Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents


Wikipe-tan

hahaha, awesome → Image:Wikipe-tan visual novel.png. (horray for more free-use images!) -- Ned Scott 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

More Wikipe-tan stuff (not exactly project related, but hey, she is our mascot :) ) -- Ned Scott 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (news)#Wikipe-tan makes a cameo appearance in UK magazine Games TM

"Wikipe-tan, the Wikipedia OS-tan has found its way into the latest edition of GamesTM magazine (issue 48). It's found on page 30 beside a regular column on the Japanese Gaming scene by correspondant Tim Rogers. The article is absolutely nothing about Wikipedia, but instead about the maid cafe culture in Japan. - Hahnchen 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)" (see Image:Wikipe-tan GamesTM.jpg)
Awesome! Soon wikipe-tan will have become not only the de facto mascot of Wikimedia, but a notable subject in her own right as well. --tjstrf 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, well, maybe, at least as an example of the usefulness of GFDL images. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be happy with whatever. On the original subject of this header (Image:Wikipe-tan visual novel.png) I'd like to know exactly what the text says. I get the gist of it, but having a translation would be useful not only to my curiosity but because it would enable the recreation of the image with English text. Also, the linking of Wikipe-tan and visual novel instantly made me think lolicon. Is that just me? --tjstrf 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
And before you know it, Wikipe-tan would show up in all kinds of naughty mediums... No, that's just you....I hope. Anyways, I don't really like their liberal use of Wikipe-tan on an almost entirely unrelated subject without mentioning Wikipedia or even Kasuga, as the use of GFDL images needs the acknowledgement of the author. _dk 04:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the current image on the lolicon page does spur complaints of ugliness occasionally, so maybe a mild ecchi image of Wikipe-tan would be useful, both there and at fanservice, where the image is not particularly demonstrative. But I'm no artist, and the community as a whole might object. --tjstrf 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I translated the Spanish on that image. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the Wikipe-tan images has been picked as the picture of the day for October 2 :-). See Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan#POTD --GunnarRene 10:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours untill Wikipe-tan is on the main page. --GunnarRene 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
*expecting anime hatred from all over wiki and cries of blatant self reference accusations* Oh wait, they already happened. _dk 03:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Probably obvious by our time-stamps, but she's now live on the Main Page as today's featured picture. (Anyone notice that Main Page breaks WP:NC when it capitalizes Page? ;) ) -- Ned Scott 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot success!

Dark Shikari Bot was approved for a trial. I just ran it on all Anime/manga stubs, anime/manga character stubs, and hentai stubs. It took about an hour, but every one is now tagged. Are there any other categories I should check through and tag? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be adding the tag to pages in the user namespace. You might want to fix that. --Squilibob 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's not.. it is creating a whole new namespace for itself (e.g. Talk:User:Tribute to RocketmanJP rather than User talk:Tribute to RocketmanJP). Shiroi Hane 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw that... it was a very weird bug caused by someone moving an anime page to userspace to create a tribute to a banned user. I'm not exactly sure how to fix the problem they created. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It was more than one page (they were all speedily deleted), it occured anywhere someone had, for example, a test page in their userspace including an anime infobox which automatically added the page to an anime category. The bot needs to ignore any pages beginning "user:". Shiroi Hane 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There were ten pages. --Squilibob 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I see what happened. I will edit the bot's code to do that. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Not that there were really any important topics or anything vital being discussed that were archived, but shouldn't we wait a bit more than 3 and a half days for some of these discussions? I don't think the talk page is that active for it to be a problem to at least wait a week on some stuff, even if it's nothing more than displaying a good idea such as logic behind a page merge, etc. Again, not really a problem, but I thought I would bring it up. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, at least a couple weeks should pass since the last comment on a topic before archiving. That allows plenty of time for people to voice an opinion if they wish. After that, they can always start up the discussion again if they feel it's necessary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What specifically should have stayed? --Squilibob 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the "Publication info for non-English-speaking countries" was still pretty active, ie not dead yet; But then anone who's interested in it can just start a new thread. --SidiLemine 13:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Page title

