnai 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I would work on them myself, but I haven't watched most of these. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Yeah that's why i'm having so much trouble with it. i'll look up two of the series of these articles online to see if i could summarize them even shorter. but if it takes too much of my time i might give upBread Ninja (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}

I left a strong message on his/her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dairi_no_Kenkyo&diff=prev&oldid=386694593 talk page]. I doubt it will have any positive reaction & change from his/her part still i really tried. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is currently discussion on whether or not to use the tilde/hyphen/etc. as found in titles of Japanese media as it appears in the Japanese media rather than modifying it into another punctuation format on the English Wikipedia. As articles in this WikiProject's purview may be affected, users here are requested to contribute to the discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

::unless it's also known without the tildes the hyphen should be used as redirects in case.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&curid=1213395&diff=385468581&oldid=385466326 this edit] and its summary: WP:FICT is not a nutshell and our project page is not an article. FICT is in fact nothing but a proposed guideline (i.e. a guideline which is currently without consensus). Linking to it is simply unhelpful. If I was a new editor, FICT is the last place I'd want to be sent. I also don't see why we should only cover notable characters. It makes no sense and it's contrary to our operational reality. We do deal with non-notable characters. We AfD them, we merge them, we cover them in lists... Explain to me: Why would we keep non-notable characters out of our scope? Goodraise 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't tinhk it should be removed completely, but i do agree it's not int he right section.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:I see. Well, then the question remains: Why should we link to FICT from the project page at all? Goodraise 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

::I helped depreciate WP:FICT from the Manual of Style a few months ago because it has been in development hell for the last two years and is currently too similar to the GNGs. Needless to say, I would be very happy if WP:FICT was also depreciated here.

::I'm not sure what you're getting at about the notability of characters and how the project deals with them, Goodraise? Effectively, as the current WP:SALAT reading goes, characters whose articles do not meet the GNGs are merged into series lists, not deleted. (e.g. Cygnus Hyoga being deprodded and then merged into List of Saint Seiya characters). The nitty gritty of how articles are treated isn't really a topic for that section, I think. --Malkinann (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:::The scope of a project defines what topics the project covers. The statement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&curid=1213395&diff=385468581&oldid=385466326 this edit] is that we should not deal with non-notable characters. Whether the characters notability is determined by WP:FICT or by WP:GNG is irrelevant to the case I'm trying to make. I think we should (and already do) deal with characters like Zarbon just as much as we deal with characters like Son Goku. That's why I would like that edit undone. Question answered? Goodraise 12:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I understand what you're saying, and I agree. It's not that we don't deal with non-notable character (and works, episodes, and the like), but that they should be properly dealt with: merged, deleted, listed. I say just make it "characters" again, and, if someone truly wants it, just make a note about notability. It's a bit misleading to say the scope only covers notable characters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps the emphasis on notable characters was due to straight-up promotion of the idea that 'everything must be notable or it goes' - 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'? ;) The wording of plain 'Characters, blah blah blah' does not appeal to me directly, as 'notable' currently applies to all the things in that list. (like merchandise) --Malkinann (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga&diff=next&oldid=385468581 depreciated] WP:FICT. The current wording of the section is "Notable characters, episodes, issues, and merchandise of the above media". If we lose the 'notable' in front of characters, we also lose it in front of merchandise, too - would 'Characters, episodes, issues and notable merchandise of the above media' work? but then we've got to decide what's 'notable merchandise' mean... :/ Any suggestions? --Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Avicit38 has gone and created a number of individual episode OVA titles for this series and looks intent on creating more. It [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Avicit38 appears to be] a single purpose account for creating those OVA episodes.陣内_Jinnai 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

: Hmm it appears so, well I do not see a problem with OVA's as long as they are notable and sourced, might want to cherrypick delete the ones that are not notable and keep or merge content of the more notable ones to List of Ranma ½ episodes#OVA episodes (1993-2008). If all of them prove not notable deletion or merging is always an option. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

::Please remember to assume good faith - the person in question has not contributed in almost two months, and it seems like a newbie behaviour that was common before the creation of WP:EPISODE and the WP:FICT wars. --Malkinann (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Aside from that though, is there any reason the articles should be there?.... or should we keep some and delete the rest? I have also notified the user for reference about this discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I don't know for sure. The assumption of good faith is not dependent on the resultant article's notability. --Malkinann (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Let's just merge them all already. All the OVA articles only contain plot information and lack the notability to be articles themselves. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please come participate in the merge discussion for these articles. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional input from the project members on those two:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Saimoe Tournament
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Moe Tournament

The second one isn't within our project scope but i think it still fell on animanga lap.

View it as neutrally asking additional opinions.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How would one go about making a chapter list when there's been a complex publishing history? In Marginal (manga) I can't find any online information about the first print, only about the reprint, to say nothing of the publication history of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) or The Rose of Versailles (manga). --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

:If you don't have access to information that would give you a chapter list, then you can't. I haven't been able to do that with some manga.陣内_Jinnai 22:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

::When there are several editions, do you cover them all, as in List of Codename: Sailor V chapters? --Malkinann (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

:::No. If we cover rereleases, then we should also cover rerereleases and rererereleases. Before we know it, we'll have turned Wikipedia into an archive of manga publishing history. The first edition is enough. Goodraise 00:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::But what if you can't find information about the original release? (Thinking of RoV here - 70s manga would likely only be covered in Japanese print sources) --Malkinann (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::As Jinnai said: If you can't locate sources, you can't write an article. Goodraise 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::If the situation is that there is sufficent information about re-releases, and less-than-sufficient information about the original edition, then what? --Malkinann (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well, you can list the chapters using the new release as a source for the chapters' names and plot summaries, but the new release dates are, in my eyes at least, irrelevant. If you can't find the original dates, then it might be best not to list any dates at all. Goodraise 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're envisioning here? Not listing anything at all because the information about the original edition is lacking feels like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. --Malkinann (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Maybe it's just me, but in my eyes re-release dates are irrelevant information, not worth including in an encyclopedic article. The original dates are the ones of interest. They, and only they, are the answer to the question "since when is the item available to the public". To stick with your analogy: If I was building a human, I'd rather leave the eye sockets empty than fake completeness by adding non-functional eyes of glass. If the sources exist, then it's best to wait for someone dedicated enough to go and get them. If they don't exist, then no information needs to be entered. Goodraise 04:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::That seems really short-sighted to me, though. Using your analogy, if someone were to come up to your human and ask "So, where are the eyes?" and you said "Well, I couldn't get working eyes, so I just left them out", the next thing the person would ask would be why not just put in substitutes until you can find functioning eyes. Bringing it back to Wiki terms, Wikipedia has no deadline, so adding in info about the re-releases until info of the original releases can be found is far more informative than merely leaving out the information entirely. At least this way the reader knows a general idea of when the books became available (like what decade) rather than wondering if they were published more recently or are much older.

::::::::::Furthermore, what if the re-releases were not just re-prints, but were updated, or otherwise changed from their original versions. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to include information on them for the sake of completeness?--十八 04:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'd use the exact same argumentation as you, but I'd draw a different conclusion. Wikipedia has no deadline. Therefore we can afford to wait until somebody finds the information we need. Gaps encourage people who pass by to add the missing information. That effect is lost (or at least severely reduced in strength) if we fill up the article with low yield information like re-release date. Obviously I'm talking about tables here. I wouldn't object to re-release dates being added to the prose of such a list, at least not until the original dates are filled in. Whether it's worth keeping them even after that would, in my opinion, depend on how much was changed. It'd have to be something major. Dragon Ball Kai comes to mind as an example. Goodraise 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

: And then there's the question of how to handle it when the initial Japanese volumes don't match the first English edition. Such as if they translated the reprint bunkobans instead of the tankobons, or other more complicated situations. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, that's a different question. Malkinann's is a "what should be included" question. Yours is a "how should it be presented" question. I'm afraid, if {{tl|Graphic novel list}} doesn't work, there's no easy answer to the latter. You'll have to stick your nose into Help:Wikitable and create a suitable table of your own. Goodraise 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Would List of Oh My Goddess! chapters be a good case study of one possible way to handle it? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this discussion let me rather depressive as it show how limitedly we can work as a project :(

Now back to the matter.

