Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:06, 1 April 2015

Archives

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

Mascot Discussions

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

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

Anime and manga Project‑class

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

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

• WT:ANIME
• WT:MANGA

Agency for Cultural Affairs Database

Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs recently opened an online database that they have been developing since 2010. As this is part of the Government Ministry of Eduction and not user edited this should easily qualify as RS.

http://mediaarts-db.jp

Should be useful for release dates if nothing else. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Government Ministry of Eduction would cover anime and manga. It may cover ones based off of historical figures or stories but I dont know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's actually Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology , but that is some crazy mega department that is often shortened in (english language) coverage.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I Approve. That is an impressive source for airdates. Looking at it, episodes that air after midnight are counted as the day after, like normal time. Will be useful for future arguments. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay add it to WP:A&M/RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

At last, we now have a reliable source with the actual air dates and not those "faux" dates that gives the reader the impression that the series aired a day earlier than it did. —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

English air dates on series not broadcast in English

RisaPlayer88 is just the latest editor to add in English air dates to anime series that have not been picked up for any satellite, cable, or other TV network. While many of these series may be available from streaming websites, the use of "English air date"—which implies that the series was broadcasted on a satellite, cable, or other TV network—is grossly misleading. If we go with the dates the series is available via streams, then those dates should reflect the simulcast dates of the subtitled version. —Farix (t | c) 18:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a message or two on her talkpage, it would be great if she could join our project and make positive contributions rather than these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Is this what you were talking about? I reckon that we should go with a coal-and-ice policy on that matter, so I agree with the statement that you said.--Infinite0694 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Simulcasts in English subtitles do not require English air dates to be filled out in the episode listing, as they are treated like a second network broadcasting in its first run but later in the week. This would apply to Crunchyroll, which also localizes subtitles to many regions. English air dates should be more for traditional broadcasts on channel. It should not include the video on demand services unless that is the primary method of broadcast as with a web series / webisode / ONA / YouTube series.

The recent plan of Funimation simul-dubbing for its members can be grouped with the simulcast one. They are usually produced and released soon after the original. On the other hand, if they had a world premiere on Funimation Channel, Anime Network, or Adult Swim, then they could be considered, again, as long as it's not a case where it wasn't already released straight-to-video. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm talking about. But as I said before when this issue previously came up, I'm all for removing "English air date" if what constitutes an English broadcast becomes a contentious issue. Does anyone know of any other cases outside of anime where secondary air dates are given? —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can base a decision on what other project may do, because anime seems more likely to receive english broadcasts than say, asian drama (this is a US/UK generalisation as I simply don't know how English speaking regions in say, Asia handle imported products). I also think removing it simply because people are using it for simulcasts to be akin to using a hammer to open a peanut casing. There are plenty of legitimate uses for it, the amount of anime broadcast on US/UK tv has been significant enough that the feature has a legitimate use. What if a series is broadcast after it's streaming? Either way I'm against removing it completely, but completely agree it shouldn't be used for streaming, which is subject to debate about it's actual release date anyway. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Himari Noihara

Just a heads up, I have made and just need to include manga info for Himari from Omamori Himari. If anyone here follows the show and wants to help out, feel free. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pocket Monsters manga deletion proposal.

There is a discussion regarding the deletion of a hand-full of Pocket Monsters manga articles at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga#Pocket Monsters manga deletion proposal. More input would be helpful. Thanks. —KirtZ 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Animerica Vol. 8, No. 2 - Does anyone have this?

Does anyone have a copy of Animerica Vol. 8, No. 2?

• See this 2004 listing of series starting in "M" referred to in Animerica (Archive).

(I am aware that Animerica was published by the same company that published Magical Pokemon Journey in English, so it may not count as an "independent" source, but I'd like to see what the magazine says anyway).

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No sorry, I am just subscribed to Otaku USA, but good luck in your search =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look around and see what I find! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Animage Grand Prix references:

• Animage

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

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

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

End of Mania.com?

There has been an announcement that Mania.com will "officially close our doors on March 31st". I am a little surprised this wasn't posted here earlier. – Allen4names (contributions) 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people actually use the main page as anime content hasn't been updated in years - I know I don't as it's always been difficult to find the content and I use google results whenever I use it. Going forward we should start switching to archives, but with any luck they will keep the site online for some time. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I just hope they keep the site intact. Lots of articles use Mania to the reception sections.Tintor2 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to generate a list of every one of our anime/manga articles that use Mania as a source? Mania as said above has been used as reviews and I feel these should be archived. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

not sure but it's probably safe to say all of our B/FA class articles will all be using it if we need a place to start.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You use to be able to mass archive using WikiCite. Ah, here it is. —Farix (t | c)

