Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Infobox animanga character

I've been working on a prototype for an anime and manga character infobox. Partly to provide a uniform design, and also to make changes to the overall layout easier to implement without having to track down and edit numerous series specific infoboxes.

The template provides numerous general fields that can be applied to a wide array of anime and manga characters. More series specific fields can be added using template extensions, if they are deemed appropriate. --Farix (Talk) 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. I was wondering if one of these exists. It would be fitting to have a uniform character infobox. Sorting through the individual character pages, they natually tend to have different infoboxes.KyuuA4 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you put month and day in the the birth parameter? --BrokenSphere 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The parameter will take any format you like. Just be sure to wikilink it so that individual's preferred date format will work. --Farix (Talk) 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe the explanation of those parameters should be reworded to date of birth and date of death then; given years tend to be vague or nonexistent most of the time. --BrokenSphere 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a test with Naruto Uzumaki which showed some minor issues with the extensions which I was able to fix. I would still like to see more comments for or against the design. --Farix (Talk) 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was some rule against including measurements like height and weight in infoboxes? I think it was in reference to real people, though, in which case it's sort of more crufty than with fictional characters (since with characters, it's a lot harder to just look at them and tell). Anyone else remember what I'm talking about? --Masamage ♫ 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be referring WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. So that would probably eliminate such fields as height, weight, measurements, blood type, and etc. that aren't essential information to the character or storyline. While these fields are now on the chopping block, I won't remove them just yet until there is more input. --Farix (Talk) 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood type might actually have a use since the Japanese use bloodtype as a way to determine personality. All the other fields can go, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards blood type being more or less trivia that should be removed from the infobox, unless someone can demonstrate that blood type is important to the plotline. But what about hair and eye color? Granted the infobox's instructions says to only use them if they are not obvious, but are they really necessary or are they also just trivia?

Height/Weight information is rather trivial. As an example: that could be "interesting" regarding female characters; however, I could care less about that info regarding the males. Blood-type is also trivia. Also, something like a birth-date could be trivia, when character age would suffice. After all, they rarely age. KyuuA4 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say "without having to track down and edit numerous series specific infoboxes" does that mean you intend to replace existing character infoboxes with yours? I hope that is not the case, editors should be allowed the freedom to design and use their own templates. We don't enforce editors to use our Infobox animanga, for example. --Squilibob 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a problem with replacing one infobox template with another if the new infobox template lends itself to be more versatile then the one it is replacing. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems like the whole point of using templates.--SidiLemine 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope that it will be versatile. There are a few of these that are formatted in the blue style that the Infobox animanga uses. Kanon, Oh My Goddess!, Ranma, School Rumble, and Tenchi Muyo. That style should be an option to use as well. --Squilibob 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If versitile enough, it will not be a problem replacing all the other infoboxes with this one. Looking at those infoboxes, they're basically the same -- and perform the same exact function. Deciding on a color scheme can be decided upon later on. That blue color seems universal enough. KyuuA4 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I decided to drop the whole template extension thing and went with several auxiliary fields instead. It does make the template a bit more complicated to use, but I could see problems with every anime/manga series wanting its own extension. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Soon, Wiki will be filled with hundreds of anime templates for separate series - and all of them have the same basic function. KyuuA4 05:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing I want to bring up before the template is used on a wider scale. That is what to do with the Kanji. I'm opting to just leave it out since it will already be present in the lead paragraph and really doesn't add anything to the infobox. It is also a bit gaudy as well, IMO. --Farix (Talk) 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. No point to be that redundant. Within English text, kana tends to stick out rather easily anyways. KyuuA4 06:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Future discussions about the template's fields should be conducted at Template talk:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Variable Coloring

Looking at the template for Sailor Moon characters -- recommend allowing variable color use. Plenty of characters besides Sailor Moon characters also have attributed colors. KyuuA4 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last worked on the template, but variable color is one of the first parameters of the template. --Farix (Talk) 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I completely missed that. KyuuA4 05:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

About navigation box

Please let me know about idea of the project on the navigation box in the articles. I was trying to translate and enhance the articles about major Japanese anime awards, like Animage's Anime Grand Prix (ja), Animation Kobe Awards (ja) and TFA's Tokyo Anime Award (ja) that there had been little description in English Wikipedia, though each award should be already well-known and recognized their authorities at least by anime fans in Japan. I thinked, if wikipedia treats about the awards, should enhance these a little more.

Therefore, after the enhancing/creating of two of three articles, I put navigation boxes for winners, like Academy award (Best Picture):

  s-awards -> s-ach | aw   Bazj (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

However, they have been removed from some articles [1][2][3] by the reason:
it's good to note this award, but it's not really a logical system of navigation once you are on that -this- article
I did not know about this rule, for I do not usually edit in the category so much though I capriciously participating this time. By chance, do the anime articles have something a special rule about navigation boxes? Is this NOT a logical system of navigation? I have been very perplexed. Thanks,--Morio 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule, but it's entirely unnecessary and just adds to the clutter at the bottom of an article. So yes, I agree with Ned Scott's reasoning on removing those succession boxes. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there's a TON of ways we can relate one article to another, and make a succession box for that. If we did it for each situation we'd have a mess. People who are looking to navigate between these articles are more likely going to be doing so from the article for the award, or maybe from a category or "list of" type article. The general reader who visits the article about a given anime probably won't be wondering "who won this award next" right off the bat.