@Malkinann

Refs to first print ed:

[http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_4091780415 v1][http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_4091780423 v2][http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_4091780431 v3][http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_409178044X v4][http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_4091780458 v5]

First edition of [http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_4091400019 Doraemon] and [http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/comics/detail/_isbn_4091300014 Poe Clan] dating from 1974 can also be found so why not something from the 80's.

Additional there are informations found in the Comics Journal #269:

Marginal (1 018 pages, Petit Flower, August 1985 - October 1987).

{{cite journal|last=Thorn|first=Matt|title=Moto Hagio Bibliography|journal=The Comics Journal|publisher=Fantagraphics Books|issue=269|page=176|issn=0194-7869|url=http://www.fantagraphics.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=348&category_id=593&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=62|accessdate=September 26, 2010}}

Now can we consider this thread as closed?

--KrebMarkt (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:Thank you very much. :) For Rose of Versailles, the oldest thing I can find on Shueisha's website are these 1994 editions:

• [http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-748220-0&mode=1 Shueisha] 1994
• [http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-748224-3&mode=1 Shueisha] 1994

:Can you please have a look for anything older? --Malkinann (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::Wasn't that thread closed :p

::Ok Shuesha sucks as they rarely keep there "out-off" print stuff. Now after a heroic dive into Amazon.co.jp ;)

::Fist print: [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501063/ v01] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/408850108X/ v02] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501160/ v03] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501241/ v04] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501314/ v05] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501373/ v06] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/408850142X/ v07] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501454/ v08] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501489/ v09] [http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4088501519/ v10]

::The releases are between November 1972 & May 1974 which is coherent with the by then weekly serialization in Margaret and if you remember Moto Hagio interview in TCJ, The Rose of Versailles volume release started before Poe Clan thus before 1974. I think that settles the matter doesn't it? --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Madhouse latest anime film will out on [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-09-22/redline-opens-in-california-japan-in-same-october-weekend October 9, 2010] and there are already early screening reviews to work for an article.

• [http://www.mania.com/redline-movie-review_article_125340.html Mania review] [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/redline ANN review]
• [http://red-line.jp/index.html Official website] [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=6456 ANN encyclo]

Additional ammos:

• [http://www.uk-anime.net/anime/Redline.html UK Anime Network review]
• [http://www.madman.com.au/reelanime/redline/ Australia Reel Anime 2010 screening] [http://twitchfilm.net/reviews/2010/09/reel-anime-2010-red-line.php Twich Film review]
• [http://www.annecy.org/edition-2010/festival/programmation/programme-fiche-film:f20101925 Annecy Festival 2010 screening]
• Reviewed in the issue [http://www.animeland.com/articles/voir/859/AnimeLand-163 #163] of the French Animeland paper magazine.

The trick would be to get it DYK right for the October 9.

I'm pushing this one because that the very first time, i found something rated A+ on both Mania & ANN.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:Count me in. I'm a little low on time right now, but with one more weekend before then, I think this should be doable. I'll get started right away. Goodraise 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

After a long exhaustive effort, I've improved the Cardcaptor Sakura article greatly, as well as creating three branch articles and improving a fourth. Now I come to the project to ask for an editor or two to do a copyedit of an iconic magical girl shoujo manga series of Mid importance, before taking it to WP:GAN.--十八 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed that Transformers: Energon's character list be split off into its own article. Input would be appreciated. --Malkinann (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:Why not just do it. This seems like a natural action that needs to be done so that the article can focus on the series itself. And take the cast listing with it as well by adding them into the character descriptions. —Farix (t | c) 23:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the article Mana Ogawa with a BLP PROD today. I was trying to source the article, as it seems like she would pass the notability guidelines. Specifically, I think she would pass WP:ENTERTAINER as I think she plays the lead roles in Sasami: Magical Girls Club and Gokujo!! Mecha Mote Iincho, and would pass WP:MUSICBIO since she sung theme songs for Gokujo!! Mecha Mote Iincho and Hyakko. I found a translation of an inverview from a magazine on hello-online.org [http://www.hello-online.org/index.php?act=helloonline&CODE=article&topic=629], but I wasn't sure if that is a reliable source. It certainly seems to be used in several articles on Wikipedia, but just being used a lot doesn't mean it is reliable. Would anyone know if it is reliable? Also, if it isn't a reliable source, can I cite the magazine they are reprinting the interview from even though I don't have a copy of the magazine (and couldn't read it if I did), and would be trusting an unreliable source on what is actually printed in the magazine? Calathan (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:By their own admission, hello-online is a fansite, so they are not a reliable source. On top of that, they likely don't have authorization to make and republish the translation of the magazine interview. So linking to it will violate WP:COPYLINK. —Farix (t | c) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

::That is what I figured. If someone who can read Japanese has access to the magazine in question, then it oculd probably be used to improve that article. Calathan (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

As harvesting reviews eventually lead me to interesting stuffs that i don't know what to do about.

1. [http://www.paulgravett.com/index.php/articles/article/manga_impact/ Manga Impact: How Manga Reinvented Comics] an except from [http://fr.phaidon.com/store/film/manga-impact-9780714857411/ Manga Impact]. It's about how the manga altered the rest of the Comics world art/narrative/techniques wise.
2. [http://www.nhk.or.jp/manga/main.html A NHK TV show about manga] with the list of reviewed manga [http://www.nhk.or.jp/manga/c_koremade.html here] [http://www.webcitation.org/5t5PYsx1Y archived page]
3. Takehiko Inoue:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-4V9AbUu1s 1][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCijurCHs9Y 2][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC-NctIixGw 3][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLy2fXpDIak 4][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXNcPVvrZs 5][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rVVetBQc6U 6] interview in six parts on Youtube. Unfortunately i failed to find the Reliable Source that was at the origin of this interview. If someone can pinpoint the source then the premium contents inside the interview could be put to good use in Takehiko Inoue biography.

Thanks everyone --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:Have you ever stumbled across articles talking about long[-running] anime/manga series (stuff like [http://www.comixology.com/articles/322/The-Manga-Cargo-Cult-How-Manga-Got-Long-and-Short-Again- this])? It's definitely a topic with fan interest, but I haven't actually seen any other articles on the matter. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

::I will see what can i find :p --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:Interesting - Manga Impact is actually out? I was expecting it to be delayed (again). --Gwern (contribs) 16:21 29 September 2010 (GMT)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&namespace=0&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=100&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality&filterRelease=on&reviewFilter=0&releaseFilter=1&projecta=Anime%20and%20manga Anime and manga articles and revisionIDs we have chosen]. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi articles with cleanup tags] and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and [http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia for Schools] to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:Before I submit suggestions, I think we should discuss them here. There are a couple on the list I'm concerned about:

• [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi#Anime_and_manga Anime and manga articles cleanup tags] - ones marked with {{tl|original research}}
• Dark Horse Comics - poor quality article. If WP:Comics wants to add it, let them. There are better, and more important to the medium, anime/manga articles out there.
• Otaku - the major section of the article is flagged as original research while the second major section is flagged as trivial.
• Seinen manga - stub (reassased it) fails even the most basic start-class critieria, references, let a lone reliable ones.
• Shogakukan - stub article with only 2 sources and the article is basically a listing. Not really the type of article we'd usually want for a release.
• Shonen manga -stub (i downgraded it after having noticing it was just basically a lead with references) article that is flagged with original research

We can replace them with some of our GA/B-class low ones:

• Sakura Haruno or Sasuke Uchiha - GA/low - one or the other as we don't have a Naruto character article on the list although we have one for bleach, one-piece and DB.
• Mamoru Miyano -related GA/low - our best biography article of a living person
• one or two of the visual novels (we have a lot and i know as there are a ton more video game articles they are unlikely to include any of them)
• One or two of the popular shojo manga series since we have 4 popular shonen manga series.陣内_Jinnai 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:Question, are we also going to suggest having the latest Revision ID for the Wikipedia offline release? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if that's possible to add, but it would be worth asking.陣内_Jinnai 05:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Seems to the case seeing as they're asking to have people review the articles and revision IDs they have chosen. Whoevers representing the Anime and Manga Wikiproject should compile a list of suggested articles and revision. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Well they've only done so for our FA/GA articles.

