Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga: Difference between revisions

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:15, November 17, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Mascot Discussions

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

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

I have been thinking if it's possible to form a task force or WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Studio Ghibli. Any thoughts, opinions or ideas would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would work best as a task force. I'm interested in helping with it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in as well I am a big fan of his works and would intrest me to help out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im also interesred in a studio ghibli task force.Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, the task force will not only be a descendant of WP:ANIME, but it will also be a descendant of both WP:FILM and WP:CVG. I am also notifying the WP:FILM project and WP:CVG as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM I can easily understand, but WP:VG? I must have missed something in Ghibli's releases. —Farix (t | c) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is a video game animated by Studio Ghibli: Ni no Kuni. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one, maybe two, games? That doesn't seem like enough crossover for the tack force to be a descendant project of WP:VG. *shrug* —Farix (t | c) 18:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Farix. Were it a task force, VG is barely relevant. As for Films, I would suggest that such a task force would best be represented as one of Anime and managa. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no video games done directly by Studio Ghibli as a whole, but they have assisted in work required for several (including two Nausicaa video games). So it's more than just one or two. There are at least 4 additional games I can think of which used Ghibli's services to one extent or another. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it should also be a descendant of WP:DISNEY, since Walt Disney Studios is the primary licensor of Ghibli's works in general. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. GKIDS now distributes many of the films, so Disney may be moving themselves away from that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am developing the Ghibli task force page in my sandbox. It can be found at User:Sjones23/Studio Ghibli task force. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have started the project in the main space; it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Studio Ghibli. Anyone who is interested please sign up in the participants section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gather materials to revamp the article Mushishi and it's related article(s), and I was wondering if this counts as a reliable source. I've never heard of the publisher, so I just wanted to be sure. – Maky ^« talk » 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoro Books is an imprint of DH Publishing which also publishes other "unofficial" guides to various anime and manga series. But I cannot tell if this would be classified as vanity press or something other. If it is the former, it would not be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a way to find out? I don't mind shelling out a few bucks to get it and use it as a source, but I'm new to all of this, and I'm not sure how to determine these things. Any suggestions? If it helps, there is a preview on Amazon... – Maky ^« talk » 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I know how to determine whether DH Publishing is a vanity publisher, I would have given you a better answer. :\ —Farix (t | c) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have written to the publisher to ask for clarification, and will post what I receive back. – Maky ^« talk » 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have one or two of the "Mysteries and secrets revealed" books. As it says on the cover, it is unauthorised and I personally wouldn't use one as a source for anything. I gave up reading the Evangelion one since I kept disagreeing with it, and the Negima one (which I don't have) was used to "end" an argument here over Evangeline's full name (although that ref appears to have been removed at some point while no Japanese source confirmed "Katherine" as of around vol. 29 of the manga when I stopped importing). Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't see that on the cover. Thanks. I'll scratch that one from my list. For now, I have the manga coming in by mail, and I hope to find some other fans who might be willing to translate the Japanese websites for me. Best, – Maky ^« talk » 18:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About a week and a half ago, I started a discussion about the |production= field that was included into {{Infobox animanga/Video}} without any previous discussions that I could find. I am still looking for input on the issue before doing anything beyond checking to see how many articles are using the field (37). —Farix (t | c) 04:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added this parameter, because in my opinion this information is actually important for works like Dennō Coil or Space Battleship Yamato 2199; it makes clear which entity produces and invests in the show (note that in these cases the animation studio just works on a contract for other (big) companies behind the project) and who holds the copyright on the product. Information about the copyright holders and investors shoud be present in the article; eitehr in the body text or in the infobox; I would say the infobox is a good place for adding such info. --Raamin (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshing out: The