WikiProject Anime and manga	(Rated Project-Class)	Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Portal v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.  Project  This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.

	WikiProject Manual of Style	Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Shortcuts: WT:MOS-AM WT:MOS-ANIME WT:MOS-MANGA

Archives
1, 2, 3

Contents 1 Clarification Needed? 1.1 Suggestion 1 1.2 Another concern 1.3 Suggested rewrites 1.3.1 Original 1.3.2 Suggestion 1 1.3.3 Suggestion 2 1.3.4 Suggestion 3 2 Article names and disambiguation 2.1 Suggestion 1.b 3 Page layout 3.1 Break 2 3.2 Page layout proposal 4 Production staff, cast listings and theme songs 4.1 Poll time! 5 Fan romanization vs Official spelling 6 Reopening the naming discussion 7 Magazine Layout Proposal 8 Theme songs 9 Rationale needed 10 TV MOS? 11 Magazine field in the manga infobox 12 Image for infobox 13 Character Name 14 What would count as "an official name"? 14.1 Translating unlicensed titles 15 Characters section 15.1 Characters section (again) 16 Dispute 17 Expansions? 18 Searching the archives 19 Flags in the Infobox 20 Characters 21 Character section revision 22 Media organization 23 Suggestion/Question for Listing Voice Actors 24 Question on external links 25 Chronology categories 26 Clarification of naming order within this page 27 Problem with character articles 27.1 stab draft 28 Terminology 29 Noting translation differences in episode/chapter title lists

[edit] Clarification Needed?

[edit] Article names and disambiguation

It has always bothered me that the project's naming conventions are not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. While animated TV series like Gargoyles (TV series) and Justice League (TV series) follow the WP:TV-NAME conventions, many anime TV series like Gungrave (anime) and Mononoke (anime), disambiguate by adding "(anime)" when "(TV series)" would be better. We do, however, follow film naming conventions: Only Yesterday (film), Howl's Moving Castle (film), Memories (film)... I think the section ("Article names and disambiguation") merits some updating to reflect Wikipedia's consensus.--Nohansen (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all anime are TV series. I think anime is just as acceptable as manga for a disambig, and far more accurate than TV series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But the ones that are TV series should use "(TV series)"; the ones that are movies use "(film)"; and the ones that are direct-to-video, "(OVA)".--Nohansen (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree, I think anime is more accurate and is a more than acceptable disambig. No reason at all to go to using TV series, which implies it is an American or regular series, while anime is a clearer disambig. Do you also think manga should be changed to book or novel? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"{TV series)" implies nothing of the sort. Specially since, when necessary, Category:Japanese television series use it. "(U.S. TV series)" implies American.--Nohansen (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a valid reason to go changing all of our articles, or why anime is a bad disambig. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that "(anime)" is bad per se, but that it's not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia... It's not even consistent within the project, since we use "(film)" when appropriate.--Nohansen (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Way I see it, the reason why we have Hellsing (TV series) over Hellsing (anime) is because the Hellsing OVA is also an anime, with the exception that it isn't a television series. Inclusively, Dragon Ball (anime) is used over Dragon Ball (TV series) because it originated as anime rather than a television series. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The first Dragon Ball anime was a television series. What do you mean by "it originated as anime rather than a television series", Sesshomaru?--Nohansen (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't much of a difference is there? Why do the majority of anime articles use "(anime)" instead of disambiguators like "(TV series)" or "(animated series)"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the Project decided it that way a long time ago... I guess. It has always been like that, as far as I'm concerned... it was already like that when I joined in October 2006.--Nohansen (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought here. We could have the "(anime)" dabbing for anime that have not broadcast, and use "(TV series)" (or "(animated series)", etc.) for anime that do air, or did in the past. Thoughts about this introspection? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer just plain (anime). Its simple, its clear, and it has worked for years. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it has "worked for years", doesn't mean we can't change. Specially when the change is for the better, since it reflects the conventions accepted by two of our parent projects (not to mention, the whole of Wikipedia).--Nohansen (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. ATM I can't find any examples of anime that haven't aired on public television. Can someone come up with any? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mardock Scramble, a canceled GONZO project based on a novel by Tow Ubukata. Though, with a name like that, a dab wouldn't be necessary.--Nohansen (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Any with an actual page ... and dabbing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced the change is for the better. Doesn't really matter to me either way, but it seems like an awful lot of work for a fairly trivial distinction, when there's a ton of much more productive things we could be doing. I'd suggest asking at the talk page where the TV show convention was created, and seeing if they think it's worth us changing. If the parent projects don't mind us at anime, there's absolutely no reason for us to rename hundreds of pages. Doceirias (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "hundreds" of articles. It's more like a handful (or two handfuls). I'd even do the job myself if I bot wasn't up to the task.--Nohansen (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How often do we use (film), though? All of the examples above I believe were ones released by Disney, with several to theaters, and which have been put into the Film project and guidelines above ours (which I don't particularly agree with either, but that's another argument discussion for another day LOL). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Although, Memories (film) (also Mind Game (film), Paprika (2006 film), and Wicked City (film)) weren't released by Disney (not that it matters). Also, the fact that they were released to theaters is what makes them "(film)"s. If they were released direct-to-video in Japan, they'd be "(OVA)"s.--Nohansen (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one reason "(anime)" is used is to disambig between manga and anime. Granted many of the "(anime)" articles also cover the manga (for now, anyway), but I'm in the camp that doesn't see any reason why we wshouldn't use "(anime)" instead of "(TV series)". Only TV series which need disambig use it (or at least those are the only ones that should be using it), and the same applies for articles with "(anime)" in the title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, June 4, 2008