Anyway if no one else has suggestions, I can review the ones they do have a specific revision for and see if there's a better one, otherwise I'll propose some of the changes above.陣内_Jinnai 03:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Weekly Shōnen Sunday might be better suited then Shogakukan. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm wondering if we should get a light novel on the list. ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 20:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Seems okay. I did not minor edits to the lead. My bigger concern is either cleaning up or finding replacements for those with original research making up the article. Anime seems fine inspite being on the list. I don't think Otaku can be cleaned up in time giving a look at it. Too much original reaserch and unreferenced material. Eroge is a bit more difficult. Seinen manga and Shonen manga are probably the most difffult do to needing to be expanded and the referenced, especially the former.陣内_Jinnai 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

{{undent}}Any further changed? I'm going to make these proposals? Is there any particular light novel that hasn't had an anime/manga adaptation we cover?陣内_Jinnai 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:Their revision of Case Closed is outdated, please suggest the latest revision with your proposal, thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here at the Hollow talk page an editor from the Bleach Wiki is disputing the most common official English name translations and trying to have them all changed out to seemingly more accurate romanizations that are used in the Bleach Wiki as well as by scanlators. The editor does, however, provide an official reliable source for these romanizations: the MASKED Bleach Databook in Japanese. I proposed adding a notation to the prose for each character that has a more accurate romanization that can be properly cited by sources so that readers will know a more accurate and also official romanzation exists. However, the editor continues to push having all the VIZ names washed out due to their opinion of VIZ and their translations, considering the official published version of Bleach to not be a reliable source despite it being the primary English work. I've said my peace already in favor of keeping the Viz names in place as they are the most common and are official ENG names as well as adding into the prose additional official romanizations as cited by the MASKED Databook. More input would be best to reach a consensus. Fox816 (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:There's really nothing to dispute here; WP:MOS-JA and WP:ENGVAR leave no room for fan translations (there is a certain amount of potential wiggle room for series which are obscure in English, but Bleach is definitely not obscure). Alternate official translations are handled in prose. Wikipedia does not put up with fan wank. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks. I wasn't aware of WP:ENGVAR in terms of guidelines and policies. Something to use in the future perhaps.Fox816 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually, now that I look again, ENGVAR's link to the issue of translation is tenuous at best - it deals specifically with national varieties of English. I may have been thinking of WP:USEENGLISH instead (which makes a lot more sense, since USEENGLISH deals specifically with which translation/romanization gets used). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually no guideline/policy prohibits there use. That's why Zolo/Zoro One Piece case got so heated. This was before Funimation came in and used Zoro. Ultimately it was found that enough reliable sources backed that and the author's intention was to have the name as Zoro. I'd say there is some argument here, albeit much weaker, that there is a similar item. I'd say that with it being much weaker (not many English sources using those translations), its a matter of WP:UNDUE, ie you have one official source stating this is the correct version, albeit with a more offical backing vs. every English version out there.陣内_Jinnai 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well first off, why don't we have info boxes for them? It was brought up in my last featured list nomination and I had no clue. Secondly another argument that came up was the lack of English sources for episodes that never aired in English. Should we even have featured episodes lists that do not have English sources for the episode summaries? I have no counter argument for this either. Thirdly, why do episode lists source their theme music with the episode themselves? I need a counter argument for this too. Fourth, it seems a lot of featured episode lists need to be delisted, since they are not seem to meet requirements anymore. I'll list them and the reasons why I think they should be removed. I could also have been mistaken and missed the source (My bad and I apologize), and I'll strike them out when points are proven.

• List of Bleach episodes -Due to below
• List of Bleach episodes (season 1) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 2) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 3) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 4) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 5) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 6) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 7) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 8) -I could not find the English airdate source in article
• List of Bleach episodes (season 9) -I could not find the English airdate source in article

• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes -Due to below
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1) - Airdates are unsourced or sourced with ANN; OS down
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2) - Airdates are unsourced or sourced with ANN; OS down
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3) - Airdates are unsourced or sourced with ANN; OS down
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4) - Airdates are unsourced or sourced with ANN; OS down

;Single lists

• List of Myself ; Yourself episodes -Episode link dead so airdates unsourced
• List of Kaze no Stigma episodes -Unsourced English airdates?
• List of Lupin III Part II episodes -Isn't Lupin Encyclopedia a fansite? Is that allowed?

*List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes - English airdates are unsourced since the site is dead. -Link works now, strange.

• List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes -Airdate sourced with a streaming site, is that allowed?
• List of Claymore episodes -Airdates sourced by ANN
• List of Devil May Cry episodes -ANN
• List of Fate/stay night episodes -Airdate unsourced???
• List of FLCL episodes -Browser might be glitchy but adult swim didn't show the dates... I think. Dates not sourced too?
• List of Gunslinger Girl episodes -One English airdate not sourced
• List of Popotan episodes -Dead link for airdates

The reason I'm asking all this is that I'm intending to send List of Buso Renkin episodes to featured list soon and more knowledge about the current featured lists would be helpful. I have no intention of sending the articles I listed to be delisted. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:Seems to me like List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes's [http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/mew-mew-power/?ipp=40 airdates link] works... Maybe some of the others can be linked to MSN as well? G.A.S^talk 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

::Maybe. But my questions are still unanswered. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 10:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:::To be quite honest, I do not really know the answers to many of the questions, but will try: (1) Very few lists have infoboxes, and I am not sure of the content one would add for them. These lists, are after all, an extension of the main article (which has the main infobox/s. Note: I had a look at WP:FL, and though some lists (in general) have infoboxes, they do not add value, in my opinion). (2) Episode summaries are sourced by the episodes themselves per WP:PRIMARY. (3) Some series do list the theme music in the credits, thus acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. (4) Agreed that some of the lists need new sources. G.A.S^talk 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

::::It's not that infoboxes are prohibited on episode lists, but caution should be used when using them. In many cases, the lead section is simply not long enough to contain an infobox before the episode table begins. This causes an unsightly amount of whitespace between the section header and the table. Even if you put a break between the TOC and the section header, there can still be quite a bit of whitespace. However, if you beef the lead up enough, this shouldn't be a problem. List of Shugo Chara! episodes as an example where the lead is long enough. List of Shugo Chara!! Doki— episodes is an example of where the lead is just barely long enough, and if any more information is added to the infobox, it will cause the format of the article to break. List of Shugo Chara Party! episodes is a example of a lead that isn't long enough to contain the infobox if an image is included in the infobox. —Farix (t | c)

:::::This can't really be used as a solid rule of thumb, though; on my screen (1366x768), I see a fair chunk of whitespace between the lead and episode table on both the Shugo Chara and SC Doki lists. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For series that airs on network television, referencing MSN TV is a viable option. For series that air on Funimation Chanel or Anime Network will be much more difficult as I do not think they keep their first run dates. Japanese airdates should always be referenced to the official website of the series or TV Tokyo (depending on the situation). Just be sure to archive them to WebCite at some point.