Isn't it contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions and just simply weird to title this page WikiProject Anime and manga? We should move it to WikiProject anime and manga (no capital letters) already. Same with all related templates etc. Unless there's some policy/guideline I'm missing? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a policy/guideline. I could only find one example, Wikipedia:WikiProject lighthouses that used a lowercase letter right after the work WikiProject. --Squilibob 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that convention applies only to article space. But in a proper noun, all important worlds should be capitalized. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This particular policy does not apply just to the article namespace. WP:NC makes it clear that the reason for the non-capitalization of the 2nd word and onwards is technical, therefore it applies to all namespaces. Capitalizing all the words also works (WikiProject Anime And Manga), however, capitalizing and (And) is unconventional. It would be logical to move the page to WikiProject Anime and Manga (according to English grammar rules), but it would violate WP:NC. But in any case, anything is better than WikiProject Anime and manga. I mean, why is anime capitalized and manga not? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the title did have the upper case M at one stage --Squilibob 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a technical issue but one of grammar. The Project's name is a proper noun and should follow the grammar rules for such. The technical issue that WP:NC talks about is that the first word in a page title must be capitalized because of the limitations of the software. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually the technical issue is that the title is only case-insensitive in search when all the words in it are capitalized (like WikiProject Ice Hockey) or only the first one is (WikiProject ice hockey). Any other combination will result in a case-sensitive search. However, even if this is a grammar issue, it should be WikiProject Anime and Manga (with a capital M). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations

I was wondering. Does WPA&M do any collaborations? I didn't notice a "Collaboration of the specified-timeframe" anywhere. --Kitch 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, it tries to...--SidiLemine 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You didn't notice it? Time to add the big white notice to this WikiProject page again then. --Squilibob 13:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Who removed it in the first place? --TheFarix (Talk) 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It was always there, just not in the full form with a picture. --Squilibob 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of pictures, I think I found an image we can use for the AMCOTW. Something that says "in progress" and relates to anime.. none other than our very own Wikipe-tan done as a rough sketch. I'm sure if we ask Kasuga that he'd let us use this image as well. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I rather use something else other then wikipe-tan. There is no need to whore her out so much. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox template change

Building on the work by Ned Scott and User:Squilibob, I have improved the optional show/hide parameter on the anime and manga portions of the Animanga infobox. This option allows you to compress long lists of publishers and networks by putting the foreign language version information into a dropdown list. (See Bleach (manga) and Rurouni Kenshin for examples.) The manga field is "publisher_other=", the anime field "network_other=". (The manga field was previously "translated_publisher=", so if you've been using the old one, it will need changed.)

The feature was previously present, but for some reason it would generate 5pt text within the hidden list, which was pretty much unreadable. It's now legible, and I have it confirmed as operating properly for (almost) everyone. Feel free to use it! --tjstrf 02:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Japanese and English publishers should be shown regardless. But when there's not many other countries do hide is there much of a point to it? Maybe we should impose a minumimum number to use it on. For instance, if there are 5 other countries (aside from Japan and US), then hide them. If less than 5, show them all. 5 may be too high, but it's certainly pointless to hide just one. And it's a hassle if it's just 2 or so.--SeizureDog 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the show/hide button should not be used before reaching a number of publishers. I'm not so sure, however, that English-language publishers should be treated differently than French, German, Chinese, or indeed other Japanese networks.
  • Having just the country of origin plus all the others hidden seems logical.
  • Though it might be useful on the English language wikipedia to only show English-language publications and networks
    • There might be loads of English-language networks and publishers
    • It would not represent a Worldwide view
    • Animanga infoboxes are long enough as they are.
I would propose that, given a high number of publishers/networks only the original publisher/networks are unhidden. If a show was moved from one to the other during its original run, then that counts as several original publishers. But all re-runs in Japan or international distributions would be hidden. Sounds reasonable?--GunnarRene 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Maybe the advice to give is "use good judgement, if the list is long then hide others, if it's just a few and/or the infobox is very short then don't sweat it" -- Ned Scott 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the English publishers must be included. This is enwiki and the English language edition is arguably equally or perhaps more important to our encyclopedic usefulness than even the original publisher. We are a reference source for those who read English. The Japanese publishers should also be included, as they are the original. All others should be hidden. --tjstrf 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ned Scott on both last remarks. Plus english wiki doesn't have a primary focus on english-language litterature. --SidiLemine 10:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because this is the English language Wiki doesn't make the English language translation any more or less notable then any other translations. You either treat all translations the same in the infobox or you don't list them at all. Treating the English language translation differently from other translations reeks of systemic bias. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox requests