Although, I would like to point out that this is excellent information. We should definitely make sure it's noted somewhere in each of these articles that they've won this award (which would give a link path so that people can still reasonable find "who was next"). -- Ned Scott 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I removed all navigation boxes. Thanks,--Morio 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment, I found the navigation boxes useful. Regardless, I agree with Ned Scott that the info should end up in the appropriate articles as it establishes notability and provides independant references for the series involved. Edward321 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually. We can begin using those navigation boxes for Awards. It's just a matter of determining which award is the most notable. In the case of movies, there's the Academy Awards. Randomly, I took a look at Lord of the Rings. Participating in Sport related articles, Navigation boxes are predominantly used there as well. While mentioning the awards in prose is reasonable, it is also natural to be curious about the sequentiality of the awards. KyuuA4 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have a page for the award itself, with a list of all recipients. Easily reached by the link from the mention in the article. Doceirias 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I've started working on this, as part of filling in the Kodansha & Shogakukan award pages. —Quasirandom 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thing is. Do the articles (the winners) themselves have the awards mentioned? If so, how easily can that info. be spotted? KyuuA4 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some do already, some don't -- I'm putting it in where it wasn't, sometimes adding detail where it was (such as, for what work). Always wikilinking to the award article as I can. When I add it, I try to make it prominant, as part of something notable about it, but sometimes there's an existing place in a biographic narrative where it fits better. —Quasirandom 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign-language dubs, etc.

I've noticed many articles covering (often in great detail) foreign versions of anime. Editors put in huge lists of foreign names for characters. For example, in the Space Battleship Yamato article some guy put in a bunch of info about the various Arabic dubs and which are more accurate, etc. In my opinion, this sort of thing is a waste of space. If I wanted to know what Sailor Moon's name was in Spanish, I'd check the Spanish wiki. Obviously the English language dub/names/changes are relevant, but I have no interest in the quality of the Sinhalese Evangelion dub. What do you guys think? Sometimes people get irate at me for removing what I find to be trivial. Evan1975 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Our guidelines specifically indicate that the only ones that should be included are the English and Japanese. Any others should go on their specific language version wikis. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, I would like to know which guidelines say so, as I could not find them. Regards, G.A.S 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm unable to find them at the moment. I suggest we take this discussion to the new WP:MOS-AM talk page. I just created it because the main project page was becoming too crowded (IMHO). It will also provide a good way to keep style discussions organized and in one place. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this over here. Anyone interested in participating is welcome. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New cats

I have created the following categories: Category:Chinese mythology in anime and manga (currently here) and Category:Japanese mythology in anime and manga. I'd hoped to create a navigation tool for those interested in mythology. I felt I would be silly not to inform this Wikiproject. I would appreciate help populating and policing these categories. Alternatively, I would also appreciate the project's thoughts on the categories (positive, negative, should exist, shouldn't exist, and everything in between). CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrible naming. The way the category is named, I would expect articles such as Oni in anime and manga and Kappa in anime and manga (articles which we don't need btw). A better phrasing would be Category:Anime and manga featuring Japanese mythology, but I think both options are too long. I'm actually not even convinced the categories are needed, seeing how it's not even really a genre. I think having Category:Fantasy anime and manga is good enough.--SeizureDog 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, this seem to be a degree of overcategorizing that is better left on the ash heap. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Points well taken. This worries me, because these categories are, in part, intended to prevent articles like Oni in anime and manga from popping up. You are right, SeizureDog, that this naming is a bit problematic, I'll have to think on that. As for WP:OC, I can see where you're coming from on this, I didn't really intend to claim this is a genre of anime as much as it is a genre of the tradition and reception of mythology. I have, in the process of discussing various 'IPC' (WP:IPC) AfD's, been thinking about whether or not this is OC, and I haven't quite mad eup my mind on that yet. I'll definitely have to think more about it and I welcome more opinions here or on my talk page if any editor wishes. :) CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

User:ChuChu is edit warring about demographics again over on Baccano. Maybe it's time we locked down the rules about when to include a demographic. It's my feeling that we should only include a demographic when it is obvious, and not include them if there is some doubt. Not every anime or manga fits into one of the four main demographics. If the original manga runs in a magazine with a clear demographic, then by all means list it. Should original anime (not based on a manga) have demographics? I'm fuzzy on this. Light Novels do not use the shonen/seinen shojo/josei demographics, and the words should not be applied arbitrarily to those articles. Doceirias 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anime based on light novels do have a certain demographic. where exactly did you get the idea that light novels aren't aimed at a certain demographic? ChuChu

Check your own talk page. We had this conversation a few months ago. Light novels are aimed at male or female audiences, but these particular terms are not used. I lived in Japan five years and base my opinion on that and the light novel guidebooks I've read, and a native Japanese speaker backed me up on it. You refused to believe us, so we let the matter drop...but there is clearly sufficient doubt. Doceirias 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that discussion. but I also mentioned the existance of light novels for boys. there are light novels for boys just like there are light novels for girls. ChuChu

Like I said then, light novels for males and females does not imply the use of the manga demographic jargon. Look, I don't want to rehash these arguments; I just want to make sure that these demographics are appearing on everything by group consensus. Doceirias 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? manga demographic jargon? LOL there are light novels for boys and light novels for girls, thats a demographic. aimed at boys = shounen demographic, and aimed at girls means shoujo demographic. its as easy as that.

BACCANO is published under a label for boys, its as easy as that. there's no need for a group consensus about this. if you want to remove a demographic so much, then how about removing the "shoujo" from the shoujo light novel Maria-sama ga Miteru. ChuChu

Absolutely not true. There are light novels for a male audience. There is no such thing as shonen light novels. Same goes for girls. These demographic terms are not used with light novels. I have asked you several times to provide any sources that use those terms, and you have simply insisted on a blanket definition that is completely unsupported, and actively denied by native Japanese speakers and myself. I realize that essentially boils down to two opinions versus yours. But we don't need a reference to not include a term, while we do need a reference to include a term that is in doubt. Doceirias 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? again? the existance of light novels that are aimed at boys? of course there are light novels that are aimed at boys. Lets take for example the new light novel label for boys: GaGaGa Bunko, as mentioned by the publisher in this link: http://gagaga-lululu.jp/gagaga/about.html 少年向けエンターテインメントノベル文庫 --> entertainment novel bunko for boys. ChuChu