As a note, this has been crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons we use anime over TV series is to help distinguish between live action adaptations and animated ones. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish between animated TV series and live action TV series of the same name, the convention is to use "(animated TV series)" and "(live action TV series)"; see The Tick (animated TV series) and The Tick (live action TV series).--Nohansen (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why not go for a shorter dab? Like Spider-Man (1994 TV series)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's the go-to dab. But, if by any chance, two series with the same name (one animated, one live-action), premiered on the same year, that'd be one way, recommended by the naming guidelines, of distinguishing between them. And let me add that, as you can clearly see in Puss in Boots, the anime article is the only one not following the accepted conventions.--Nohansen (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot articles use "anime" when referring to a TV series, and "film" when referring to the anime movie. Air (film) has a section called Anime and film differences, when both adaptations are anime. Bleach (manga) calls the TV series the "anime version of Bleach", when the movies are also "anime versions of Bleach". We can't even get the nomenclature right, and it seems this is related to the "Article names and disambiguation" section (though I can't say which "problem" came first).--Nohansen (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for language that'll be in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and all relevant MoS, I've put together the following. I call it Suggestion 1.b, as it would merge with whatever comes out of Suggestions 1-3 above if implemented.

[edit] Suggestion 1.b

This section is a complement to Wikipedia's naming conventions, not a replacement. Always consider Wikipedia:Naming conventions when naming a page.

---

If several articles share the same title, disambiguation should be done by media format. For television series, use (TV series). For feature films and television movies, use (film). For Japanese animation originally released on home video, use (OVA). For Japanese animation directly released onto the Internet, use (ONA). For Japanese comic books and graphic novels, use (manga).

When disambiguating TV series or features of the same name and media format, add the year of original release or debut to distinguish between them. In the rare case that multiple series or features of the same name are produced in the same year, include a descriptive adjective, such as animated or live action.

When disambiguating Japanese comic books or graphic novels of the same name, add the author's surname. If further disambiguation is necessary, add the author's full name. If further disambiguation is necessary, add the year of original release to distinguish between them.

Comments

Note that I've removed naming conventions for games, visual novels and musicals. I did this because none of those are within the "complete" scope of the Project, and the relevant projects already have their own naming and style guidelines.

Also, see that OVAs, ONAs and manga must be "Japanese". The way I see it is "OVA", "ONA" and "manga" (unlike the neutral terms "TV series" and "film") are strictly related to media meant primarily for consumption in Japan and we wouldn't want OEL manga or manga-inspired comics calling themselves "manga" (it has happened before, it is happening still).

And I cannot stress enough the opening lines ("This section is a complement..."), which would go right at the beginning of the whole section. I'd appreciate your feedback.--Nohansen (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page layout

[edit] Production staff, cast listings and theme songs

[edit] Fan romanization vs Official spelling

I was wondering which should be used. In this case, it's about Vampire Knight. While it is more popular to use "Yuuki" as the romanization of the name of a character, the official romanization on the Japanese website, the English manga and convention uses "Yuki". Which one should be used? Why? - plau (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Always the official English romanization which is Yuki. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy as always, Collectonian. I concur with you. The MOS-AM specifically says to use the official English romanization. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it states at WP:MOS-AM#Characters: "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. This may not necessarily be the same as the official name(s)."--十八 07:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:MOS-JAPAN#Names of modern figures, and Wikipedia:MOS-JAPAN#Names of companies, products, and organizations. Also refer to WP:UE which states "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." (own italics). As such, official names should be used. G.A.S 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I was merely showing the inconsistency this project holds. Nihonjoe said this MOS says to use the official English name, but you had to go to other guidelines and the Japan MOS to prove the point; this shows we have problems with consistency.--十八 08:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That guideline refers to the article's name, it seems that section incorrectly refers to it, as the guideline seems to say: use Sailor Moon (character) instead of Usagi Tsukino. In any case: The guidelines seems to be inconsistent. G.A.S 08:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there are a few more names I want to clear up, If someone looks at the article Vampire Knight and List of Vampire Knight characters, they use fan translated romanization instead of the official spelling. In some cases, that's because the manga and anime have different romanizations. But most of the time it's stuff like "Ruka" and "Luca", where the official romanization is "Luca". I changed them once but they keep getting reverted. The people who revert them argue that it's against consensus. So I don't know which one I should use. Any ideas? - plau (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to look at the official romanization, take a look here. It's the official anime website. - plau (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be using the official spellings from the Viz release of the series. That is consensus. Fan translations are never the correct one to use. Now I go smack the article because I could have sworn I fixed all those names once already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the official JP anime website, and not the English published manga. We've already noticed considerable differences between the two. That website is unreliable for official english romanizations. If you want to use the official English version, at least use the official English manga.