Could you add the show/hide parameter to studio and network in Template:Infobox Anime episode. Also, it could use previous and next fields to link between episodes. - Peregrinefisher 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a particular need for it there, since I can't find any instances where an episode list actually has a huge number of studios or networks. Are there any? --tjstrf 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Dragonball wikiproject?

If not can someone start one?--201 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, though there really wouldn't be much need for one. There are already plenty of DB articles here (long ones, too). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are useful when there is plenty of articles to coordinate them. If there are few articles wikiprojects are useless.--201 19:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they can be useful, but I think in this case it would be too focused a project, and therefore creting mostly a bunch of extra work rather than helping. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are Simpsons, Digimon and Pokemon wikiprojects. How do you explain that. Remember: Dragonball has as many or more episodes, at least twice as many characters and, since it was published in comics and animation, you'd have to multiply that by two.

The organization is kind of messy. There are way too many character lists. Some episode synopsis are missing and if they are done we'd have to coordinate them with comic synopsis, since the storyes tend to be line by line the same.--201 06:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a member of WikiProject Digimon, so I can tell you a little bit about that. I joined the project to help clean up the mess created by hundreds of articles, about 500 or more. Actually, right now we are discussing a major change in direction, a mass merging of most Digimon articles (yes, you heard correctly, we're going to be merging the majority of them).
In other words, even if a subject isn't that notable, the amount of work and article maintenance can also justify a WikiProject. But if the topic at hand doesn't have a major issue with, say, a large amount of articles or something like that, then creating a WikiProject probably isn't the best answer. It sounds like the Dragonball case is borderline in this area. One alternative to a new WikiProject is to start a "task force" or sub-group of an existing project, such as this one. It would get it's own talk page and to do list, and would be a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, it may be useful to investigate the creation of various task forces, similar to what WikiProject Military history has done. I could see a Dragon Ball task force. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Dragonball or its articles, but it looks like there are quite a few. There's a Sailor Moon WikiProject, which is the same level of narrow focus; we cover several dozen articles, and it's working beautifully. --Masamage 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't get what Ned said, my head still hurts. Isn't there a "from A to B" amount of pages, there is need for a task force; more than B amount of pages, a wikiproject is needed" or "Amount of pages > B, wikiproject; amount of pages =< B, task force" rule?

I think Dragonball is bigger than Sailor Moon (in some countries DB was even bigger than pokemon), NEVERTHELESS they should get the same treatement either both task force or both wikiproject. Either sound fine to me. whatever you choose would be ok.--201 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

One isn't really better than another, and there really isn't something like a number of articles requirement. They're just two ways of collaborating. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're the expert. Lead the way, haha.--201 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

It's supposed to go at the top right of the wikiproject page (only the main).--201 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I don't like it. Infoboxes aren't good for everything. -- Ned Scott 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Its huge! — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only do they look silly on a page, are huge, and are utterly pointless, but we don't need to add anything more to an already crowded top-of-page. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with the box is the size of the image. Apparently you can't pass a size parameter to the template, it is set to 300px. I've dropped a message off to the creator's Talk page to see if they can change it. --Roninbk t c e # 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now that you said so, I do find it unecessarely big. I hope that can be fixed the way you said. Most infoboxes I know are 250px wide. In this case, I don't know I'd say from 250 to 200px. What do you think?--201 00:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I don't think WikiProjects need an info box. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, some use it and is relatively new. The size, I agree, is too big. I don't know if they are part of a guide line or against one.--201 06:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) WP:WPUN, WP:FILM, WP:WINE and WP:BEER are some of the finest examples.--201 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's Huge!!!! - Peregrinefisher 10:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming question

Over at WikiProject Sailor Moon, we're trying to make some plot-description pages, but are having a hard time knowing what to call the articles.

