 | This template is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | |  Template | This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. | | | I tried to put {{Animation}}it as a good example, until the template is finished. Kasaalan (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) - That's fine, but for our purposes, it's sufficient to simply link to it, as you did above and as I did in the section link. =) In any case, I'm not sure how useful it will be as an example, as anime and manga is both narrower and more broad than animation (depending on just where you look). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the navbox style is the better suited for this type of nav template as opposed to an infobox style similar to {{Adventism}}. I guess it will largely depend on how many of the articles that will be part of the series will already contain an infobox. --Farix (Talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) - That's something I've also been thinking about. I was mostly waiting until a good majority of the final links had been hunted down and added. Unfortunately, based on what I've seen while working on this (and my past explorations), it seems that our core topic article coverage is a bit on the random side (why do we have an article on the anime industry, but not the manga industry, for instance?). This may not be terribly conducive to a single, vertical column of links, but I've never really worked with navigational sidebars before, so... =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Seems that anime industry can simply be merged/redirected to Anime. But a article series template can show where there are gaps in coverage, as the example I gave above shows. In the mean time, I'm going to remove transcuslions of this template for article space because it is simply not ready and makes what links where more confusing. --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I created a rough mockup of a article series box at User:TheFarix/Sandbox3 using the outline below. --Farix (Talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It looks very good. I'm still partial to the idea of a navbox, though, as we could link to a broader range of topics. Perhaps we could have both concurrently (the sidebar here and the navbox at {{Anime and manga navbox}} or similar)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Outline - Anime
- History of anime, Original video animation, potentially any other article in Category:Anime
- Manga
- History of manga, Manga outside Japan*, Mangaka, Kyoto International Manga Museum, potentially any other article in Category:Manga
-
- Demographics
- Kodomo manga, Shōnen manga, Shōjo manga, Josei manga, Seinen manga,
- Genres (anime and manga specific)
- Magical girl, Mecha anime**, Harem (genre), Others?
- Select biographies (top- and high-importance bios?)
- Osamu Tezuka, Hayao Miyazaki, Go Nagai, Rakuten Kitazawa, Shotaro Ishinomori, Kōichi Mashimo, Katsuji Matsumoto, Leiji Matsumoto, Toshio Suzuki (producer)
- General
- Anime and manga fandom, Anime conventions, Glossary of anime and manga terms
*Need equivalent Anime article **Should be renamed to Mecha (genre)
Just a rough outlining for an article series box. --Farix (Talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that looks pretty good. And agree on your two notes. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Too much work I made some edits converted categories as (c) near main articles, tried to shorten article names. Maybe we need another sand template. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm looking at redoing this template from the ground up, which is why I posted the list above. But linking to categories should be avoided entirely. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Without cross checking categories and list base articles, I won't remove categories. After than we can remove. Kasaalan (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Half the reason I originally created this was in the hopes that it would help encourage improvements to some of our more neglected core articles, or at least increase traffic through them. Part of such improvement would be cross-checking between lists and categories. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, there've been no further comments for a few weeks, so I'm going to go ahead with Farix's draft and deploy it across a few articles. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I've been working offline on an anime/manga navbox, but I guess you beat me to it :) But I have to say, I like it better vertical and with fewer articles. Maybe other navboxes could be created for more specific sets of articles (like the cosplay articles). Anyway, here is what I was working on, maybe it can be of some use.--Cattus talk 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) - Wow, very comprehensive. =) You can see a couple of navbox versions we were working on here; obviously far less complete than yours. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Select biographies I'm against "Select biographies". Too subjective. -- deerstop. 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - The "Selected biographies" are our top- can high-importance biographies which were more then just a bibliography or filmography. So it's not like they were picked at random. --Farix (Talk) 11:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's we (users) who choose "high" and "low" importance, it's not some kind of fact. -- deerstop. 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- We do have criteria to determine the importance scale of biographies. So at the very least, subjectivity is kept to a minimum. It's not a matter of editors choosing which biographies are of high importance and which are of low importance. --Farix (Talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- In addition, it requires project discussion for an article to be marked as top- or high-importance; you won't get away with just running around and knocking the importance on random articles up (people have tried this on articles for their favorite anime/manga series, and they were reverted every time). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to explain to me how the "Assessment" system works. :) It IS a matter of editors to choose importance - in our case, project's editors discuss importance and determine criteria. Sure, criteria exist, but they are still subjective (for example, "essential historical influence" is a vague definition). I'm not suggesting to kill "Assessment" scales overall, I just don't like the idea of anime directors being added to the template according to their "Top project importance". Especially under "Select biographies" line. -- deerstop. 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then what would you suggest as an alternative to the importance scale? After all, the template should include some biographies. --Farix (Talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Err... It should? -- deerstop. 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Actually, it should also probably include a handful of series (for that matter, why do we not assess any series as top-importance? they are our primary focus, after all...). Ultimately, it may be better to ask the project for a few articles to include instead of relying on their importance - most of our high- and top-importance articles were assessed as such shortly after we adopted the assessment scale, without discussion, and their assessment as such needs to be discussed anyways. We could actually take care of both issues at once, while raising awareness of this template and (hopefully) garnering further opinions on it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Anime-manga I created another template for early version not to waste efforts and improvement. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Genres Is there any reason there are so few genres linked? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) - Other then there are few anime/manga specific genres? --Farix (Talk)