• Bleach: [http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/bleach/?ipp=40]
• YuYu Hakusho: http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/yuyu-hakusho/?ipp=40

—Farix (t | c) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

::The TV MSN link for Bleach only goes up to episode 128, can be sourced up to season 5 and most of season 6. YuYuHakusho is still missing its Japanese airdates and the MSN TV links contridict the English airdates on the article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I also just noticed that the dates for Bleach are different from the article as well... back to square 1. (Or am I missing some hidden setting with MSNTV?) G.A.S^talk 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I don't think MSNTV should be used afterall. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• [http://anime_list.at.infoseek.co.jp/ detailed date listing] - Not sure about this. It is used by [http://www.tvdrama-db.com/drama_info/p/id-32652 Drama database] as a source and that site is used for academic research.陣内_Jinnai 06:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

: That website seems to only count episodes that aired from 2000 and later, unless I missed something. With the lack of sources, would the lists up there have a chance of being delisted of nominated? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, its only 2000 or later. As for delisting, its possible. It depends for some of them whether they would allow a listing that said a program was run weekly from X-Y to be considered a RS for all the dates. I've had one member who insisted on each date being citable with Popotan, but others saying that the first and last dates were fine since it gave the day of the week and said it was weekly (ie its not wP:OR to use a calander).陣内_Jinnai 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I like that database, somsone should add it as a reliable source, seeing as its published by Rakuten. I'll be sourcing the unsourced airdates and whatever remains, I'm nominating them for delist. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

::::That's all I'm doing, someone else will need to fix the rest. I think I will send Yuyu in for delist next week. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

:The only online source I can find for original airdates for Minigoddess is [http://homepage2.nifty.com/KNIGHT/anime/data/MEGAMI.html this one] (the only source I trust, that is). That site has a lot of good info, including a lot of other airdates. Obviously it's a fan site, though, so it wouldn't be considered reliable for our purposes. I think it's absurd to require sources for every single airdate, though, per the reasoning given by Jinnai above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buso Renkin episodes/archive1 I think the alert bot is still down. Drop by if you can. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed the merge of Ranger (Transformers), Road King, Metalhawk, Lander (Transformers), Phoenix (Transformers), and Sixknight into List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters as I don't believe they'd survive an AFD. Would appreciate comments at the talk page, thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:The merge has now been completed. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DragonZero has gone and replaced several of these on the talk pages with our own by replacing rather than adding a new template, even when one exists. I'm going to inform their wikiproject, but if anyone knows some particular articles, please check them.陣内_Jinnai 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:I added around sixty Transformers-related articles to the anime project recently, leaving them unassessed for a modern/non-Transformers-literate perspective on their quality. This sounds like an honest mistake, probably caused by the sudden influx of articles. --Malkinann (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops, I've been copy pasting the ratings on and replaced transformers instead of Wpanime. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 17:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:::It seems I only did this mistake on a small amount of transformer articles I rated. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

List of manga series by volume count has been put up for peer review; would anyone care to comment in the review or to fill in the (still numerous) gaps in the list itself? I'd especially like any help in narrowing serialization start/end dates for various series.

Also, I'm wanting to split the list into sections according to the publication frequency of the magazine(s) series are published in, so there'll be one section for weekly series, then biweekly/semimonthly, then monthly, then quarterly/seasonally, then not serialized (speaking of which, does anyone have a clue as to what the longest non-serialized manga series is?); after the split, each section could have its own inclusion criteria. Any thoughts or suggestions? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:Also, I'm wanting to rename the list to something along the lines of "List of longest manga" - any thoughts/suggestions there? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::list of longest volume doesn't sound very wiki like. i think the name is good enough.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually, it would describe the list better than the current title - "List of manga series by volume count" implies an indiscriminate list, sorted by the number of volumes, whereas "List of longest manga" at least shows that there is *some* criterion for inclusion in the list. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::::it still sounds indiscriminate with the proposed name.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:I like the proposed new name - it's simpler to understand. --Malkinann (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::I'm starting to think these types of list are unnecessary.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I can't speak for any other media (including anime, where long series tend to have far more complicated histories anyways), but with manga, at least, there is a considerable level of interest among fans as to what the longest series are (though admittedly this arises mostly in the form of "my series is longer than yours"), and there is at least some academic interest - Jason Thompson has written an [http://www.comixology.com/articles/322/The-Manga-Cargo-Cult-How-Manga-Got-Long-and-Short-Again- article] about it on Comixology, and I would be very surprised to learn that none of the English language manga-related magazines have ever covered the subject (and I've never even *looked* in Japanese, since I wouldn't know if I found anything).

:::::::As for the title, I'll be the first to say I don't think "List of longest manga" is optimal, but it *is* better than the current one, IMO. There's really not much more that can be done about how indiscriminate it sounds; "List of manga series with at least 35 volumes", while (currently) completely accurate, is also way too specific and hard to remember. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

::I'm sorry but other than the review on it, i just don't see how all that reasoning is reassuring. We shouldn't go by fans, and i dont see a reason for a list of manga that's over 35. the same goes for anime by episode count.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the two are sharing the same building, when attendence numbers are posted should a special note be placed on the larger decieving numnber? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Some ip users has been adding english airdates up to 2012 for ever siongel episode past seaosn 2 i have rollbacked seaosn 3 to 8 as htere no way that can be confirmed jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a dispute on whether an "official" fan site should be included on Sora no Otoshimono. I've provided reasons for its removal, but a user does not agree with them and continues to add in the website. Please provide any comments at Talk:Sora no Otoshimono#Re: US "official" fansite.--十八 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

As it was discussed in few places but not yet here, i'm centralizing all the clues here.

Clues of why Twitch Film reviews are worth mention in articles and given a modicum of weight in review section:

• Little Miss Sunshine FA review
• Summer Wars Talk page
• [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=twitchfilm&btnG=Search&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8 Google news hits]

--KrebMarkt (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the following are still separate articles:

• List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (Shin'ei)
• List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (FUNimation)

Neither article cites any secondary sources, and neither article has any mention of creation and conception.

After considering the discussion at Talk:List of Crayon Shin-chan characters (Shin'ei), I think it is time to merge them now. There is no need for further discussion.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

:Be WP:Bold and merge them then. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

::And so I did: List of Crayon Shin-chan characters WhisperToMe (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if this was already in the Reference library, but while researching YuYu Hakusho, I found an archive of transcribed Animerica feature articles from the magazine's website [http://web.archive.org/web/20040407203643/http://www.animerica-mag.com/features/index.html here]. The articles are very good and could prove useful for anyone wanting to expand articles for these major series. ~ Hibana (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

: Thank you for finding that index! This stuff will be useful WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

:I'm going to link them in all the relevant External Links sections, although some of the titles give me pause (Sailor Moon vs. Buffy? Where does that go?. --Gwern (contribs) 20:50 10 October 2010 (GMT)

I could use extra pairs of eyes on Sailor_Moon_(English_adaptations)#Beginning for WP:NPOV when discussing SOS/Save Our Sailors. In a few reliable sources, ([http://www.animefringe.com/magazine/00.10/feature/2/index.php3 Animefringe], [http://web.archive.org/web/20040407173350/www.animerica-mag.com/features/sailormoonreturns.html Animerica], Anime Explosion!, [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ck2Q5qPVSlYC&pg=PA154&dq=%22Save+Our+Sailors%22+%22sailor+Moon%22&hl=en&ei=HJK1TL-CBMWXcab_tc4I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Save%20Our%20Sailors%22&f=false Anne Allison],) SOS is credited with returning Sailor Moon to the air, however, in fandom circles, the picture is muddier. There's a discussion here. --Malkinann (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

the article is proposed for deletion here. It would be gret if it got some attention.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stealing Krebmart's idea (sorry), I made an archive about reception that can be used in GetBackers in Talk:GetBackers#Reception. However, I could not find any manga review that isn't from Anime News Network. Could anybody check if they find a manga review? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone with good knowledge of the Wikipedia guidelines, please check whether Team Animazing should be deleted. Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:I don't see any real potential for a stand-alone article here. At the very least, any salvageable material should probably be redirected to the broadcasting network's article(s). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Kuro-chan is up for a community good article reassessment - please feel free to weigh in on its status, or be bold and have a go at improving it to meet the GA standards. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

{{#if:|User:{{{2}}} has|I have}} nominated List of YuYu Hakusho episodes for Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/{{#if:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. No harm intended. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Raruto...