Yes. And "shonen muke" does not equal "shonen." These are different things. Doceirias 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Muke, not muke, doesn't matter to me at all. aimed at boys = aimed at boys. ChuChu

We could obviously do this for weeks, but the reason I posted it here instead of on your talk page is to hear what everyone else thought. I'm gonna shut up now. Doceirias 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Doceirias' point is the words shounen and shojo are not used to describe light novels, only manga, whether or not they are aimed at boys or girls. Kinda like hentai being used in the West for "pornographic anime" (when in Japan it's used for "perverts"). I might be wrong...--Nohansen 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about light novels that are published under shounen muke labels and light novels that are published under shoujo muke labels. a light novel thats published under a shounen muke label is a light novel thats aimed at boys. demographic = shounen(boy). thats it. ChuChu

(Indent) Ok, ChuChu, but you do see that "shounen" is not used to describe light novels? Only manga. Even the shounen article says so, Shounen is a Japanese word used in English to refer to manga intended for boys. The point is: Are the members of the Project OK with using these terms (shounen, shoujo, seinen, josei and kodomo) in all its articles to describe the demographic, however "wrong" they might be?--Nohansen 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the brackets "[[" and keep it like this: Demographic = Shounen. and not linking to the shounen wiki entry. describing the demographic has never been "wrong" so its fine mentioning these terms. ChuChu

But wouldn't we, meaning WP:ANIME and Wikipedia in general, be contradicting ourselves, then?--Nohansen 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting ourselves by mentioning the truth? ChuChu

By saying a light novel is shounen, when the shounen article says its a Japanese word used in English to refer to manga intended for boys.--Nohansen 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the word shounen thats associated with manga is wrong. thats what should be corrected; it should be Shounen manga wiki entry and not a wiki entry for shounen(boy). just like how the italian wiki entry is for shounen manga and not for shounen: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dnen_manga

light novels for boys are of course light novels for boys so its: Demographic = Shounen, and not Demographic = Shounen manga. ChuChu

Well, then Colbert was right. We can redefine reality. Make that, "Wikiality". (Italian Shounen article)--Nohansen 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL so they have tricked me, they have shounen linking to shounen manga entry >.> anyway that doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected. a Shounen manga wiki entry like the japanese entry 少年漫画 and a shounen wiki entry for the japanese wiki entry 少年. ChuChu

Jumping back in here: I would have no problem with the light novel articles saying demographic = male (or female). Doceirias 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that either. ChuChu

---

Baccano's manga is serialized in Dengeki Comic Gao!, a shōnen magazine. That's pretty much how we determine these demographics, by where they're serialized.--SeizureDog 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manga adaptations of light novels are not really reliable. Shinigami no Ballad's manga is shojo, for instance. Doceirias 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the most part, adaptions tend to stay in the same demographic. I don't see why something can't have multiple demographics though.--SeizureDog 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I just don't think the demographic of the original work should be determined by the adaptations. Welcome to the NHK is not a shonen novel or even a light novel, despite the highly successful shonen manga it was adapted into. Doceirias 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the NHK novel wasn't published under a shounen label, but a general label. thats why its not a shounen novel. ChuChu

Perhaps we should just avoid demographic descriptors as shojo, shonen, seinen, and josei altogether and just use English terms --Farix (Talk) 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like this: Demographic = males or Demographic = females. Doceirias mentioned this above, I have no problem with this. ChuChu

And "young boys", "young girls", and etc. But that it also applies to all topics withing the scope of WP:ANIME including anime, manga, and light novels.

I'm against this. Are we supposed to say "18–30 year old males" instead of seinen? Or the more vague "yound adult males"? I prefer words to phrases.--SeizureDog 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to light novels now (and a simple choice of male or female.) We can debate whether to change the others later. Doceirias 05:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Omit Demographics All-Together

This argument is moot, trite, and trivial. Even if a work is marketed and geared towards a particular demographic -- it does not imply that the market will respond as such. As consumers, anyone has the choice of buying anything. For some works, the distinction does not apply at all. Furthermore, other mediums (such as movies, books, music, etc) do not have categorization based on demographics. So, the most neutral position on this topic is complete omission. It should not be in the template at all. Regardless, all this would be better served by Genre. KyuuA4 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT update