Here's the problem. The same five plot arcs exist in the anime and manga, but are given different names. The manga came first, which would seem to suggest that we should use those. However, everything other than the manga used the same names as the anime, including the musicals, movies, video games, and English-language manga. Running a Google search for "Sailor Moon S" (the anime arc name) gets 230,000 hits, while running a search for "Sailor Moon Infinity" gets 420, some of which are about different things.

What do you all think? --Masamage 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for common use but also state the alternatives in the article itself and set up redirects. Shiroi Hane 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds okay to me. Anyone disagree? --Masamage 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New cat needed

I have no idea how to do this, so could someone please make a category for yuri and shoujo ai anime? We need this to cut down on the gigantic list on yuri (animation) Kyaa the Catlord 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created Category:Yuri similar to Category:Yaoi; if Category:Shōjo ai needs to be created, we should create also Category:Shōnen ai. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I see its already being filled! Yay! Kyaa the Catlord 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How are we to seperate shonen-ai from the yaoi? According to the articles, they are somewhat different. Shouldn't they be in seperate cats then?--SeizureDog 00:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not touching the yaoi. :p Yuri isn't anywhere near as explicit as yaoi seems to get, from my total lack of interest and knowledge of the subgenre. We're cuter and fluffier. :P So we don't have as high of boundaries between our softer side and the more explicit bits. (Then again, yuri isn't anywhere near as popular as yaoi. There aren't any screaming fanboys.) Kyaa the Catlord 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if our articles are correct. http://www.aestheticism.com/visitors/reference/aestheticism.htm Yaoi-tachi characters do get pretty fluffy sometimes. --Kunzite 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but by definition girls are cuter than boys. Boys are handsome and rugged and such, rarely cute. Kyaa the Catlord 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As a bisexual editor, I find that assertion incorrect. Boys are cute too. --Roninbk t c e # 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say guys, I think these two cats are bad ideas. I think the lists are bad ideas as well. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it's not a bad idea, it makes as much sense as Category:Shōnen and Category:Shōjo: it helps identifying the target audience of a work. More than that, I've got doubts on some titles, like Pretty Cure: I've watched some episodes and I don't remember any lesbian relationship (I hope it isn't only some fan idea). Furthermore, "yuri" and "yaoi" AFAIK have a hentai meaning which would suggest to create the other two categories for non hentai works. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's sort of a grey area, because for many animes it can be considered original research. Some it's obvious, some it's not. Why are we even identifying articles by this criteria in the first place? -- Ned Scott 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that for many animes the presence in the cat has to be discussed, but for instance for Kizuna: Bonds of Love there's no other suitable cat but Yaoi, and I think that Yuri (better Shōjo-ai) is the most appropriate one for Kashimashi, because in those works the shōnen/shōjo ai elements are fundamental to the storyline. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
@Why are we even identifying articles by this criteria in the first place?: because some dirtyminded perverts want a neat list of stuff to watch :-) Shinobu 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


There's a bit of a dispute over at .hack//SIGN about if it should be in Category:Yuri. I'm not even sure if these categories are worth including if we have to handle disputes about them (granted I'm in the dispute myself). Any input would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance

What's going on with the importance ranking? I got a B on the assessment scale for List of Scrapped Princess episodes, so now I want an importance number. Want, want, want; that's me. - Peregrinefisher 10:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't list an articles importance because it isn't very useful to the WikiProject. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If we wanted to list by importance, we could, but it wouldn't be particularly useful imo. Perhaps more useful would be to construct a list of what are the most important series manually, and not bother going and telling people that their article isn't important. --tjstrf 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I like that. But we would have to line up a few criteria first before we start, so that this doesn't degenerate in an open war.--SidiLemine 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

250px infobox

WikiProject Anime and manga

This WikiProject is about Anime and manga.
Shortcuts: WP:Anime
WP:Manga
Portal: Portal:Anime and manga Anime and manga Portal
Wikimedia
Commons:		 Commons:Category:Anime and manga Anime and manga
Parent project: Entertainment
Project notice
template:		 {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}
Participant
userbox:		 {{User WP Anime}}