I just learned that it was mentioned in Spanish newspapers: :Commons:User_talk:WhisperToMe#Re:Raruto

I'm going to see if I can build an article about it. My draft will be at User:WhisperToMe/Raruto

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Notified: {{user|Jinnai}}

I'm in need of help. Jinnai and I are having a difference of opinion of some sort, that we can't resolve on our own. He suggested to me to start an RfC on the matter, but I think asking here first is preferable. Normally, I'd sum up his opinion at this point before providing a summary of my own opinion. However, as I'm often having trouble comprehending what he is trying to say, I won't, so as not to risk misrepresenting his view. Instead, I've created a list of chronologically ordered diffs of our conversations, which took place during two FLCs of List of One Piece manga volumes. Suffice it to say, that it is about what the article's lead should contain and how the lead should be worded.

• During the first FLC: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321079118][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321093921][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321187853][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321709930][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321769410][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321807739][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FList_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes%2Farchive1&action=historysubmit&diff=321863772&oldid=321855172][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321863772][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321877203][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321889083][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321922242][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321952573][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321963509][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive1&diff=next&oldid=321965914][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FList_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes%2Farchive1&action=historysubmit&diff=322204523&oldid=321976696][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FList_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes%2Farchive1&action=historysubmit&diff=325335753&oldid=323407368]
• During the second FLC: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FList_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes%2Farchive2&action=historysubmit&diff=380532071&oldid=380481513][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=380532071][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=382629749][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=382919673][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=383008825][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FList_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes%2Farchive2&action=historysubmit&diff=383117559&oldid=383008825][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=383117559][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=383431119][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=383587215][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=383636255][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_One_Piece_manga_volumes/archive2&diff=next&oldid=383670795]

I realize that it's a lot to read. My apologies. I tried to reduce the number of diffs and total amount of text as much as possible by omitting resolved issues and combining consecutive edits. Please comment. Thanks in advance. Goodraise 22:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Previous discussions: Here and at RS/N

This possible source of information was originally brought up because it provides English air dates for anime episodes. Sadly, I missed the RS/N thread or I would have commented there. The claimed citations by Oakland Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times are proving to be a little bit harder to find than I hoped, but, all in all, I think Arsonal came up with enough examples of usage by others to support Toon Zones use for air dates at least (which is, I think, the most valuable part as far as we're concerned). Normally, I'd have added the page directly to the reference library, but considering that the standing consensus apparently sees this differently, I figured it would be better to come here first. Goodraise' 05:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

here's a list of some articles that need some work that i'm currently looking at. I hope some of these are very familiar.

• Outlaw Star
• Android Kikaider
• Cyborg 009
• D.I.C.E.
• G-Force: Guardians of Space
• Blue Submarine No.6

some are easily recognizable, some aren't. but i do hope they will be taken a good look at and possibly fixed to a certain degree that is very noticable and more presentable. i currently don't have time as much as i use to unfortunately, so my edits have been to a minimum.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:For anyone interested, I've started a chapter list for Cyborg 009 in my userspace; it needs a *lot* of work, though (for starters, this is one of those series where the English volumes don't line up with the Japanese ones, at least as near as I can tell). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:Maybe you can indent the numbered and side stories so it's easier to distinguish.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a navbox for Android Kikaider. I will attempt to add a wikitable for the episodes list. A bit more trimming here and there, but the main concern i have for those articles is references, there is none.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For Android Kikaider I did a few restructuring, but still needs ref. If anyone is familiar with tokusatsu series, it would be a great help to add ref where they can be added.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started sprucing up Outlaw Star myself. Any extra help is appreciated. ~ Hibana (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw, good job. I'll see what i can do for that article, though it looking pretty good now. I'll see what i can do with the characters article.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the series has adapted to an anime, a anime remake, another anime remake, and 3 films. I was thinking we could add a wikitable for all the main characters voices. What do you think?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please give an answer to me or suggestions? The article is too long and the main reason is due to the Voice Cast. I really don't know how to do a wikitable for this certain article.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:I would prefer that a List of Cyborg 009 characters be split off of the main article. – Allen for IPv6 06:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...i agree, still, it would take up too much space to explain all the voice actors the characters have had. i'll look up reliable sources though.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vampire Hunter D "film" is actually an OVA according to all the Japanese sources I can find. Even ANN [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=654 lists it as an OVA]. I propose moving it to Vampire Hunter D (1985 OVA) instead and updating the infobox accordingly. I bring it here first because it's a well known work and I don't want any edit warring when it gets moved. Thoughts? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

:According to the Japanese sources that I consulted, the 1985 anime is a movie, not an OVA. It was theatrically distributed by Toho and later in video by Sony.

:[http://www.allcinema.net/prog/show_c.php?num_c=149636 1], [http://movie.goo.ne.jp/movies/p18151/ 2], [http://www.accessup.org/janime/7_Vampire_20Hunter_20D/edit_history.html 3]

:The most convincing source in that aspect is Production Reed (formerly Ashi Productions), the studio behind the animation of Vampire Hunter D.

:[http://www.pro-reed.com/works/index.html Works (Japanese)] [http://www.pro-reed.com/works/english.html Works (English)] Jfgslo (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::There are a fair number of OVAs which were later theatrically released, so the question is how it was released first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:::The 1985-12-21 appears to be the theatrical release date. I do not know when it was released on video. I'm inclined to believe that the anime is a movie because Production Reed clearly divides its OVA work from its movie work and also because there is a theatrical trailer of the anime from Toho, not Sony. Jfgslo (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::::That makes sense, then. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline was deprodded, by Gwern with an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_timeline&action=historysubmit&diff=391730866&oldid=390606827 edit summary] suggesting a merge. When the deletion of the article was first floated by Bread Ninja in September of last year, Gwern had suggested a merge to Neon Genesis Evangelion. I presume Gwern's reasoning was something like per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. I proposed a merge and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwern&action=historysubmit&diff=391776879&oldid=391748092 invited] Gwern to participate, but he has not. I'm not really fussed about this article, and am not really sure why it could/should be merged. I would appreciate it if more people could please participate in the discussion so that we can get a consensus on what to do with the timeline. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Commons category :Commons:Category:Naruto and its daughter categories have many images that need English language descriptions of their categories.

For those of you with spare time, please make sure all images have descriptions in English

Once all images have descriptions in English, make sure the Japanese Wikipedians understand that they need to add Japanese descriptions to all Naruto images

BTW many of these images were uploaded for use on the French Wikipedia, which does not permit uploading images of nonfree characters. It could help for EN to use some of these images.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:Actually, many of those images are not free images because they are derived from copyrighted images of the original work. Because of that, they are in violation of Common's policies. —Farix (t | c) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::Whichever images are in violation need to be dominated for deletion, and the original uploader should be notified. Commons has a "Nominate for deletion" tag which may be used to nominate a file for deletion. For speedy copyright violations (See Commons:Deletion#Speedy_deletion), tag the image with {{speedy|Insert reason here}}

::I referred to your post at Commons:Village_pump#Naruto_images_copyright_concerns, so hopefully people on the Commons will help determine which images are free and which images are not

::And I posted a reminder about the category (both about Japanese descriptions and about copyright concerns) at :ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Commons:Category:Naruto

::WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:: Which images? Pictures of cosplay is perfectly free, so saith the Wikimedia lawyer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Pretty much everything in :Commons:Category:Symbols of Naruto, :Commons:Category:Object (Naruto), :Commons:Category:Eyes (Naruto), :Commons:Category:Mudras Naruto, :Commons:Category:Naruto characters and :Commons:Category:Raruto are derived works based on the illustrations of the original manga and cannot be used without fair-use rationals. There are also three images in the main category that are also derived works. Someone will need to check up on the images in :Commons:Category:Naruto Stats but I believe those images are recreations of ones found in the character books, and thus would not be free-use. Since Commons is for free-use images, they are in violation of commons policies. —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Prosfilaes responded at Commons:Village_pump#Naruto_images_copyright_concerns - Raruto is listed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests (:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Raruto) - For the others, people familiar with the series need to look at the images and determine individually which ones are okay and which ones are not. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

:The discussion has been archived at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Oct#Naruto_images_copyright_concerns WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Found a site called [http://imrc.jp/ the International Manga Research Center] which is supported by Kyoto Seika University and its subsiduary, the [http://www.kyotomm.jp/english/about/mm/about-imrc.php Kyoto International Manga Museum]. Found [http://imrc.jp/2010/09/26/20100924Comics%20Worlds%20and%20the%20World%20of%20Comics.pdf a really big] publication on various aspects of manga. I believe the IMRC should be added to the Internet RS list. --Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:I got a question that's very vaguely related to that site. What is the list [http://imrc.jp/column/mangagaku/2010/ here] supposed to mean? I found Case Closed on it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::Looks vaguely like a list of manga reviews from Asahi Shinbun? [http://imrc.jp/column/ this] describes it as "Weekly series "Hot Blooded! Manga Research" / "Everyone's Manga Research" in Asahi Shimbun. A relay column by imrc researchers introducing the appeal and social impact of popular manga, with a special emphasis on post-war Japan." The name's clickable, which gives [http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://imrc.jp/column/mangagaku/2010/08/post-4.html&ei=pZ7KTKvGKIOovQOWo_jKDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://imrc.jp/column/mangagaku/2010/08/post-4.html%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Div this] in google translate. --Malkinann (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:I would support this as a reliable source for information. Matt Thorn is an associate professor in the Department of Manga Production at that university, too. Maybe he has something to do with the site? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

::Doesn't seem so. [http://imrc.jp/researcher/ Jaqueline Berndt], a German manga scholar, seems to be the boss, under Keiko Takemiya, of course. I'm a bit concerned about the wording of the call for corrections [http://imrc.jp/lecture/2009/12/comics-in-the-world.html here] for the BIG pdf I linked above: "Please note that this is a tentative version which had to be uploaded to prove the volume’s very existence to the funding authority. We welcome your corrections until Nov. 20, 2010." - does anyone else interpret this as 'the draft will be freely online until the 20th, but we will be taking it down after that'? Or am I over-cautious? --Malkinann (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heeuuuu. I guess i'm up to write few lines here :(

• First add the Kyoto Seika manga department, research center and museum as bundle in the project RS list.
• Second remember that the whole Kyoto Seika works by private founding so they do have to create events and write publications to appeal their donors, sponsors, patrons...
• Third, i'm a bit surprised that Kyoto Seika wasn't mentioned sooner in the project. The [http://www.kyotomm.jp/HP/international/english/2009/04/moebius_e.php Moebius] [http://www.wartmag.com/?p=6624 Exhibit] in 2009 or [http://neuviemeart.citebd.org/spip.php?page=blog_neufetdemi&id_article=5 Thierry] [http://neuviemeart.citebd.org/spip.php?page=blog_neufetdemi&id_article=6 Groensteen] [http://neuviemeart.citebd.org/spip.php?page=blog_neufetdemi&id_article=7 few] [http://neuviemeart.citebd.org/spip.php?page=blog_neufetdemi&id_article=8 comments] (the posts dated from January 2010).

Note: Thierry Groensteen is probably one of the most prominent if not the #1 comics scholar in French. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is coming out of a discussion over at Go Nagai - Talk:Go Nagai#On WP:BLPNAME and family...

The upshot is that an infobox template has been put together tailored for mangaka - {{tl|Infobox mangaka}}

This is to bring it to the attention of the Project, see if it is something that is useful, and to get some feedback on it.

- J Greb (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Why do we not have a singe infobox for biographies, such a {{tl|Infobox person}}, instead of all of these mostly minor variation thereof said template? This just make things more confusing then they need to be. —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

::There have been attempts to roll everything in to {{tl|infobox person}} before, but they've gotten bogged down due to the sheer number of different parameters; unless the fields and labels are made individually configurable on each article, the base template would need to support every variation.

::Having said that, there's a way to modify the more specific template such that it can be used either alone or as a section within {{tl|infobox person}}; see, for example, Template:Infobox military person/testcases. If there's interest in exploring this, I don't think it would be too difficult to set up a sandbox version. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps it would be good to comment why {{tl|Infobox mangaka}} was created and what are the main differences with other infobox templates. As most of you know, manga creator biographies do not use a single type of infobox. For example Akira Toriyama uses {{tl|Infobox person}}, Naoko Takeuchi uses {{tl|Infobox Writer}}, Leiji Matsumoto uses {{tl|Infobox artist}} and Osamu Tezuka {{tl|Infobox comics creator}}. Most mangaka biographies are currently using the generic {{tl|Infobox person}}.

:The idea of using a specific template for manga creator biographies is, like with other Wikiprojects, to have specific fields for relevant information to our area, for example, "Alma mater" and "Academic advisors" in {{tl|Infobox scientist}} or "School" and "Main interests" in {{tl|Infobox Philosopher}}.

:One of the things that J Greb and I were discussing is that mangaka and comic book creator, although similar, are different enough to warrant different fields. For example, editors are notable in American comic books, but rarely mentioned in manga. Also, a mangaka is more related to a cartoonist because it regularly creates all aspects of a Japanese comic and is the copyright owner of his work, but since cartoonist has the connotation of being someone who draws for children or in newspapers, it wouldn't be accurate to use "cartoonist" to describe a mangaka. What's more, several discussions have occurred in the past regarding a possible merge between cartoonist, comic book creator and mangaka, but all have ended with recognizing that there are enough differences to have them in different articles.

:Therefore, the idea is to have a consensus to have a single infobox for manga creators so that we can standardize all mangaka articles with a single format, like we do for all manga. We could also follow Kirill's idea, but, nonetheless, we still , would need to define which fields are relevant for mangaka.

:The ones that I suggested are relatives/spouse for notable relatives, like Naoko Takeuchi's husband, and something like writer/illustrator for the few mangaka that are more notable for a single area, like Kazuo Koike. I also commented that perhaps these fields could be used for light novel creators. Another suggestions was that, instead of influences/influenced, it could be Assistant of/Notable assistant(s) since it's common that mangaka start as assistants, like Osamu Tezuka→Leiji Matsumoto→Kaoru Shintani

:As I told J Greb, these are only suggestions from my personal perspective. More opinions and suggestions regarding an infobox for mangaka are needed in order to have a consensus. We could, for example, use the infobox to automatically add categories like year of birth or place of origin or some other stuff. Please share your ideas here. Jfgslo (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::The solution isn't to create {{tl|yet another biography infobox}}, we have too many of those already. What really needs to be done is to consolidated many of these bio infoboxes together and avoid creating more highly specialized infoboxes for biographies. —Farix (t | c) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:::And how would you propose going about that for instances where the "basic" doesn't provide the context a specific set of articles needs? I can see 4 options there:

:::#Use the "kitchen sink" principle and add every possible field to the base - making it a pain in the ass to use for the "uninitiated"

:::#Use a core set of named fields and relegate other content to variable fields that would have to be set up on each article. Which all but defeats the purpose since consistency within a set gets shot to hell.

:::#"Overlays" which are a variation of #2 but still creates more templates. The Overlay would be used to create the consistency and use the existing overly flexible base. Note that this is pretty much what all infobox templates using {{tl|Infobox}} are.

:::#Use of a infobox tailored to the content and broad topic in question.