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has been updated recently with a rewrite. Everyone should take a moment and check it out. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Stuff worth thinking about -- especially the discussion on the talk page. —Quasirandom 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So digesting it, my understanding of the major change is that notability is now not automatically inherited by subarticles. The basic argument being that if something is split off for length, either a) the subject is notable enough for an article, which case that needs to be documented in the subarticle, or b) the writing is not summary enough and probably should be merged or moved. Does this fit other people's interpretations? —Quasirandom 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's basically the core concept. Too many lists of fictional things were being created; there was no real-world information being shown, and minor fictional universes were being covered in greater depth than most of the extremely notable works. Many of these lists are being deleted. That, and the fact that the old WP:FICT contradicted WP:N and WP:NOT, led to the rewrite. It tries to compromise by translating "...subject of multiple reliable secondary sources (even for subarticles)" to the more reasonable "...contains significant real-world information (even for subarticles)", and I think it's about as good of a compromise as we could strike. Plus, with transwiki to the Wikia Annex becoming an option soon, I'm hoping fiction AfDs will be used only as a last resort. In essence, it raises the bar, but reduces the harshness by discouraging deletion and encouraging merges/transwiki instead. — Deckiller 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So to take a semi-concrete example, suppose for a series there's subarticles for the five main characters. Two of them are notably popular (shown by pop-culture references, allusions in other works, poll results, fan art, iconic uses, and so on) but the others, while just as important within the story, haven't caught on. The two warrant their own articles, but the three should possibly be merged back into the main article. Something like that? —Quasirandom 02:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. Or, if you want all the characters in one place, you can put them all in a cast of characters article, since the real-world info for those two characters will probably be enough for a characters article (and you can probably find other info about the characters in general). — Deckiller 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Spoiler Debate Redux. I really can't see how this can end well. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPOIL wasn't based on other policies and guidelines; the WP:FICT update is an extention of WP:NOT and WP:N. — Deckiller 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the current spoiler guideline was rewritten to deal with problems with WP:NPOV, and there have been an attempt to bring in WP:V. But that attempt hasn't gone any further then the occasional editor mentioning it. --Farix (Talk) 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding where the similarities are between WP:FICT and WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:FICT and WAF are pretty much ignored anyways by "fandom". There needs to be a rewrite of FICT but making it even more restrictive isn't the right direction. Kyaa the Catlord 05:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fansite. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but these things should reflect consensus and not make rules disregarding the reality of the situation. Wikipedia may not be a fansite, but creating subjective rules while blatantly disregarding actual practice is a bad idea. More care should be taken to create rules that have a snowball's chance in hell of being followed and not being disruptive. Kyaa the Catlord 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actual practice is exactly why we're making these pages. You might not think so, but more and more stuff on Wikipedia is coming in line with these guidelines and policies. We have more fictional GAs and FAs, we have lots of merges and AfDs (did ya know they finally merged the Pokemon articles?), and all in all, more editors are learning how to make better articles. Yes, there's still a large amount of work to be done, and new editors won't know this stuff right away, but that's why it's a guideline page. If people did everything correctly right off the bat, without being told, then we wouldn't even need guidelines. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are more GA and FA articles now than before, suggesting that more rules is the cause of this is a stretch. Expansion of rules does not improve the encyclopedia on its own, good editing does that. We don't need more guidlelines or MOS pages to improve editing and the way the guidelines and such are normally used is actually counterproductive and disruptive, as in the case of the edit war fests of SPOILER and the FUC changes. (If you doubt this, see the List of Code Geass characters page where an edit war is occuring right now because one admin continues to remove pictures used for identification purposes of characters who deserve pictures for identification purposes (which is still allowed). Kyaa the Catlord 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "more rules", it's a better guideline. They're not counterproductive, and they're not disruptive. Regarding List of Code Geass characters, that admin is completely right to remove those pictures because they are the second images to identify the characters, while another image is already doing that. I'm sorry, but the disruption you speak of is normally the result of users who are acting like you are acting, and is not the result of good, sound advice. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because questioning the wisdom of the vocal motivated minority is bad. I forgot. I'll blindly accept and not raise my voice from now on. I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to discuss changes. I must have been thinking about some other encyclopdia that is actually built from consensus. Kyaa the Catlord 07:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And in regards to the "second" image claim, yes, these are the second images containing the characters. But a solo shot identifies better than a group shot where the character is small and blends in. Yes, you can expand the image by clicking on it, but then you lose the "this character is on the left, next is... etc" text. It is a crappy way to identify characters, it is better to have them in a picture where you are not distracted by their more flashy neighbors. Of course, the policy doesn't make any attempt at addressing this concern and how it makes the encyclopedia less useful rather than improving it as you claim. Kyaa the Catlord 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>I think what Ned is saying is this: It's better to have guidelines that represent what the WHOLE of the body of editors want rather than the subset of editors who might be working on a specific area. Just because a few people might want a certain relaxed standard (which is often called 'crufty', god I hate that word, but it fits for the moment), doesn't mean the policies SHOULD. There are other sites for such. Think about it this way -- instead of trying to get WP to be what /you/ want it to be, get WP to be what /it/ wants it to be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; the rewrite was created to reflect the rapidly increasing inclusion standards at AfD and GAC/FAC, WP:NOT and WP:N, as well as the numerous working models that have shown that fiction can be covered correctly. Before, WP:FICT was a grand exception to policy; it allowed lengthy unverifiable lists of minor terms (directly contradicting WP:NOT and the parent guideline, WP:N). Even now, the rewrite is fairly lenient when compared to WP:N; if you have significant real-world info from primary sources, it's still fine. It was built to take an objective approach to notability for fiction by requiring notability from the perspective of the real world (as opposes to arguing what major/minor characters are). Lastly, the rewrite stresses better use of AfD as a last resort: WPAnime's numerous character lists should not be popping up at AfD unless no real-world info can be found, the info is already at Wikia or other Wikis, and/or nothing can be merged. — Deckiller 12:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To summarize, the key will be to approach one matter at a time; nobody will be slapping hundreds of AfD tags, because it contradicts how WP:FICT recommends to handle these scenerios. I think the best thing right now is not to worry about character lists quite yet; instead, I recommend focusing on merging individual articles that cannot establish notability into the lists. If the lists cannot establish notability, then it's just a simple transwiki and redirect to the main article sometime in the future.

This guideline is going to be hardest to apply on anime series, since all the great interviews describing these characters are in Japanese, and there are a lot of enthusiastic anime fans on Wikipedia who like to describe the characters in detail. But AfD standards are increasing steadily, and applying the new WP:FICT correctly can save all this hard work from deletion by transwiki or redirecting it to the parent article (it could have very well said that "anything not meeting this standard should be deleted", but that would defeat the purpose of a compromising guideline that we tried to strike). It's also important to look at it in the long-run: if WP:FICT was not rewritten and the standards at AfD kept increasing, then we'd have contradicting guidelines and policies, as well as new users being misled. There's a lot of work/adjusting to do, sure, but in the larger picture, it beats mass deletion and a conflict with Wikipedia's stress on real-world perspective. — Deckiller 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the nihongo template

As part of revamping List of Yotsuba&! chapters, we have a question about our current hack use of the nihongo template. If someone who knows more about its proper use could provide some guidance, we'd appreciate it. —Quasirandom 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ETA: To expand on that - what's the proper use of the template when the English translation (the first argument) is separated from the Japanese text by, for example, being in a different table column? —Quasirandom 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just don't use the template. What you did pretty much defeated two of the proposes of the template, which is to declare the Kanji characters as Japanese and add a CSS class to it (t_nihongo_kanji). --Farix (Talk) 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So we need to leave the kanji bare and manually italicize the romanji? Gotcha. Thanks. —Quasirandom 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Japanese episode list