Better? Now it is as slim as most side infoboxes. Several wikiprojects seem to be ok with it.--201 07:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the need for it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, it's ugly and entirely pointless. We just don't need it. In fact, the wikiprojet that tend to have this infobox are the ones where you've but them there. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Chalk it up to some frustration at having to clean up after his attempts to create new Projects, Navboxes and templates (for which there is little to no support) for the third or fourth time in as many months. CovenantD 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the author of the box and another guy placed 2/3 of the total. You only checked the wikiprojects on my page. --201 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ha! I suspected. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics hates this too. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Personnaly, I'd care more to have an animanga infobox that is the same size as the CVG one. We've got a lot of stuff that comes from video games, and vice versa--SidiLemine 14:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If this infobox has a use, I don't see it. And it's still really, really huge. Shinobu 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What Farix said. THere's really no use for it. In fact, I think we'd be better off if someone created a navigational template for all the Anime and Manga project's various subpages, like the ice hockey WikiProject has (look at the upper right of the page). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I'd love somethig to link to (even distant) parent and cousin wikiprojets, too.--SidiLemine 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides stating I like it, there isn't much I can do. Many wikiproject forget to make some of the elements of the box (either shorcuts, portal, notice or user template) or place the syntax in different sections etc. The purpose of the box is to gather all that basic info at the top of the page so that the reader won't have to scan for those elements. But I don't think you're buying. Forget about it. Weird, since the news box almost on top is a little, what's the word?--201 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I never said I didn't like it, more like "yeah, and you know what would be even cooler?"... But it's funny how this project is one of the most closed upon itself I've seen. Very much "us-and-them". This infobox is to inform outsiders, and as such, it's badly needed. This project might be a unique chance to get manga and anime out of geekland, and the infobox helps with it. As such, I'm buying.--SidiLemine 09:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:201 is a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user who has a history of disruptive editing. CovenantD 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that certainly puts an entirely different spin on this discussion. I don't think what 201 was doing here was consistent with a vandalism M.O., but they did seems a bit pushy... --Roninbk t c e # 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see the connection. this is an infobox. OK, now that 201 isn't here anymore, nobody's defending it. But to close the discussion like that seems a bit.... I don't know, stalinian maybe.--SidiLemine 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Chalk it up to some frustration at having to clean up after his attempts to create new Projects, Navboxes and templates (for which there is little to no support) for the third or fourth time in as many months. CovenantD 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm still new to the whole vandalism issue, so I guess I find it hard to imagine someone coming with the purpose of disrupting wikipedia (call me naive, but that alone is hard enough) using Projects, Navboxes and templates.... It's creepy.--SidiLemine 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fancy table of contents

I'm thinking about changing the TOC in List of Outlaw Star characters and some others if I can find a good way to do it. I want a header for each character, but the normal TOC gets to long. I don't want to use a compactTOC because I'd like to group them by affiliation, instead of alphabetically. The TOC at List of countries gives me hope, but it's mostly alphabetical. If there was a way to autohide sections of a normal TOC that would be best, but I don't think that functionality has been built yet. Until then, does anyone have any good examples/ideas. - Peregrinefisher 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say KISS. Use the normal TOC and then use a typical article nav template. Keep things like print versions of Wikipedia in mind, as well. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
*smacks forehead* I think I didn't realize exactly what you were talking about when I said that. I thought that custom TOC box was a mix of the TOC and a nav box, but I see that's not what it is, it's just the TOC. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues a ton with some images I found

I stumbled across this image after becoming aware of a page up for deletion that used these images extensively:

They're used in a series of article for a series of comics and animation, entitled Dragon Ball, started comming out in 1984, so I don't see them being out of copyright. Could I get some assistance in removing the very poor use of copyrighted imagary from wikipedia? The images are everywhere. I put the first image I saw listed here up for deleting before I realised the other ones were actually also not unique works by the uploader. Can I get some assistance? I get the feeling I'm going to make a some fans of this work very angry if I just go and list them all. Kevin_b_er 07:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The only one I can see being considered a copyvio is Image:DBGT Logo.png. I don't think the image of a star in a circle can be claimed as something owned by the Dragon Ball series. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain the copyright status of these images. Is it that you can't draw your own version of something that is copy protected? - Peregrinefisher 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's correct. All fanart consists solely of illegal copyright violations (thank the ridiculous US copyright law), and while generally nobody cares, its against Wikipedia policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy on plot summaries