information about production companies behind an animated project is not an unimportant and excessive detail. These production companies are generally listed in the OP or ED of works (what ja.wikipedia uses I presume; for such works like Oda Nobuna no Yabō where the production companies aren't mentioned, ja.wikipedia doesn't list company names) and as I said earlier are copyright holders of the work; not the animation studio hired. Companies like Aniplex, Geneon Universal Entertainment or NHK Enterprises are actually the main forces behind works they produce; they decide who does what, they own the copyright, they are the one promoting and publishing the works they produce. These are big names (in the industry they are active) and should be mentioned properly in respective articles; I am of the opinion that infobox is a good place for this information. If adding the information in the infobox is not favoured, what other methods do you suggest? Adding an extra section in the body text of every article, like ja.wikipedia ("スタッフ" section)? --Raamin (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Japanese Movie Database#JMDB. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipedical has been changing all the titles to List of Reborn! episodes to ones from the TV project. I reverted them but Reborn! (seasons 2-3) cannot be moved for unknown reasons. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a non-controversial move, you can do this. Goodraise 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems these types of moves are happening rather frequently. Has there been a recent RfC about episode lists that has overturned the previous RfC for a year ago that resulted in no consensus for a specific naming scheme? —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the previous RfC. So far, I haven't seen any new discussions on changing the naming schemes from "List of XXX episodes (season #)" to "XXX (season #)". —Farix (t | c) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In light of the naming dispute involving Son Goku of Dragon Ball, I did some searches for English RSes that mention the full name Son Goku. I found quite a few: Talk:Goku#Reliable_sources_in_English_using_.22Son_Goku.22 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone ahead and nominated it for TFA on October 22. However, there are currently two mild opposes, saying that some technical issues have to be fixed. Can someone address those problems? It would be really good to have another anime TFA, so we need to take this chance. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy referencing, got to love it. ISBN 1-4210-1910-4 should probably be ISBN 1-4210-1912-4, according to this anyway. Goodraise 15:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the progress on this? Has anyone picked it up? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. Goodraise 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to set up a page in Wikipedia for Arakure Knight manga and film - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arakure_Knight If you can add any useful info please be my guest. It still needs sources and links mainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.17.104 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very knowledgable about the works of Satoshi Yoshida, but I think you have confused his Shonan Bakusozoku manga with his later Arakure Knight manga. I think the dates you list in the current version of the article for when the manga ran are actually the dates for Shonan Bakusozoku, not Arakure Knight. From what I can tell from the Japanese Wikipedia page for Arakure Knight, I think Arakure Knight ran from 1995 to 2005. The Japanese Wikipedia page for Shonan Bakusozoku says it ran from 1982 to 1988, but my understanding is that the two series are pretty much separate works. Even though Arakure Knight was made into an anime named Shin Shonan Bakusozoku Arakure Knight (according to [1]), from what I've been able to gather the two series aren't related beyond having the same author and being about biker gangs. I think the name of the anime adaptation is just to help sell it to fans of Yoshida's earlier series. Calathan (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to establish its notability. Unfortunately, this series doesn't appear to have been licensed outside of Japan, so you are missing the most critical source for establishing that notability, reviews. Unless you are lucky enough to find some Japanese review, you are pretty much SOL. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on the subject of reviews. A recent set of edits to Cowboy Bebop alerted me to the fact that the article does not have a sourced reception section. Its a rather glaring oversight and I wonder how it went this long without anyone noticing. But the whole article could probably use some work as well so that it can be put up for a GA review. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i've noticed it a while ago actually. But never had the time to focus on it. Considering how well-known the series is, i'm sure it wont be too much work to find reception.Lucia Black (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, how do we get more people older fans to get into this wikiproject and new editors who don't know so much about the guidelines and manuals of this wikiproject? Well, i thought maybe we can make invitation and welcome templates. Oh and probably a bot that adds a welcome tag to all those who have recently joined the wikiproject to their talkpage so we dont have to keep track of every new user manually. That way, people will feel more welcomed, more informed before editing, and we dont have to deal with certain conflicts. As for the invite, it would be great so that if we a regular member making edits on anime and manga related topics, maybe we could invite them to join? And then give them a welcome too.