Also, it would've been better if the OP had mentioned to the people here that this is concerning an edit conflict which was being discussed at Talk:List_of_Vampire_Knight_characters#Official_English_Names from the beginning. Of course, the OP has suddenly decided that he no longer wishes to speak to me to the point where he is disregarding my suggestions because they must clearly be selfserving and putting him into a trap. (This is what he said of my suggestion to use MedCab or MedCom if he needed a third party to resolve the dispute. Now, I do like this choice much better anyway, but his rationale for not using MedCab or MedCom was simply bizarre.)

My position lies with WP:MOS-AM#Characters, but, moreover, I don't even see the point of this argument in that I already mentioned that between minor variations from Yuuki/Yuki and Kiryuu/Kiryu, while I prefer the former, I don't mind nor would I edit over it if someone chose the latter. The main issue was with the more unusual changes, the most egregrious being Kuran/Clan which can introduce confusion. I'd like to note that there have also been other editors who have similarly edited it to the most popular version of the name. For what WP:MOS-AM#Characters is worth, I notice that the spellings Yuuki/Kuran/Ruka/Kiryuu/Aidou are the most common on the following places [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. I do note that Yuki and Kiryu are also used somewhat popularly. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely none of those count for determining popularity (and I have removed one as it violates WP:COPYRIGHT. We do not use fansites to determine most popular spelling, nor does popularity matter in this case. It is licensed. The official English names used in the Viz release of the manga will be used, period. Not the ones used in fansites, not the ones used by scanslations or fansubs, but the official spellings used in the actual legal English language copies of the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, that's ludicrous. First, to determine popular spelling, fansites are exactly where you find how laypersons write. Official sources are not a representation of how something is popularly written. They are a representation of how it is officially written. Delegitimizing fansites for determining what's popularly used is one of the most outrageous thing I've heard on Wikipidea. Sorry, but it's true. Next, I have reintroduced the AnimeSuki link. It's a link to the forum, not to torrents, and if you believe mentioning AnimeSuki violates WP:COPYRIGHT, I recommend you RFD the whole AnimeSuki page with that rationale, along with The Pirate Bay, Suprnova.org, eMule, Kazaa and articles on other tracker websites, etc. as well. The point is simple: You do not delete information because it has the capacity to be put to illegal use, given that the primary purpose of the information was not such. I recommend you not delete them again and if you do I will go to ArbCom to determine whether it is acceptable to delete another person's references simply because they could also be used to perpetrate copyright infringement. Next, WP:MOS-AM#Characters overtakes standard romanization for naming conventions, imo. Furthermore, there are multiple standards for romanization, and that mode of Hepburn romanization is still standard. And one more thing, I have never claimed ownership over the list and I know perfectly well how the GNUFDL works. I have no idea where you came up with that I was claiming ownership.

If you wish to use the official English manga's spellings, given that they're not too dissimilar, I have no real problem with that.-192.235.8.2 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it is not ludicrous. Fansites and fansub distributers are NOT reliable sources, period. They do not count. Their having articles does not mean they can be linked to from other pages, only that they are notable enough for an exception. And yes, we do remove links because of their capacity for illegal use, hence the AniDB template and all links being removed. This was already discussed awhile ago, and threatening to go to ArbCom is, frankly, ludicrous. They wouldn't accept the case because it is stated real nice and clear in WP:COPYRIGHT that we do NOT link to illegal content, and from the lack of other dispute resolutions. Go ask at copyright or the RS noticeboard...oh, wait, we did and they said no, you can't link to fansubber sites as a "reference." And no, Characters does not mean you get to decide that Viz is wrong and you will use whatever romanization you want. It supports the use of the official English language names, same as the rest of the MoS and the project. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Fansites and fansub distributers are NOT reliable sources, period." When we discuss popular usage, we use sources where normal people determine which usage they prefer. (You seem to be of the opinion that the only popular usage that counts is official usage, even though the two are not necessarily one and the same.) Next, sorry, find me the exact line where it's written that it violates WP:COPYRIGHT, I couldn't find it. It only said not to link copyrighted works as a reference. I am not linking a copyrighted work, I am linking websites which possess copyright violations elsewhere on it, and I am not linking it in its capacity as a fan-altered copyrighted work, but instead in its capacity as a fansite denoting popular usage. If there's a history somewhere, please link it. It's unfair that I am simply to take your word on it being officially so. Also, that wasn't a threat to go to ArbCom. It's perfectly simple: If there's a rules dispute, ArbCom can deliver effective final words on the matter. Moreover, you state Characters doesn't mean I get to decide Viz is wrong and the popular name should be used, but it says "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known [ie. popular] name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. This may not necessarily be the same as the official name(s)." In other words, it says exactly that a popular name does get to supercede Viz's official name and WP:NC(CN) explains that a common name does take precedence over what may be determined as the most "scientifically correct." You still haven't explained why that mode of Hepburn romanization is invalid, by the way.