I've proposed a slight re-wording on WT:NOT#Plot summaries part 3 for our current policy concerning plot summaries (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7). Requesting comments, especially since I don't recall the original discussion regarding the wording being advertised much. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, your proposal would require a rewrite of the current Anime and Manga structure recommendations, is that correct? Thanks, TheronJ 19:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but I guess I didn't notice Theron's comments until just now. No, they would not require a rewrite of our structure guidelines. Our guidelines do focus a lot on characters, but at the very beginning we note to also follow WP:TV and WP:FILM structures when appropriate. If anything, we only need to add to the structure guidelines (i.e., give direct examples off the TV guidelines for reception, impact, production notes, etc) rather than change what's there.
Also, nothing new is actually being proposed, rather, just a slight change in wording to better reflect what is already going on. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the change, as the issue you intend to address (plot summary usage on Wikipedia) is not clarified in any way by your change and indeed made more ambiguous. Muddying the waters in one place won't help us solve the problem in another. --tjstrf 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not intend to address that issue with this change. Rather, the intent was to make the wording not favor one side or the other, while still retaining the rational behind the policy. The consensus on plot summaries still isn't completely clear, which is why the wording shouldn't favor one side or the other. This is a proposed change to better reflect our current state rather than to initiate change. -- Ned Scott 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Anime Article Format

Hi, I'd like to propose that all articles relating to Anime or Manga, use any names as specific by Romanization. I say this because many series have a mixture of using the English dub names. So I suggest whatever is the most "official" name be used as official, with any Dub or Manga Translations listed if the name is different in the English edition. Also, when making an article I think we should look at everything, not just literal translation, for a much more accurate and official Article. If the format is set to this, then we can have a continuity between all Anime and Manga Articles. for example One Piece uses almsot all Japanese names and spellings, but Detective Conan's Article is under it's English name, Case Closed.--Pyrgus 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. Yeah, that's sort of the topic of a long debate. Pretty much the closest thing we can agree on is to use the most common name, which might or might not be the "original" romanization. See WT:MOS-JA's archives for examples of past discussions on this. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is Wikipolicy to use the English language title WP:NAME#Use English words unless the native language title is more commonly recognized among English language users. What you are suggesting is to ignore that policy. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And then, of course, there's the camp that claims fans don't actually count as english language users, so we should always use official names regardless of fan usage. Yep, basically just a big mess. --tjstrf 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bots with no images

I'm getting tired of browsing through anime articles like Gundam or such that needlessly shows specs and info about specific Mobile suits/ robots without providing a picture of the robot. I doubt it would be serious copyright infringment to make sure most (or hopefully all) suit models get a picture- its just seems that people are too lazy to find them. This is the first time I wanted to help by changing the site, but the only pictures I can find are through google searches and thus don't qualify as "fair use." For example, I've tried to get images for the aricle "RX-110 Gabthley," and the closest match I've found is at http://www.robot-japan.com/Gundam-Robot/gundam/z/RX-110.html. I'm just too new at wikipedia to do it right, so does someone want to look into this for me or talk me through it? and is this even the right place to talk about this? If not, PM me or something after you delete this (Gosh, I have NO idea about what I'm doing).

Ignatius Anteros 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What would be the right fair use tag for the above image? Anyone? - Peregrinefisher 03:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a characterimage tag somewhere. Shiroi Hane 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikia has a characterimage template. Does anyone know the name of one for wikipedia? - Peregrinefisher 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is {{Character-artwork}} (listed in the list of fair use tags linked when you upload an image) Shiroi Hane 08:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Null (scanlation) up for deletion.

I have initiated an AfD on the article for the Null One Piece scanlation group here, based on notability grounds. Feel free to have whatever input you feel fitting there. --tjstrf 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a Anime and manga-related deletion on our Deletion sorting page. Thanks for the heads up. --Roninbk t c e # 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
So that's how you do that... thanks! --tjstrf 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Anime_and_manga_Archive_10_e9b8.html"