:::- J Greb (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::::As far a manga artists and authors are concerned, I don't see why {{tl|Infobox person}} cannot be used. Most of the "specialized" fields of the other biography infoboxes are just cruft 99% and don't add anything of relevance to most biographies they are on. —Farix (t | c) 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Personally, I don't agree with that. I think that those special fields, most of the time, add relevant data for particular areas of knowledge and are easier to handle for editors than the generic {{tl|Infobox person}}. Like most other WikiProjects, I think we could use a specific template for mangaka.

:::::But TheFarix makes a good point. Do we use {{tl|Infobox person}} or do we need a specific infobox template for mangaka biographies? It would be good to have a consensus so that we standardize this project's biographies. Even if it's decided not to use a specific infobox template for biographies, which are the relevant fields that a mangaka biography article should have and which aren't? Jfgslo (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::As far as I can see, {{tl|Infobox person}} already has all of the fields we need for most biographies. As for "specialized" templates, I really don't see the need for them, especially if you can document how to use the basic template for specific types of biographies, like we do with {{tl|Infobox animanga/Video}} and {{tl|Infobox animanga/Print}}. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

:Would someone else like to share his opinion? As this discussion is right now, I believe that there is no consensus either way. Jfgslo (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

::More specific template and more complicated it would be for new editors to get on the train. Beyond that i feel this whole topic a luxury as there are still too many unsourced or badly sourced mangaka articles hanging around. --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Son Goku is more commonly known as "Goku" in english. So shouldn't it be changed to son goku? this was probably argued before, so maybe someone could just show me it's previous discussion.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:Correct. "Goku" was found to be the most used term in English sources. The last discussion that I know of took place here: Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters/Archive_2#Character_Names. There were some problems with how to do the searches because some of the names are easily confused with other things (like the other Goku), how to use other terms to include only Dragon Ball related websites and a few small similar tweaks needed. As far as I know, the names weren't changed because the discussion pretty much got forgotten but there was a preliminary agreement to make the changes once the name searches in more reliable sources were done. Jinnai may have a better insight since he was the one that did most of the research about the names. Jfgslo (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Basically I found that even a few who used Son Goku. In addition, Jason Thompson uses Goku while noting that Son Goku is the offical name used in the manga when doing his manga reviews. This would more strongly imply that Goku is more commonly used. In fact the anime uses for all the DB names trumped the manga with the possible exception of Lord Piccolo.陣内_Jinnai 02:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok i see now. so if anyone objects, we could change it to Goku sometime this week?Bread Ninja (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've put together a first draft of a redesigned project page and navigation template. This is obviously a rough cut, intended primarily to demonstrate the layout and formatting; I haven't really done any editing of the text itself, which is probably something that would be worthwhile at some point.

There are a couple of main questions with the draft:

1. Does the tabbed layout work for everyone? I've selected a few of the major pages to link to, as well as several new ones that hold material split off from the main project page; what other pages should appear in the tab bar (keeping in mind that only so many tabs will fit on the screen)?
2. How does the navigation template look? There were some concerns about making it too dense, so I've tried to keep the structure somewhat easy for a visitor to follow; is the template itself easy to navigate? What changes should be made to the organization and/or layout of the links? Do people like the sidebar, or would everyone prefer a draft with a (probably modified) full-width box?
3. What should we do about the color scheme? I've mostly kept to the colors of the existing navbox, which focus on light shades of blue; it's pleasantly understated, but may also be too monotonous. Are there other colors that should appear? (I was originally thinking of using the pink shade from the BarnSakura for highlights, but that may be too garish.)

On a tangential note, a few observations I made while collecting links for the navigation box:

• The peer review process appears to have last been used more than a year ago. It's probably worth considering whether an attempt should be made to revive it (either as a stand-alone entity or under some broader umbrella) or whether it should be marked historical and archived.
• A number of subpage talk pages (e.g. the ones for cleanup lists, etc.) are empty except for a project banner. Unless there's a real need to have these pages tracked through the banner, I would suggest redirecting them up to the closest "active" talk page, to avoid having new users leave messages there that never get answered.
• Somewhat more generally, a consolidation of some of the lower-traffic talk pages up to a higher level might be useful for centralizing discussion to venues with a critical mass of participants.

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it looks okay, I like the layout but the images are small, and there is no real bar of a top to add to the design. I also liked the green colors better. All in all though I would give this one a 70% - 75% Make the wiki-tan images a bit bigger, and add a top header along with the tabs under that and its a go by me =). This is just my opinion mind you, I will wait for other editors input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• By "top header", do you mean a (decorative) block under the tab row (as in, say, WP:MILHIST), or something above the tab row? If it's the first, then that's easily done; if it's the second, then we're somewhat constrained because anything block-like above the tabs will interfere with the visual impact of the tabs themselves—in other words, a bar above the tabs will make them look like buttons rather than "tabs". It would be possible, I suppose, to put something like a line or two of text there (some sort of "Welcome to the project"-type message, perhaps?), without a border, but I'm not sure if that would be useful. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I personally like the idea, but don't like the headers (title of the sections) is. Soundsa little like jeopardy. you should try not to make each headline a question.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• That was actually based on some discussions at WikiConference NYC 2010; apparently, first-time visitors are often confused by our normal dense, jargon-heavy headings, and respond better to headings that are in the form of questions that "walk" them through a page. It's a minor issue, however, and I can certainly change them to the normal style if that's what people prefer. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Though, none of the headlines seem like they would be filled with jargon-heavy headings or be completely Dense if we put them in a normal non-question like manner especially if the opening sentence explains most of it. what's new? can be Announcements and How can we Participate? seems to complicate things just because it's not technically correct. More like Join Wikiproject would be more easier, and it could explain what the wikiproject does. members list doesn't only see who is participating. What Guidelines do we have? can simply be Guidelines, What Awards do we Offer? can simple be Awards, What are other Related Project? can simply be Related Projects. we don't need questions for these sections because you added an explanation on the bottom, and the titles aren't as dense. in fact this helps more the idea you wanted.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Fair enough; I'll make those changes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't see the need to redesign our project page. I'm not particularly enthralled by the "tab" layout and the "boxed" layout seems awkward and amateurish. The only good thing about it is that it moves the "Recognized articles" and "Articles that require attention" off the main page. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well, we could certainly consider each part of the redesign (split project page, new navigation template, tabbed layout) individually, if that's what everyone prefers; there's no particular reason why all three would need to be adopted as a package. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• I like the proposed layout in general. And while we certainly don't need to redesign the project page, I think the organizational aspect of the tabbed/boxed layout works very well and serves to make more content more easily accessible than having it buried somewhere in the depths of the current page. It may even encourage people to participate more in those areas since they don't have to hunt for them to know they are there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Related wikiprojects should be moved to a dropdown tab like TFs. They essentially serve the same purpose so there's no reason to have TFs there, but related/descendant/parent wikiprojects.