On a side note, we have somewhat transgressed beyond arguing about the actual article (since I have already declared that I'm fine with whatever edits to the names you wish to do, assuming they're not too problematic) and have now entered arguing rules theory. Considering how the impacts of this discussion seem to be largely nonexistant for the time being, I just might wind up randomly excusing myself from it at some point or another. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why there is a proposal above to deal with some of that stuff, but we could never come to consensus and discussion seems to have stopped. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had come to an agreement, and assumed the change had been made. Changing the name of the show text would naturally lead to fixing the character sections as well. We need to get this settled; these arguments are a major distraction from getting actual work done. Doceirias (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, see above. There were disagreements over the specific wording. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've actually have a similar problem over at the Shugo Chara! articles. When Del Rey Manga released volume 4 states-side, we learned the official names of two of the Guardian Characters were El and Il (as in AngEL and DevIL). However, random IP editors keep changing the character names back to Eru and Iru because that is how the names are pronounced by the Japanese VAs do to the L sound does not existing in Japanese phonics, and subsequently translated by the fansubers. --Farix (Talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the fan romanizations appear to be mistranslations, it's probable that the fans will correct their romanizations to the official romanizations in due time. In that case, I would simply wait until about a month after the official romanizations are out, and then switch it over to the official romanizations because at that point the official romanizations should have gotten more popular, and the previous fan romanizations less popular. Also, I'd recommend using one to refer to the character at all times, but when listing names, to put the other romanization in parentheses like (officially known as "X") or (unofficially known as "Echys/Ekisu"), etc. next to whichever one you are primarily using. Whichever one's used less goes into parentheses and once it's hardly used at all, you get rid of it. Anyway, that's how I would resolve it. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)Am I correct in making the following conclusions, and additional comments, following the discussions above?

• The official English names should be used, if available.
• Revised Hepburn romanization (and Japanese text) should be provided per WP:MOS-JAPAN, using {{Nihongo}}.
• "Characters should be identified by their most commonly known name, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions." should be clarified, see my example above; naming conventions does not apply to spelling.
• As always, redirects should be provided for all variants of names.

If this is the case, this discussion will be closed as such.

G.A.S 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening the naming discussion

It seems to have scrolled off people's radar. Did anyone have any objection to this version? Doceirias (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. In the case where the primary work is licensed for English release, always use its official English title for the article name. Sometimes the primary work for a series is licensed for English release under multiple titles or in multiple countries. In that case, use the official version best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world.

Version 2, above, was the only one that got supports at all, so I'd be more inclined to want to use it out, though this one is fine too. Also, when implemented, the character section should be updated appropriately to reflect the same idea. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Version 2 was also opposed, so I went with this one. Doceirias (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this version. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by sentence two - it seems to repeat the first part of sentence one. And does the second half of sentence one contradict the first half? Other than that it looks great. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No real contradiction. A good example is Kimi ga Nozomu Eien and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, though in both cases the primary works were never distributed in English. And the second sentence is there to make sure that if the primary work is released in English, that that title must always be used; the first sentence does not specify this, and leaves it ambiguous. Anyway, I'm okay with this version, but I did like the much longer version slightly more only because it made everything crystal clear.--十八 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now - thanks. While I agree with what's stated, I think it should be reworded to be less ambiguous. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it needs disambiguating, but with that, support. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this too, mostly just because we really need to get *some* version of this agreed upon and in the MoS (lovely reasoning, eh?). —Dinoguy1000 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to make this more complicated, but what if the official name was changed during the serialization? Say, if the translation made a mistake and put down an incorrect transliteration on the first few volumes, then corrected it to say the original Japanese author's romanization of the name? In this case, the first one would likely be both official and best known, but the second one would be the new official term. MythSearcher^talk 09:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This has happened, in Tokyo Mew Mew, for example, where the first volume used different transliterations from the remaining volumes. In this case, if it is corrected after the first few volumes, or in reprint, then go with the corrected spellings, particularly if there is a sourcable explanation for the changes. The prose or footnotes should note the alternate spelling. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After correcting the name, the first one is no longer official. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about just phrasing it "Use the most commonly known title and mention any notable alternative titles where appropriate. In the event that an official title and unofficial title are similarly popular, the official title shall be preferred."? It seems to effectively encapsulate all of the above. -192.235.8.2 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this version. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This version may be open to more interpretation. What constitutes popularity? How can you be sure one title is more "commonly known" than another without going through Google or other fansites? I can just see the debates that this version would cause.--十八 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the same debates WP:NC(CN) usually spawns and resolves. -192.235.8.1 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So...nobody seems to have any objections to the general spirit of the change, but we don't seem to have quite reached the momentum needed to actually change it. Anyone who wanted the wording of the proposal I quoted above changed, step up and offer an alternative, or I'm going to assume silence signals agreement. Doceirias (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If we need to simplify, what about, Use the most popular official English title. If there is no official title, use the name most commonly known. Sort of taking the same approach as the suggestion above, but removing the possibility for arguments claiming an alternate title is better known than the official one. Doceirias (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think that is slightly too simple, though it certainly does remove most of the room for argument. For balance (and to also more pointedly address characters, how about:

Use the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world. If there is no official title, use the most commonly known name. This applies to series, character articles, and fictional element articles.

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely what I was driving at. Really like this version. Doceirias (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this version.--十八 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's beautiful and clear. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this one, though it might be good to have something like "(not just in fandom)" after "in the English-speaking world" in order to discount fansubs and scanlations. While we may know about them, I'd bet that 90% of actual consumers have no idea they even exist or how to get them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's only when there are multiple official titles. Only official titles are being considered there. Doceirias (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Easy to understand, and clear enough. G.A.S 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, we really need to get *something* agreed upon and into the MoS (and besides, this is a really good version). I'll make it double if we can add a statement about creating redirects from alternate official names as appropriate. —Dinoguy1000 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna call that enough support to go and have updated. Nihonjoe, to try to address your concern (which I share), I changed "English speaking world" to "broader English speaking world." How does that work for you? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's close enough, I guess. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine Layout Proposal

From my work with Shojo Beat, Shonen Jump, Weekly Shonen Jump, and PiQ, including studying other magazine articles, discussions on those pages with other editors and a peer review on SB, I've come up with a possible addition to the MoS for a recommended layout for anime/manga magazine articles. Thoughts on the proposed layout and on the proposed addition here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems much too personalized for this project. How about generalizing it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism?--十八 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say manga anthologies represent a unique challenge that makes it worth having a project specific set of guidelines. I'm not sure we'd need one for PiQ. Doceirias (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what about magazines that aren't just manga magazines, but serialize manga like Dengeki G's Magazine?--十八 01:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because its too specialized for Journalism and they don't even have a general guideline. As Doceirias notes, most of our mags are anthologies which has the added challenge of dealing with serial titles, and either way, nothing wrong with having our own guidelines tweaked to us. If we didn't want to repeat, we wouldn't have a character guideline either :P. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theme songs

The section where this was discussed above mostly deals with staff lists instead of theme songs, so I thought I'd bring this up again as a specific section. I've always felt that having a music section in articles that simply listed the theme songs for anime to be a lot more handy for quick referencing rather than the way it's being done now, which is to have this information scattered about in episode lists. I can see this info being split off from the main article if a show is particularly long and has a metric ton of different themes like One Piece, but otherwise it's just kind of bothersome to look up and down a big episode list for a song mention. Spitting the music out of the main article doesn't particularly help it look any better or worse either. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Theme song lists are primarily trivial. The themes themselves should go in the episode list (and anime section of the main article) as prose. It doesn't require loking "up and down" as it should be in the lead of the episode list, not scattered throughout it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the show has a ton of theme songs, in which case it's impractical to have all of them listed in the lead of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case they should still be listed before the actual episodes, like the One Piece list has it. I definitely think having a list is better than prose if there are more than three or four. Doceirias (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale needed

This suggestion does not imply any change of the current MoS.

Seeing people are still arguing on Talk:Case Closed even after I gave a polite note that they should look at here, I think a line of rationale is needed for the statement of controversy: "Use the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article," which many anime fans-- especially those who don't come from the Anglosphere-- did not particularly understand. Although, IMO, it came from the misunderstanding that en:WP is for everyone that knows English rather than for every Anglophone, this has to be clarified.

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV MOS?