-
- Heh, good reason. Still, what about ecchi and its darker ilk (and all their bastard relatives)? Cattus's navbox above has some other potential inclusion candidates, as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- It's pretty much agreed that ecchi and hentai should be treated as Japanese terms and not as genres. You can check the discussion history at WT:MOS-AM for details. The same goes for bishōnen and bishōjo, which are more a character style. --Farix (Talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Okay, works for me. Any other possibilities from List of anime genres? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sentai would be the only solid one on the list that isn't on the template yet. I'm kinda leery of magical girlfriend as a genre. Like bishōnen and bishōjo, it's more a character type. --Farix (Talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Fair enough. Would you be opposed to a new "character type" group, then (again, Cattus's navbox has such)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've been thinking about them and really "character type" isn't a good fit either. These are simply terms used in various ways. But since we don't want to overload the template with a huge list of terms (and how do you determine which terms should be included and which should not?), it is probably better to leave them on the terminology/glossary page. --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- All right, sounds fair to me. If we continue to develop {{Anime-manga}} (I really don't like that name FWIW), we can be a little more lenient with including links. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have created a page for gei-comi at Bara (manga). Bara is similar to yaoi but is by gay men for gay men. Could someone please add this genre to the portal? And get it to work on the bara page? Thanks. --SykoSilver (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) - Appears to be a sub-genre of yaoi, which is already linked, so there is no need to include a second link to the same genre. In fact, I have reservations since this appears to be a neologism. --Farix (Talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- Things are not always as they appear, especially at a quick glance. Bara does not share yaoi's conventions, creators, publishers, or audience. They are both homoerotic but would you put apples in oranges because they're both fruity? Yaoi is shoujo/josei, bara is seinen. It is not the same genre as yaoi, nor a sub-genre of yaoi. The term "bara" in reference to gay men and media has been in use since the 1960's, longer than the term "yaoi" has been in use. --SykoSilver (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese Terms verses Demographic groups and Genres Looking at the others I can see it more in the characters but here is what I found from the following: Found in the articles: Magical girlfriend - "Characteristics of the genre" (Subsection) "A magical girlfriend is a female character often associated with romantic comedy anime series,[1] and is sometimes considered a genre of its own[2]" (First sentence). Shotacon - "Outside Japan, the term is less common and most often refers to a genre of manga and anime" lolicon - lolicon manga and lolicon themes do exist and would not fall under any of the other character or just be a Japanese term. Things can be both terms and Demographic groups and Genres too you know. Just as the words Harem and Mecha are. Might I also add that to seperate the two a split was done between Shōnen and Shōnen Manga. Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) - Neither of the statements describing shotacon or lolicon as genres are supported by a reliable source. So I would leave them out until then. Demographic groups are based on age, gender, ethnicity, and other identifiable characteristics of the target audience. Bishōnen and bishōjo are clearly do not describe the target audience. Also hentai is a Japanese term that is loosely associated with pornography. Like bishōnen and bishōjo, pornography is not a target audience either nor is it a unique Japanese genre. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Anime eye I know the template is new, and is subject to change. But I was just wondering, why use that image of eye to represent anime and manga as a whole? To me, it's a very stereotypical representation. It annoys infuriates me every time I hear someone says animes are all about big eyes. They aren't. And that way of thinking is very shallow. In fact, many mangas and animes don't use the big eyes style at all. And great artists develop their own distinguish styles very different from the norms. So why adding into the stereotype further? I suggest changing the eye to Wikipe-tan (head or full body, I don't care.) Yes, it may be changing from one stereotype to another (moe anthropomorphism / maid.) But at least it's not focusing anime as a whole on one single aspect. Besides, she's already WikiProject Anime and Manga mascot. It's better to be consistent. -- DTRY (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC) - Do you have a specific image in mind? There's quite a few (and then some) to choose from. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think Wikipe-tan has been grossly overused on Wikipedia, which is why I used a different image for the infobox. One has to admit that there is no "perfect" image. But since your complaint about the eye is that it is "stereotypical" and you want to replace it with another stereotypical image, I really don't see a gain. --Farix (Talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- One problem is that we really just don't have that many free-use anime/manga related images to choose from, and most of what we do have is either Wikipe-tan and co., or designed with one particular use in mind. It'd be great if we could get more people (actual mangaka, especially, would be incredibly awesome) drawing such images for us. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
When I first saw this infobox, I thought this series was an extension relating to "censorship", "surveillance" or "Big Brother". The eye is really misleading, especially since the last article I clicked from was regarding censorship, so you can imagine the surprise I got. There is nothing wrong with having Wikipe-tan on the infobox, since the general public would not really wander into these articles so often. If nobody else objects to it after a few days, I'll make the changes ok? - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - I don't mind Wikipe-tan myself, but as I said above, we just don't have much other than her. =/ 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It has been a few weeks and there has been no changes yet. I do agree with the fact that big-eye is a bad stereotype and is confusing. Yet wiki-tan is not more helpful in my opinion, this means that it is time to use our brain a bit more. For a better world 10:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)ArielGenesis (talk) |