When the template was first made I didn't think people would want to list four possible titles when the dub title was different from the original (as in, Title in English, romaji, kanji/kana, dub title), but there seems to be a few lists like that (such as List of Digimon Adventure episodes). With that in mind, I was thinking there should probably be something like "DubTitle" parameter added, and have it display in the next column. Or is having four titles going overboard? Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on that, but as long as you're fiddling with the template, it could use a misc column. I've been using the EpisodeNumber2 slot for that sort of thing, but it would look better after the title. Oh! Edo Rocket or Sayonara Zetsubō Sensei both had an extra bit of information that probably didn't NEED to be there, but a misc. column would allow for it. Doceirias 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's Aux1= (and 2,3). -- Ned Scott 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe I should have reread the template before trying to add that stuff in. Got SZS sorted out, so thanks. Doceirias 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Sailor Moon episodes uses all four titles. And yeah, as Ned Scott says we use the Aux parameters. --Masamage ♫ 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you add another title parameter, I don't think it should be in a new column; vertical space is cheap, but horizontal space is valuable, especially with smaller resolutions (800 and 1024), and multiple long columns will likely look scrunched-up and ugly. The above-linked Sailor Moon list barely squeezes by on a 1024x768 display with average font sizes; forget trying to add in another column (such as FirstEngAirDate) to something like that. —TangentCube, Dialogues 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In large part, I think the best approach would be to use the aux* fields. If you combine two English titles together, it would be confusing if they were located in the same cell. But then, I also thought that the JapaneseTitle was suppose to be primarily for the English translation with Romaji used when an English translation wasn't available. --Farix (Talk) 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the unique case of List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes where episode order is a variable. Unlike series or character templates, single template for episode lists won't fit. KyuuA4 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Two matters

Dear WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 20, you are invited to join the move request for Goku since it's been much slower than expected. I also asked something at WP:WPDB and thought you could help in seeking the answer. Much thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure your tone is appropriate. "Much slower than expected" is a very heavy indicator of expected outcome (in this case, approval to move), that you expected this to be done over the course of a few hours. It would seem that you have clearly come here with the sole intent to canvas for votes. If you were to do this properly, you would also have notified users involved in the other concerned pages of this move. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that's a bit overreactive. Sesshomaru has actually done a very good job at leaving a neutral message regarding the situation. We should not live in fear of WP:CANVAS accusations when informing others about discussions. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

English Production

In an anime article where there are no verifiable facts regarding the japanese production, is it acceptable to instead include aspects of the english production process? Hellspawn 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is Boogiepop Phantom, a current WP:GA nominee. Feedback appreciated.--Nohansen 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that there is no info on the production, even in Japanese. In this case, however, english is ok. It shouldn't be overdone to compensate, however; consider it as you would consider stating the technical tools used in production: a minor, but still notable, detail.--SidiLemine 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can verify who worked on the series, but that's it. We have no material like the kind which can be found in Serial Experiments Lain or Madlax, in regards to how the japanese went about producing the series, and what their intentions were. There is no such material on my DVD's, and I have searched for some time on the internet with no success. I had planned on including english production anyway, but forgot about it. Hellspawn 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The anime artbook and script books might contain something, but I think they're all out of print. Doceirias 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard, they do. I read about some stuff on a fansite. But I don't have the artbook or script books anyway, so that avenue isn't open to us. Hellspawn 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That will definitely be something to use, even if just to say that you used it... (if you have the title, you might try to peep through Google Books). Also, did you check the specialised magazines, like newtype, etc? They all had articles on it, and they are definitely available, even if only through this project.--SidiLemine 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought fansites were a no-no when it came to references? I looked at Google books, and nothing came up. And I don't have any anime magazines. We don't all buy Newtype USA. And they don't seem to upload previous reviews and the like onto their site, such as with other magazines. But seriously people, when I say I found nothing verifiable on japanese production I mean it. I didn't just spend five minutes browsing google and give up. I looked through english and japanese sites for some time, and found nothing. Hellspawn 17:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I say, "don't worry about it." Almost none of the anime/manga good articles have a production section and there you have them. I think you could do without it. But when the time comes for the article to become featured, you'll need a well referenced "development and design" section.--Nohansen 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would like to do the Production section now rather than have to do it later anyway. Hellspawn 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites? You're right, that's not appropriate (unless you want to talk about fan sites, and even then). I never even heard of Newtype before I joined this project; but some people in the project do buy it, and may share it or even better give you a succinct summary. You just need to find something they're doing and help them. I'll try and track them for you. In the meantime, write a nice little email to this person and see what happens!--SidiLemine 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but who are these people? And what's the email for? I do know there's one japanese Newtype that has a Boogiepop article. It can be seen (or parts of it can be seen) here - http://megaten.net/boogiepop/frames.html Hellspawn 09:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These kind, helpful people are listed here. The email is for getting scans of magazines, as stated on the web page. --SidiLemine 10:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I tried something a few hours to see how long it would take to be reverted. It didn't take long. So I ask, If anime film articles (Metropolis (2001 film), Perfect Blue) use the Film infobox; why don't anime TV series articles use the TV infobox?

I understand why we use it for franchises like Ranma and BLEACH, but when the article's about only one medium the TV and film infoboxes provide better information (see here). Furthermore, the animanga infobox can be problematic (see SandyGeorgia's comment on the Lupin infobox).