Shouldn't we more decisively link to WP:MOSTV as providing guidance for anime television shows? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure we really need to. Our MoS supercedes that one for anime television shows. The only time someone should need to turn to MoS TV is for doing episode lists (since our having our own was rejected), and maybe for episode articles (which I think we have like two of). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So ... we shouldn't be using the TV MoS guideline for how long an episode plot summary? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That falls under the episode list part, so yeah, that part we do use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We should probably be more explicit about where to look for which things. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How does this MoS supersede the TV MoS, exactly? Isn't the idea to have all MoS work together, avoiding contradictions and redundancies between them?--Nohansen (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall article structure is decided by this MoS, not the TV MoS. The TV MoS (or for films the film MoS) fills in gaps, but is not the main MoS. In areas where they may differ, this MoS should be the decider. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But again, how? Or more to the point: why? If the project is the offspring of the Film and TV projects, why can "our" MoS trump the Film and TV MoS?--Nohansen (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we aren't just an offspring of them, but a stand alone article that encompasses multiple media formats. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it the other way around: Articles on anime TV series, for example, should follow WP:MOSTV and look to WP:MOS-AM to "fills in gaps" of what is expected in article dealing with Japanese animation. But since the structure recommended by WP:MOSTV is not that much different from what "we" recommend, my point is moot in this regard. But take the Comics guidelines, which mainly deal with articles on superheroes (something of no use to editors looking to work on a manga article). Now this is one of the times where I see this MoS as the "main" MoS (because the Comics MoS is no help at all).--Nohansen (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The TV MoS just does not speak well to most of our series, particularly those with multiple releases, nor does it speak well to most of our articles which start with a manga. I also tend to go with the view of whichever infobox is most appropriate dictates the predominate MoS. Anime series articles carry the anime infoboxes, not the TV series one, hence the anime MoS is the predominate one, with the TV one filling in gaps as needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Collectonian on this subject. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I as well, though we do try to have consistency where it makes sense. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, there should never be a need to choose one MoS over the other. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and our MoS is specifically geared to our own needs, and serves them much better than the TV MoS, though it certainly has its place and should not just be ignored. —Dinoguy1000 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine field in the manga infobox

This was mildly discussed before, but no action was taken. In the manga infobox currently, there is a single magazine field. The instructions for the infobox are fairly ambiguous about what goes there "Magazine or anthology in which the manga was serialized in." This opens the door for every magazine the title is ever serialized in to be included, resulting in some less than tidy infoboxes, such as seen at Naruto. Should we do for magazine what we've done with publisher, and have the main one purely for the original serialization, a second one for English serializations, and a third collapsed one for other languages. Or, should we simply change the instructions and specifically limit the field to the original magazine (or the original and English language ones), with other serializations left to the prose. Per personally, I'm inclined to learn towards the latter, similar to the studio in the anime field, but I'm open to either if it cleans up those articles where a title has been serialized all over the place. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That makes perfect sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I should clarify: I think adding the magazine_en and magazine_other fields would be good. I doubt it will get any more cluttered than the fields for networks and licensors in the anime boxes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We'd need to clarify that if the original serialization switched magazines, include all of those in the magazine= field. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support either option, but I think if we go with listing non-Japanese/English serializations only in the prose, we should do the same with the licensor, network, and publisher fields as well. This would also be a good time to raise the question of how we want the English info handled - should it stay in its own separate infobox row, or should it be combined with either the Japanese or other language rows? —Dinoguy1000 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better in the infobox as it would be somewhat clunky in the prose, especially when you get several of them for each. This is one place where the infobox makes things much cleaner as it just lists them, which is all that really needs to be done with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it should always be in the prose as well, and expanded upon to note the dates and all with sources, otherwise its unsourced stuff. But we seem to have lots of quite a bit of other stuff in the infoboxes (particularly aired networks). :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be relegated to relevant chapter/episode lists, if they exist, and then just focus on the Japanese and English info in the main article (besides the infobox lists)? —Dinoguy1000 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to mention them on those lists, but also mention them in the article somewhere. I do think there should be three separate fields for serialization in magazines, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image for infobox

Why was it decided that using the logo of the show was a good idea for this? I would think using the cover of one of the manga or anime releases would be most useful in quickly identifying a show, which is what the infobox is all about. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it had been decided? As far as I knew, it was best to use the cover of the manga for a series where the manga was the first work, or the DVD cover/promo image for an anime series, or poster for a film. Logo should be the last resort, IMHO? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's how I remember it as well, it was decided that the logo was discouraged unless absolutely necessary because, among other reasons, generally the cover of the manga/DVD/VHS/whatever generally includes the logo anyways. Did someone tell you that the logo was preferred? —Dinoguy1000 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen cover images and screenshots replaced with the logo in the past, and there are many, many, many articles which use the logo instead of another image, so that's why I asked. I'll start replacing the logos as I run into them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the order of preference is generally 1) Cover image/poster/promo image (roughly in that order?) 2) Screenshot 3) Logo. Does that sound about right to everyone else? —Dinoguy1000 22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character Name

Could someone look at the naming part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Characters? I think there was a discussion on not just on article naming, but also on character naming (romanization) here. I think it was agreed that the priority should be on the official English name of the character, so I think the part needs to be updated. It is my opinion that the naming (romanization) of characters should be based on the article naming style as stated below.

Use the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world. If there is no official title, use the most commonly known name. This applies to series, character articles, and fictional element articles.