i think this might be a good idea, but it feels like i'm not the first to suggest this. so if this is old, sorry for wasting your time.Lucia Black (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thought, but I don't think it would do much good. When new editors keep editing long enough, they automatically end up involved with WikiProjects sharing their interests. I think most new editors are scared off after their first few edits. They all start out as readers. Then they see something wrong or missing or (as it was in my case) are encouraged to edit by one of those "evil" tags. How established editors treat them will often decide whether they keep editing or not. All we need to do is treat new editors, and IP editors in particular, as equals (which they are). The first word new editors should read on their User_talk page is "Welcome", not "Warning". And they most certainly should not find themselves ganged up on by WikiProjects for violating some "consensus" they couldn't have known existed. Just be nice to new editors (or editors you think are new) and all will be well. Goodraise 18:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that is the issue at all. Who says we're not nice to new editors? We do treat them as equals, what you are asking is much further, giving them a break, and even then we do give them a break. However, certain editors tend to give up once they don't understand a situation. I think you're making the members of this wikiproject look worst than what they are by saying the reason why we haven't received new long-term members is because we're too hard on them. But thats not the case. It's a difficult situation when a new member makes huge edits, and makes a mess (which will happen and no, we don't enforce rage on them for it) to accept they are wrong. Lucia Black (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Who says we're not nice to new editors?" – I'm saying some of this project's members are sometimes "mean" to new editors (without even realizing it). And sometimes is too often. What I'm asking isn't too much either. Just a little bit respect. Of course I understand why you think I'm asking too much, as you have made it clear to me in the past that you don't believe in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. It's overly bureaucratic, I'll admit that, but pursued properly, it works. It even works when new editors make what you think is a "mess". Goodraise 21:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see why the regular welcome templates aren't sufficient enough. If an editor enjoys editing animanga articles, then they're going to eventually find their way to this project regardless if they're formally invited or not. And besides, if they edit animanga articles, aren't they already a member of our project? Even if a new editor makes a mistake, pointing them to the pertinent guideline is usually all that is necessary. There are times when editors are difficult to deal with, but it's not like we don't give them ample warning and chances to discuss disputes before things turn ugly.--十八 21:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youre missing the point. Youre asking for what we already provide. And by "mess" try looking at what happened at the claymore articles and as civil as we tried the editor REFUSED to listen. BUT heres the point. A welcome does alot more than just giving them a guide from the getgo to save conflict issues, it reminds them that they are welcomed despite what issues occured. Plus, editors lately cant get a grip. An invite also does alot more than you make it out to be. Hypothetically if you were invited, and you joined + a welcome, wouldnt that encourage you to edit more related to anime and manga related articles?Lucia Black (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing the point, am I? I don't know what happened at the Claymore articles. Who was involved? What articles were affected? When did it happen? If you want me to look, at least tell me for what you want me to look. Goodraise 02:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know was excessive reverting, and the articles were clearly harmed. Nearly ALL the Claymore (manga) articles you can look in the history. But i already said the point, a welcome does alot more than just give a guide but actually remind tgem they are welcomed to this wikiproject specifically AND be mire tolerant to their own mistakes.Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're referring to your conflict with Jamieclaymore (talk · contribs). You edit warred. You talked past each other. You went to ANI. And then Jamie left. Does that about sum it up? As EyeSerene (talk · contribs) put it on your talk page, "the other editor has posted that they're leaving Wikipedia, so perhaps they were never willing to work by our rules anyway." We'll probably never know now. You keep talking about new editors making mistakes. Has it occurred to you that you can make mistakes too? Try sticking to WP:1RR or even WP:0RR for a while. I think you'd be surprised how well that works. Goodraise 04:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is.....that the welcome and invite ENCOURAGE others to edit within this wikiproject and aler the wikiproject for any suggestions. AND YES theres a difference between editing the articles on their own and the other being part of the project. I will not continue this woth you if you insist on deviating from true point.Lucia Black (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a difference in this whatsoever. An editor could very well work by themselves to get an article under this project up to GA or higher without consultation of anyone in the project. Would that mean, by your standards, that they are not 'part of the project'? What constitutes being 'part of the project' then? Following the rules? Having edited this talk page? That's pretty ridiculous when you consider that most new editors usually don't have a reason to edit project talk pages, and just stick to editing and improving articles they like, and they're less likely to be as familiar with all the rules, which is why we already point new editors to pertinent guidelines either on a case-by-case basis, or with a general welcome template already in use.--十八 07:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. What is the difference? Goodraise 05:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that Claymore article has been a mess for years, but mainly for the ridiculous number of subcategories. On the assessments, it's always good to provide positive feedback and places for improvement. Where's the motivation in improving an article if it gets downgraded? AngusWOOF (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is editors feel more welcomed to attempt to do things as a group. We cant keep track of every single article. With more editors encouraged to do things with more editors would allow more and bigger plans rather than maintaining what little we have. An invite does alot and a welcome too. This isnt about GA status but being able to get things done faster. Im saying beingnpart of the wikiprojectbdoes alot more or at least it used to. Maybe this is a wikiproject that doesnt even know why its a wikiproject anymore. We have numbers but do we have long term numbers? Interest in the wikiprojects goals means gainingnnew interests they originally didntnhave.Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treating a WikiProject as some kind of team isn't my idea, but I can see how some editors might find that appealing, doing things as a group rather than roaming the articles alone. Personally, I don't see myself teaming up with others in this manner and I don't think we should even try to turn the whole project into some sort of editing force, but I like the thought in general. Recently I thought it might be useful to have a page similar to the reference libraries, but where instead of offering access to sources, editors could offer their skills (e.g. copy-editing, translating, template coding, ...). Now I'm thinking we could also create a page where project members list larger tasks they're in the process of doing, so that editors who like doing things as a group could join others instead of finding something to do themselves. Tasks listed there could include everything from "Bring article X up to GA" to "Merge category of X characters into list". Goodraise 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]