What do you guys think?--Nohansen 13:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is an infobox on an article already, we don't add/change it to our own infobox. If a film article doesn't have an infobox then the preference is to use this Wikiproject's infobox, but it has always been optional whether an editor wanted to use our infobox. Just like editors have the option of using International English or American. We do need to either redesign the infobox to display information more concisely or start making fields like Director, Studio and Network optional so that the larger ones can omit repeated information. But that's a discussion for Template talk:Infobox animanga. --Squilibob 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that "they" seem to have no compunctions against adding/changing OUR infobox to theirs, though... Snarfies 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Those probably should be reverted and the editors told to bring it up with the respective WikiProjects. But WP:FILM and WP:TV doesn't have a veto over our choice of infoboxes. --Farix (Talk) 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Award categories

Question about the subcategories of the Anime and manga awards category -- the various Winner of the Kodansha/Shogakukan Manga Awards. (I'd wikilink, but I haven't figured out the trick for to a category page.) Are they intended to be applied to articles about works or artists or both? The Kodansha ones are all artists only, the Shogakukan unlabeled and Childrens are artists, but the Shogakukan are all works only. I'm comfuzzled about the intent. (Also, should they be all split by category or all lumped by awarder?) It's something we should probably straighten out, as awards are a good prop for WP:N. —Quasirandom 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They are award to an artists for a specific work, so it makes no sense to have only the artists. Both should be included. Doceirias 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the lumping or splitting of categories? There's currently Kodansha categories for Children's, General, Shonen, and Shojo (not no generic winner), and Shogakukan for Children's, Shonen, and generic (but no General or Shojo). I'd say there's a clear case for splitting the latter into the four categories, except the award was, for a long time, only a generic award without categories. —Quasirandom 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't enough of them yet. Just one category for all the awards would suffice. KyuuA4 20:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say there should only be one category for the award. No need to split it up. Doceirias 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, guys, the categories already exist. You're proposing merges? (Keep in mind that the Shogakukan's been going for 50-odd years, with multiple categories for a couple decades, and Kodansha for 30 years with three categories -- with each award getting double entries in the caegory, for the title and artist. And that's not counting the numerous ties.) —Quasirandom 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles I was watching were all under just the award name, not divided by demographic. I'd be in favor of a merger. Or two categories - one for the artists and one for the works. That would be a more sensible way to divide things. Doceirias 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited a couple cats, but other articles were already using the divided categories. Division by work/creator would work. "Winner of" would be the person, I presume. What to name the work category? —Quasirandom 01:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(BTW, I'll keep sorting as I have been for now, until we get a new system in place--it'll be easier to resort once everything's tagged. —Quasirandom 17:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Various Template:Infobox animanga subtemplates up for deletion

I just discovered a whole slew of undocumented and unused Template:Infobox animanga subtemplates. Four of them are duplicates of documented subtemplates and the rest are simply junk. So I've put them all up for deletion. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 18#Various Template:Infobox animanga subtemplates. --Farix (Talk) 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

User:Folken de Fanel has been going around to many articles and removing info related to fansubs. Since fansubs are a critical part in how much anime develops its popularity in the states, he's removing content with encyclopedic value (i.e. vandalism). I've undone some of the damage he's done, but I could use some help. If someone could reason with him and ask him to stop, that'd be good, but he's already been banned several times for violating 3RR, so he does not appear to be the reasonable type (again, it's why I label him a vandal so quickly). What we need is for someone to monitor his edits and quickly undo them if he tries to apply his anti-fansub bias to an article. Thanks! Buspar 22:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spot checking his contributions...occasionally he carries it a bit too far (Haruhi's popularity before release was based on fansubs, and that is probably notable) but the vast majority of his changes are ones I entirely agree with. There is no reason to note the availability of fansubs for a series like Legend of Galactic Heroes, or discuss the history of fansubbing on Kodomo no Omocha. Doceirias 22:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Or restore the link to a fansub group on Tsukuyomi -Moon Phase- when the already reference link to ANN is more then sufficient. --Farix (Talk) 22:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree with Buspar's opinion on Folken de Fanel's intentions. I checked some of Folken's contributions, and many of the infact were helpful, and would be edits I would make myself; fansubs really have no place on wikipedia unless cited by a published/reliable source (as in the case of the The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime) article).--十八 22:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going back through Buspar reversions and restoring User:Folken de Fanel's edits which removed unverifiable information from articles. Remember that WP:V is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and any information or statement that can't pass it has to be removed. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well It's clear that Buspar is going to edit war with User:Folken de Fanel over this. Much of the stuff Buspar is reverting is things like "Only available in North American as fansubs". I really can't begin to explain how this is completely unnecessary. First of all, it's not important to the article. Second, it provides undue weight towards fansubs and also has a singe of POV pushing. Third, it is rare that you can verify it through reliable third-party sources. And lastly, we should only mention when the anime or manga is licensed in English, which is verifiable, instead of mentioning that it is not available in English (see Negative proof). --Farix (Talk) 14:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yotsuba&!: potential for FA?

Since I've never been through the FAC process, a question for those with more experience and a better feel for this. Does Yotsuba&! have the potential to be FA, or is it pretty much inherently a GA kind of article? I'm asking not so much for a peer review as a pre-PR -- is it worth the effort of another peer review and so on. Thanks for any direction you might have. —Quasirandom 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the other featured articles, Yotsuba lacks a "development and design" section: Azuma's inspirations for the manga and how it came to be; themes, art style and so on. The "Reception" section needs some "bad" critics; someone, somewhere, must have said something bad about the manga, it can't be all good. The GA-reviewer said the article was in-universe, so something must be done about that.