Since it states that the character articles is based on the above principal, it seems quite obvious that the namings of the characters should also be based on the above. Stevefis (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rough update done. Someone else may want to review and tweak, but yeah, updating that was overlooked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll have a look at it. Stevefis (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would count as "an official name"?

On the merchandise page of "Junjō Romantica" (here), it uses "Jyunjyo Romantica" on multiple items (3 or so posters and on an "ecobag"), but does this classify as "an official title"? わwaらraうu Smile! 07:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, this discussion stems from a discussion started on my talk page as to whether List of Junjō Romantica episodes should be renamed to List of Jyunjyo Romantica episodes as Moocowsrule feels that "Junjō Romantica" is the "official" romanization. While I feel that it is "Junjo Romantica" per the official English release of the manga of the same title that the anime is based on. I feel the English release romanization should be used, same as with the rest of the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an official romanization, but romanizations in licensed English-language adapations take precedence over those in Japanese-language releases. Both WP:MOS-JA and WP:MOS-AM are pretty clear on the subject. —tan³ tx 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and ditch the tildes. WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books, CDs, movies, etc. —tan³ tx 08:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd been wondering about those tildes myself, but wasn't sure what to do with the title otherwise. Just a basic colon? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —tan³ tx 08:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh...apparently the article was named Junjo Romantica: Pure Romance at some point, then got moved around a few times to end up where it is now. Will submit a DB-Move request. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was only talking about the List of Junjō Romantica episodes page. I know Junjo Romantica: Pure Romance should stay where it is, I meant that list, and the anime section of Junjo Romantica: Pure Romance. わwaらraうu Smile! 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This part was a side note on the main article's name. The rest is about the episode list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to complicate things any further (or rather, to do just that), the anime was licensed by Kadokawa Pictures USA under the title Romantica "Pure Love". Should the episode list, then, be moved to this new title, or stick with the English title of the manga?--十八 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this is confusing. The episode list should be moved, but the main page should stay "Junjo Romantica: Pure Romance". わwaらraうu Smile! 01:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I'm inclined to say stick with the English title, primarily because there is no actual solicitation or official distribution information yet. That could be a "working title" rather than what ends up being used on the actual releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to agree with Moocows, but now I've got to side with Collectonian: it doesn't hurt to wait until something substantial gets released. —Dinoguy1000 03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Has Kadokawa America made any decisions? I think until they actually release something it should be moved to "Jyunjyo Romantica"... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 01:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Translating unlicensed titles

Also about "official names" and Junjo Romantica, I took out all the English names in the list, on the basis that we use the "official name" (AKA the romanization, as no official English title has been used) but someone reverted it. What does everyone here think about using fan names for English names? I always thought we used the original title until it was released in English. That's what's been happening around Fullmetal Alchemist 3: Kami o Tsugu Shōjo, although I've fought against a user against using the English name, or using the "official title". moocows rule 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Who reverted what? The episode list? That's someone else now adding new names along with summaries. Personally, I don't think English titles should be listed for unlicensed series, but I think the general project consensus on episode titles is that English translations should be provided (not fan names, but actual translations). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got that whole "don't include English titles" thing from you Collectonian. I agree that English titles are helpful, and if translated correctly they are Wikipedia material. moocows rule 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I said no English titles on songs and unlicensed novels and what not. Episode and chapter lists appear to be the exception. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I really think this should be given a separate discussion since it seems like a double standard to me, especially when an unofficial English translation is often very helpful, as is the case with episode/chapter lists.--十八 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... Why is that? moocows rule 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I don't think an English translation is really necessary on unlicensed works, but that's me. Probably something that should be discussed and fleshed out, since I don't think we really have come to any sort of "official" position really. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because we love our inconsistencies. Also, re the FMA game, that title (The Girl Who Surpasses God) comes from The Art of Fullmetal Alchemist 2, pp. 102-107, so it's not technically a fan name. Not an official release, but not some amateur translator on the Internet either. —tan³ tx 03:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The "correct" English title for Kami o Tsugu Shojo would be "The Girl who Succeeded God"... But Surpassed sounds better :P moocows rule 03:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the original research guideline clearly states that translation does not count as original research, there's no reason not to provide one. If some sort of edit war breaks out over preferred fan translations/translations performed by Japanese speaking editors, we can deal with that then. Doceirias (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

? This doesn't have anything to do with original research... But this has also happened on Shugo Chara, over the song titles. I think they should remain as their Japanese titles (this is how it's done on almost every anime episode list), but seeing as there's no guideline or policy over this me and User:TheFarix keep on fighting over it. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Characters section