  I'm also not sure "Showcase" is the best descriptor for our Feature/good articles. FE, "Showcase" could theoretically include showcasing Wikipe-tan since she has become a widely popular mascot.陣内_Jinnai 19:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• By "dropdown tab", I assume you mean a collapsing block in the navigation template? It would be pretty trivial to add links to the related projects there, but the drawback would be that using the "related changes" tool on the template would list edits to all of those projects, most of which would probably not be relevant to anyone here. This could be mitigated to some degree by linking only to the project pages, not their talk pages, since those are probably lower-traffic; but there would still be some unrelated changes mixed in.
• As far as "showcase" is concerned, it's a fairly common term among projects for pages listing their featured/good/etc. material (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Showcase, etc.), but if anyone has a different term they'd like to see used, that can always be done. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• For the nav template, I think that would be worth it. It makes things look consistant and there are times when easy access to what has changed in say WP:Japan may be relevant to someone reading the page.
• Well I don't think its obvious to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedian practices. Also it exists elsewhere is not a reason why we must do so here anymore than it applies to articles; if it did, nothing would ever change.陣内_Jinnai 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well, fair enough; but what name should we use for that page, then? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Quality Articles or something along that line.陣内_Jinnai 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, done. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Coming late to this part of the discussion, but another one often used is "Recognized content". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Related to the tabs, here's another way to do the tabs that would allow for a header: Portal:Energy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• That would work if we moved that first paragraph in there and put the news coverage at the top.陣内_Jinnai 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• I can put together a draft of that design, if people are interested in seeing one. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Could be useful to have some options.陣内_Jinnai 00:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. If you can throw together an example, that would be awesome. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}

Okay, I've put together a rough draft of the top-facing tab variant here. I'm not sure whether the project news is the best thing to put up there, at least in their current form—the text integrated into the tab block will be highly visible, and might better be used for more pressing announcements—but it is an interesting design. Comments would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:I actually like it. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:I still don't see the need to completely redesign the project page. A few tweaks here and there to aid navigation and splitting the "Recognized articles" and "Articles that require attention" sections off onto their own pages is all that needs to be done. I honestly don't like the "boxed" layout that you want to do. Can you provide a draft using normal section headings instead of the "boxed" layout? —Farix (t | c) 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

::Okay, fair enough; here are variants of the first and second drafts using regular headers as opposed to highlighted boxes. (The alignment of some of the collapsible blocks is a bit rough, but I think this is enough to evaluate the general approach.)

::Personally, I think the regular headers are too subtle. They're fine if a reader is only navigating via the TOC, and not actually looking at the entire page, or if we're talking about something like an article (where the intent is to make continuous reading as smooth as possible); but as far as visual impact in a brochure-like welcome page is concerned, they strike me as quite bland. Your mileage may vary, of course. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I've tweaked both drafts, especially putting the Project's scope at the top after the lead. Now if only we can get rid of that body line. —Farix (t | c) 23:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

::::If you're referring to the line around the bulk of the page, it could be removed on the second variant, since the tabs are mated to the top block; on the first, we'd wind up with tabs floating without an actual tab body, which I think would confuse people.

::::More generally, I'm not really convinced that these drafts present a better visual effect to viewers—I think the appearance is a bit too pedestrian to be eye-catching—but I'll go with whatever everyone else thinks.

::::On a tangential note, I'm not sure that it makes sense to have the instructions/code for the awards placed so prominently on the page; it's probably not something that visitors would need or want to see. Collapsing blocks may not be the best approach here, of course; perhaps there would be a point to simply moving those instructions onto an award template documentation page and trimming the material on the front page to a simple link? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::I don't see why the project's page be visually different from a policy, guideline, or any other page in the Wikipedia name space. It does not needs to be "eye-catching", which to me is code for "bad design". The project's page should covey information in an organized, easy to find. Regular section headings can do this job beautifully. But the "boxed" look you are proposing is too much of a visual jigsaw puzzle and hard to navigate around.

:::::As for collapsed boxes, my view is that they should be used sparingly and only to high large bodies of information that would otherwise clutter the page. The documentation for the barnstar awards doesn't take up that much space and frankly, doesn't need to be hidden. And since there are only two awards recognized by the project, I don't see a need to create a separate page for them. —Farix (t | c) 13:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Well, I think that comparing the project page to something like a policy/guideline/etc. isn't the best approach; most Wikipedia policy pages are proverbially difficult to read.

::::::More generally, my view is that the primary objective of a WikiProject's main page is to cater to first-time visitors, not to existing project members; the page must not only provide essential details about the project, but also implicitly (or explicitly) act as an effective recruitment tool, keeping in mind that the amount of time and effort a casual visitor is willing to devote to perusing the page is significantly less than what might be reasonable for a regular project member. From this perspective, non-essential details (or, more broadly, details that aren't relevant or meaningful to visitors) should be pushed from the main page onto deeper project pages, to avoid unnecessarily lengthening or convoluting the page.

::::::Is there any reason why a first-time visitor would be interested in the precise code used to award the BarnSakura, for example? The existence of the award itself might be of interest—and I say "might", because there's an argument to be made that even that level of detail is excessive—but certainly not the template documentation for it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I guess you and I will simply agree to disagree. Drafts 1.5 and 2.5 will work find after removing the body line around the page. —Farix (t | c) 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Fair enough; I suppose we'll just have to see which layout everyone else prefers. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

:Well there is still the one I designed User:Jinnai/AnM if that might give some inspiration.陣内_Jinnai 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

::Interesting. That's not all that different from some of the drafts above, except that it uses the full portal-style box layout rather than a hybrid one.

::On another note, does anyone else have a preference for any (or all, or none) of the new designs? We currently have four different drafts:

::* Draft 1 (bottom-facing tabs, hybrid box-style headers)

::* Draft 1.5 (bottom-facing tabs, regular headers)

::* Draft 2 (floating tab box, hybrid box-style headers)

::* Draft 2.5 (floating tab box, regular headers)

::Any thoughts on the current drafts, or suggestions for modifications and/or new drafts, would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer either Draft 1 or 1.5 with no particular lean on either. I like regular headers since it's just simple and the block colors of the box-style is a bit distracting for me. Then again I also like the box-style since it gives the page a more organized look by having that visual segmentation. I didn't like any of the Draft 2's as I think the top box with the news is too large and misplaced. It reminds me too much of large top banner ads which I'm not fond of on any website ^^; Fox816 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:I prefer 1 or 2, but I still think that bottom section should be added to the navbox.陣内_Jinnai 02:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

::I've added the related project list as a section in the navbox. Should it be left at the bottom of the page as well, or do we want to remove it from there and just use the navbox version? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward Draft 1. But I wouldn't mind if we go with 1.5. ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 12:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone else have an opinion? :-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

::I prefer Draft 1. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Looking at the discussion so far, it seems that Draft 1 might be marginally more popular than the others, but obviously there are some strong objections to it as well. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

::::There is no support for 2.5 and only one for 2. I'd say relist this with some those two and maybe addressing some of the issues raised so far.陣内_Jinnai 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Okay, that's a good idea; I'll fiddle with 1 and 1.5 a bit based on the comments so far and we can go from there. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Following Jinnai's suggestion above, I've put together updated versions of drafts 1 and 1.5:

• Draft 1A
• Draft 1.5A

I've condensed and/or trimmed some of the redundant material, and copy-edited most of the remaining text; the resulting drafts are essentially identical, with the only major difference being the use of block-like section headings in 1A versus normal section headings in 1.5A.

Personally, I'm leaning towards 1.5A; with the collapsible blocks in some of the sections, the normal section headings look a bit neater. What does everyone else think? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone? ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

::Personally, I like draft 1A better. :) ~Itzjustdrama does not equal a Drama Llama 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::I like neither of them. The 1.5 draft was better than either of these. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:::There isn't (or shouldn't be) all that much difference between 1.5 and 1.5A, except for some sections being condensed; is there something in particular that has gotten worse between those two versions? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

::::I prefer 1A.陣内_Jinnai 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't really see a solid consensus on which of the drafts people find preferable. I also think we may be losing everyone's interest in the discussion (it has dragged on for almost two months!), and I'm not sure that the minor differences in formatting are something that everyone has a clear preference on, or are worth spending too much time on in any case.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has objected to common elements between all the drafts—the new navigation template and the use of a tabbed approach for reducing the main page size—so I've gone ahead and implemented both of those without changing the rest of the page layout. We can continue going over the formatting of the section headers and the use of the collapsible boxes (which are the main differences between the drafts) if people would like that; alternately, we can just leave those question for a future discussion, and just stick with the basic format change for now.

Personally, I think the reduction of the page size helps a lot in and of itself, so I'm not too concerned about the finer points of the section formatting; we can always work on the individual sections one by one as people have time and interest.

In either case, any comments would be appreciated! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:I think a poll at the bottom of this page might generate more discussion. A lot of people just scroll to the bottom automatically.陣内_Jinnai 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::Can someone fix the assessment page, cause of the graph, the page is stretched. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Okay, fixed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)