Also, I think the character descriptions could be shorter, tighter.--Nohansen 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving the characters into a separate article would be preferable. For instance, List of Yotsuba&! characters. The lead needs to be expanded and sourced. As Nohansen pointed out, a development and design section is needed. Madlax and Excel Saga are two examples to use as references. The article could also use a good copy-edit. Solicit the aid of someone at WP:LOCE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But with that, it has FA potential? Hmm -- a "development and design" section will be hardest: I've seen pretty much zilch on that in English, aside from what's already in the Story and Reception sections. But that gives a list of things to poke at. Thanks. —Quasirandom 14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Napier Article

Hi everyone. It seems like someone finally decided to do something about the EVA article, but needs the Susan J. Napier article, "When the Machines Stop: Fantasy, Reality, and Terminal Identity in Neon Genesis Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain" from Sci Fi journal. Any chance anyone has it and can get it to him? Gwern and I lost it, and GunnarRene is on an extended WikiBreak.--SidiLemine 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal templates

Where does one go to find the code for portal links? I'd like to substitute Wikiep-tan's head for the puzzle piece in the Portal:Evangelion link, but I can't find the template anywhere. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't do that without changing it for all the links since it's a local template that's used by every portal. In any case, it's at Template:Portal, but it's a protected template.--十八 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what the image and size parameters are for? —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

How does one go about protecting an article? There's these anonymous users who keeps reverting my edit of the Outlaw Star article. I'd understand if my edit was unreasonable, but I explained I'm just following the guidelines of this project, WP:SS and WP:TRIVIA.--Nohansen 17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection policy. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New cat

Would it be valuable to have a Category:Shōnen-ai? Currently most shōnen-ai articles are in the Category:Yaoi, which is something different (basically more sex). If you agree, I'll take it up to cat proposals, but let me know if I shouldn't bother. Ninja neko 08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be a good idea, since it's similar to the all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares (all yaoi is shōnen-ai, but not all shōnen-ai is yaoi). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS-AM

I have created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Anime- and manga-related articles) with information that was on the main page of the project. This will allow the main page to be less cluttered, and also provide an easy place to find this information that is consistent with what it was: a manual of style for anime- and manga-related articles. Feel free to participate in keeping it up-to-date. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We've grown so big that this does seem to make sense. -- Ned Scott 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A solution to non-free image issue