Fairy Tail English air dates

With regards to a previous discussion about the inclusion of English air dates, we have a problem over at the Fairy Tail lists. It seems as though some editors have been using the DVD release dates in place of actual TV broadcasts. Can someone take a look and include the actual dates when the episodes were broadcast on Funimation Channel or some other TV network? I don't have access to the the Funimation channel so I can't perform any kind of verification. Thanks.—KirtZ 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Strip the dates that are obviously DVD/Blu-ray releases and leave notes on the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One Piece GAR

Link. I would appreciate a consensus before going through a GAR closing run. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I won't read the article too closely as I'm deliberately holding back on the series and don't want spoilers. However while it clearly needs some work with all those tags I strongly object to the conclusion of the GAR process until a reasonable amount of time is given to allow the article to be fixed. The complete lack of any discussion being started on the talk page of the actual article is rather concerning. Give people a chance to do it and then fail it if nothing changes or it still falls short.personally I find it disappointing someone started the GAR without at least mentioning their thoughts first.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably should've added "in the coming future". GARs typically last for four weeks, and the last time they I swept them was in December. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Facebook fanpage link on Anime

Doorknob747 has recently added a link to a G Gundam Facebook fanpage to Anime. The first time he added the link, he prompted readers to "go like the page and followit". Naturally, this is linkspam and the link has nothing to do with the general topic of anime, so I removed it. However, Doorknob747 insisted that the link is appropriate and qualifies under WP:ELMAYBE #4. Despite an explanation that unofficial fanpages do not fall under that criteria, he insists on keeping the link in the article. Also note that this editor also edits under the IP 72.68.241.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and has attempted to add the link to other articles. I would like a third opinion on this matter. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I have undone the edits, a discussion must be held before the undoing process happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion if the editor is using it as promotion then it is promotion and needs to be removed as spam. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Facebook borders too much on User Generated content and is not something I can endorse. Its also highly suspect that the user in question would request that people go like the page, perhaps suggesting that they themselves made the link. Additionally, point #10 of WP:ELNO clearly frowns upon Facebook as a external link. —KirtZ 01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually have to talk about the rule #10, with my admin friend, some of the rules are old as 2006 before Social media was so popular. - Doorknob747 (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

.  :( He said that the rules were edited already on 2011. he said that on the original 2006 rule was that not even official fan pages on Facebook were allowwed, but since the wide usage of probable official fan pages on social media, the rule was removed. He said to wait another 3 years for such a proposal to possibly be accepted.

The point, that you seem to be missing, is that unofficial fan pages on social networking sites will never be acceptable because they fall under self-published sources that have no reliability to their name, nor will they somehow gain it in the future.--十八 23:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK i understand,but I am just going to ask you something, if someone wanted to use a post on facebook that they made,BUT the post contains refs to back it up is it aceeptable?

Simplest thing to do is not post links to Facebook or use it as a source unless it's from the company with the licence, regardless of the text. If they use links to reliable sources in the text just use the original source.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for revival of news letter service

I think the news letter shuold comeback who agrees. Doorknob747 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There was one? Why'd it stop? Tezero (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Its defunct. Apparently the editor who started the drive gave up on it. I don't see the point to be honest. Its the same information you find on the project's five main pages anyway. I was going to opt to delete the page altogether. —KirtZ 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion as it gives a window on how things were at x date, good to mark as historical. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what you are trying to say, but that can be sent to the archives, in order for the page to be kept the page must be used, or there is no need for it and it should be deleted. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages on Misplaced Pages kept for historical purposes.--十八 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you guys have awards so we need help in

adding the award on this award which is located on that Wikiproject's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#About_new_award_does_it_look_good.3F

We tried adding it to Misplaced Pages:Awards by WikiProject but during preview the layout fails, so we can not add the award, can you please help this wiki project get their award added to the list. Please help us!Doorknob747 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

never mind problem fixed. Doorknob747 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Some possibilities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we do it to the time line?

Here is what I mean, i have placed refs with it! https://en.wikipedia.org/Gundam_Build_Fighters_Try#Relationship_to_G_Gundam

also this is what i mean on the time line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gundam_Build_Fighters_Try

What do you people think about it adding to timeline? Doorknob747 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section as the sources were searches on bing and would never be consistent or reliable, and it also contains references to reviewers by random bloggers. The only thing that can be concluded, assuming that this blogger is a reliable source (he only posts on Yahoo Contributor Network and other volunteer places) is that in episode 7 contains references to G-Gundam and Gundam Seed Destiny HERE. Fighters Try is already timelined as a sequel to Fighters. Why show that it should be intermingled with the rest? -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And please do not write messages like "DO NOT DELETE THIS" into the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

look this time there are no blogs!Doorknob747 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

this is going viral on tumblr, tumblr is not reliable, so does anyone know where we can find a reliable source that proves this true! https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/domon-kasshu http://tckukk.tumblr.com/post/115243211733/smashkopalace-it-took-25-fucking-years-but-hes http://jiggah-pegz.tumblr.com/ https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/i-knew-it https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/gbftryharder https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/gundam-build-fighters-try-spoilers

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

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