Commonly, anime-related articles (as many other screen media ones), have problems due to fair use images disputed - particulary painful when we are dealing with a FA article, which sometimes lacks even a single free image. However we are in a very lucky situation, as there is a great source of free images available, many of which members of this project can easily make in the future (if they haven't done so before): Cosplay images. Most anime (and multigenre) conventions feature many characters from anime/manga in cosplay costumes; we can take freely licenced pictures and upload them to Wikimedia Commons (see Category:Cosplay). I am very suprised to find that this category is so tiny; I am sure there are many free images that can be found on flickr, and that many members of this project had taken some in the past - and will in the future. I am uploading some images I took at Gen Con; if I went there with a goal of getting more cosplay photos (and better batteries... :( ) I could've had dozens of characters. So I strongly suggest - hunt for freely licenced cosplay images online, ask for free licences if status is unclear, ask your convention-going friends for their photos, and when you go to a con - carry a camera and take photos!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check www.flickr.com too. Kariteh 20:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I linked it above. By the way, one of my recent edits adding a cosplay image to an article was revert with a summary "no pictures of cosplayers". Is there, by any chance, some guideline from this wikiproject recommending agaisnt use of cosplay images? Consicering that they are the only free type of image available (other then fanart), I'd be quite interested in learning the rationale for it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosplaying photos outside of obvious articles where inclusion is proper, such as in the Cosplay article, are not only unneeded, but unwanted in normal anime/manga articles since they rarely ever give an accurate depiction of what the characters look like in the actual anime/manga, unless they are very very good cosplaying costumes, but even then, I doubt anyone wants cosplay photos all over anime/manga artilces just because they can be free use.--十八 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't agree with that logic. For starters, we are dealing with medium which is not "real", the only "pure official" media are the copyrighted scans/screenshots anime/manga. Cosplay images are of course an approximation - but a good, free approximation. Just as we accept amateur photos of buildings, people and other objects, and don't demand "official plans / photos by manufactures / approved by the photographed person", so should cosplay approximations be allowed (and welcomed). Remember that screenshots are increasingly deleted and I'd not be suprised if in a near future they would all be removed; other copyright material (posters, covers) will not last much longer (which is unfortunate, but it is the board policy). Hence we should try to get as much free (cosplay) images as possible to fill the inevevitablly growing gaps in our visual coverage. PS. And remember that fair use is illegal in most places outside USA, that we were able to use it - briefly - on en wiki - is a temporary luxury, nothing more.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like fair-use images that much, contact the copyright owners and ask if they will create images and license them under GFDL or something similar so that we can use them here. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to completly misunderstand both my point and how this site works. I like fair use, but they are being deleted - if you don't like that, contact Board of Wikimedia Fundation or take part in relevant discussions. If you dislike cosplay images so much, reach a consensus - for example, on this project pages - banning them from articles; don't remove them because you don't like them (per WP:OWN and related policies).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Which pictures are getting deleted exactly? Only pictures with no fair-use rationales are supposed to be deleted. Kariteh 21:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But fur can be disputed, image listed at IfD and then deleted. I have seen this happen over and over again - you might have noticed, for example, removal of all 'one screenshop per episode' fair uses... bottom line is, fair use is losing the battle, and that makes free images (out of which cosplay are the most popular) even more valuable to the articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosplay pics won't help with the episode screenshots problem. I think it's perfectly okay for notable characters who have an article to have, at least, one fair-use picture. Kariteh 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with you. But all signs show that fair use will be gone from wiki completly in few years. Anyway, we are getting off topic here: the question is - is there any reason to delete cosplay images from articles that have ample space for more images?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosplay images falls under the same non-free use and copyright violations are as fanart does. --Farix (Talk) 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(Indent) If copyrighted images are used logically and actually serve a purpose for the article, there's no reason to be deleted (as long as they don't lack a fair use rationale). But using cosplay images for decorative purposes, even if they are free, doesn't help at all.--Nohansen 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That applies even more to fair use images. Besides, illustrating characters (in 'character' section) is perfectly acceptable, and if we can use a free image instead of the fair use one, we should do so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But we can't. A cosplayer picture shows a cosplayer, not the original character design. That would be like showing the picture of a counterfeit Louis Vuitton bag to illustrate an article about Louis Vuitton bags. Kariteh 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to featured article reviews, there are several featured media articles containing fair-use television and film screenshots and covers, which contain rationales that have passed featured reviews. Take the 300 article, for example, which contains screenshots describing many of the film's pivotal scenes and good rationales to support their inclusion. Such screenshots are also the most accurate and authentic method of identifying a particular character or a particular scene within the actual series in question, thus meeting the rationale requirements, whereas the subject of these cosplay photographs are mostly just non-notable fans wearing costumes attempting to resemble their favourite characters, which do not help in identifying the actual media in question at all. A character's design in an anime, manga or game is its most defining characteristic, since anime, manga and games are visual media, with such essential features as character facial design only represented by authentic/canon images such as screenshots. In my humble opinion, therefore, cosplay images simply do not have any place in visual media articles, and only authentic or canon media (such as screenshots, covers, etc.) should be used to identify the series, its characters and themes. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But by the same logic, one can argue for exclusion of paintings or photographs of statues, not to mention allegorical ones which are far from being "historical" or "realistic". Using a photo of a cosplayer to illustrate the article is no different from an using a photo of an actor or a statue to illustrate a historical person. Note, also, that when Excel Saga was featured on the main page, it did not use a fair use picture - but that of a cosplayer. Of course, any cosplayer image will be less accurate that the original drawing - but the free factor should not be underestimated, and accuracy of costumes (if not faces, for the obvious reasons) can be pretty high, making them an informative visual addition to the article (particulary for the 'characters' section).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That cosplay photo in Excel Saga is not just any old fan, that's the director of the series himself! That makes the person in the photo not only notable enough for inclusion, but the fact that he's cosplaying as his own character in the series only just makes it good enough for inclusion in that article, but just barely. And your locic is flawd. We are talking about drawn media here: anime/manga/games, it's all drawn. Therefore, you cannot accurately depict 2D images with a 3D photograph. This is not like, as you said from an using a photo of an actor or a statue to illustrate a historical person because that is using a 3D medium to illustrate a 3D person. Similarly, a 2D painting can be used to illustrate a 3D person since it's going from 3D to 2D, not 2D to 3D which is the equivalent of the anime to your cosplay photos.--十八 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(Aside) The articles in question where User:Piotrus has been including cosplay photos are: List of Chobits characters‎, Trinity Blood‎, Chobits‎, Bleach (manga)‎, and List of Bleach characters‎.--十八 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you have now removed not only the images I added, but also new sections and copyediting changes (ex. 'characters' in Chobits). I am quite disappointed by such reactions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What? You do realize that in this edit you in fact effectively hid the last few sections of the article, including Notes and references, External links, and categories; I was merely correcting your mistakes, while at the same time removing the photos.--十八 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent] Regarding this whole issue: As far as I understand, cosplay photos are derivative work of the original characters (which are copyrighted). Am I correct in assuming that cosplay photographs are thus also copyrighted? G.A.S 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The photos are not derivative works, but the costumes are. Thus a photo of a derivative work still carries some of the copyright of the work that the costume was derived from. Thus to make a cosplay image totally free, you would have to get the photographer to license the photograph, the creator of the cosplay costume to license their creative contribution in making the costume, and get the original anime people to license their creative contribution in drawing the original anime. Carcharoth 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the original anime people might take a dimmer view of their articles being illustrated with cosplay pictures, than of their articles being illustrated with official pictures. Carcharoth 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the copyright would extend like that in regards to the costume. Just like how designs of clothes can be copyrighted, but pictures of people wearing those clothes can be free. You could still probably make a trademark claim, though. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's not just the costume, it's the entire design of the character being demonstrated (which I suppose is your point on trademarks, but I'm pretty sure that we're still looking at a copyright issue). That said, I think a more relevant comparison is the issue with photographs of statues - see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works. Unfortunately while it states that it is possible to copyright a photo of a public domain statue, it doesn't say whether a photo of a copyrighted statue can be re-copyrighted by the photographer, and the second section on the talk page addresses the question slightly with the answer of "maybe". Confusing Manifestation 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

Hi, folks. This is just a heads-up that articles for individual episodes of anime series are likely to come up under television episodes/Review soon. The episode articles for Oh My Goddess are already being discussed at Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes. In short, the issue is that articles for television episodes need to show that the individual episode has been discussed in reliable sources, and also need to have substantial out-of-universe information such as production information, reviews, ratings and impact. If a series' episode articles consist of nothing but plot summaries and cast lists, some editors will want to turn the article into a redirect to the relevant list of episodes. The guidelines for television episodes are at WP:EPISODE; please review them, and be ready when the review folks come. A few of the reviewers are very keen on turning as many episode articles as possible into redirects. If you want to keep the episode articles, the best thing is to include those sources and real-world information as soon as possible. Good luck! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. *sigh* I need to get paid for all this work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbyr (talk • contribs) 04:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Oh crud. We will have to gut the articles in order to save them. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 14:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the plot summaries from each individual episode article need to be copied into the list of episodes article so that that information can be preserved. As far as all the notes and stuff, I hope there's a way we can preserve that material...I'm gonna be mega-pissed if all the time I spent referencing those articles goes to waste. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the options which are generally considered in the review process are keeping episode articles or turning them into redirects; deletion isn't usually on the table. If the episode articles are turned into redirects, the notes will still be in the article's history, so if you don't have time to find real-world sources before the reviews begin, the info will still be accessible if you find them later. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for that. If/when the review process comes to them, I'll ask that that be done. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the review process; it should be enough if you can show that the episodes can be improved beyond a mere plot summary and appropriately be referenced to secondary sources. Of course, a plan of action and a list of sources should help... Regards, G.A.S 20:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)