[edit] Dispute

Page full-protected for three days; please discuss the dispute here and come to an agreement. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am to understand that there is agreement that forthcoming media releases should not be mentioned in anime- and manga-related articles. Thus, I suggest that there should be an addition to the MOS to note such a thing. I've heard that there was recent discussion on the topic, though I haven't been able to find it. I'm perplexed at being reverted by the editor who told me that this treatment of media was standard procedure. Dekimasuよ! 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The statement adds no value to the MoS, is too legalistic, and is incorrect for the overall general practices regarding media of all types. It is also a complete misstatement of the issue here, which was my reverting someone adding a badly source, badly written note in Bleach noting that the 20th Bleach Beat Collections volume would be released in March. I said "we also are not a news source and per project discussions we don't do this kind of "next coming soon" just "as of" which Dekimasu is misinterpreting to believe it applies to all media rather than just minor media and next of in serials. I've attempted to discuss on his talk page, which can be read here. I also invited him to take his disagreement with my revert to the article talk page, instead of just changing the MoS like that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to changing my wording. I object to not clarifying something which should be clarified. If the issue is "minor media and next of in serials", please clarify that. As of now, looking at the MOS and even with some digging through talk archives, there's no way for me to know that. There's no need to revert to a version that obfuscates the point. Dekimasuよ! 03:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no agreement that forthcoming media releases should not be mentioned, but we tend to recommend avoiding it for simplicity's sake. Editors often forget to change the tense when something is released, or continue updating articles; not adding until the information is unlikely to change keeps the articles more accurate. Doceirias (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just suggest clarifying this, since all I had to go on was one editor telling me that something was established practice, while a second editor and I thought that the information was useful. Dekimasuよ! 03:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I certainly have seen no such discussion about not adding forthcoming releases. Doing so runs the risk of things becoming out of date after the release passes, but this is a pervasive issue for any series in progress. Phrases like "coming soon" are more of a problem -- releases should always be given with absolute dates (such as a month+year), not relative dates (such as "soon"), precisely because of that out-of-date issue -- I believe there's even a statement about this in the general MOS somewhere (though finding something in that morass is ... challenging). —Quasirandom (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find was WP:NALBUMS, which refers to article creation but states that the release date should be set. (In the edit which started this misunderstanding, the exact date was provided.) That's why I mentioned it in my edit to the MOS, although there might be something more specific elsewhere. Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember where it was...maybe ask Farix, cause I could have sworn he pointed it out to me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Precise language? —tan³ tx 03:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! Better known as WP:DATED. Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support some sort of note letting people know what is and is not acceptable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this: "Include information on forthcoming media only if it is in the primary format of the work (anime or manga) and the release date has been confirmed by the publisher." Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That would prevent articles from saying that an anime or movie adaptation has been announced until an air/release date has been set. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a bad thing, since that's the standard to which most other articles (music, film, books) are held. Dekimasuよ! 04:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expansions?

This is not a request to change existing parts of the MoS, but to see if we could expand it . We have laid out, detailed guidelines for series articles and articles for specific characters, but we don't have any suggestions for Character lists - something we have a lot of. Do we follow the MoS for dedicated character pages? Creation details aren't always available, and even reception info may not be easy to come across. The same goes for episode and chapters lists. Do we need MoS for these, even if it's short?

I attempted awhile back to have an expansion done for episode and chapter lists and they were rejected. Much of the text for it was retooled to expand the TV MoS' section on episode lists. For awhile I had it up as an essay as well, but I've had it delete since then. I think it would be good to revisit both, as TV episode lists and anime episode lists are not always the same, particularly regarding seasonal pages, format, etc. I also agree that starting something for character lists would be good. Though we only have one FL one to go by right now, it is already being used as a model for other lists, so it can be a starting point. Would also be a great place to really hammer down to image issue as another place to point people to remind them that yes, WP:NONFREE means no individual character images, no images of favorite characters, you get 1 group image, 3 at the most for an extensive list. Point more to WP:WAF and keeping descriptions brief, etc. To go FL, though, such lists will have to be able to have at least general character creation/conception and reception information, but if nothing else, it would help at least get more to B that can't add that info. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Bleach characters seems a feasible FL, our only other current B class character list is List of Popotan characters, which has no creation section, but has a reception section. A few others definitely have the information available, but as usual good manpower is a problem (I've dropped all my planned projects just to concentrate on one franchise). Having MoS laid out will certainly make life easier, it can be difficult enough writing things with one, never mind without one Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also working on List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, need to get its peer review going. I totally agree on the manpower. Its hard enough getting work done on the series article. Other than summaries, the sublists tend to be badly neglected. Juggling other stuff, that character list has taken nearly one year! Wow...(first time I've looked back!) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Fruits Basket characters is another possible candidate, as the material is out there, but not all used or organized appropriately. Having a guideline of what to work toward would help. In general, a character list guideline would seem to be our biggest, most immediate hole, given sideways coverage of episode lists and as good template for chapter lists. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Searching the archives

I've added a search field in the archive box to allow searching of just the archives of this page. Enjoy! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in the Infobox

The Film project recently changed their guidelines to stop the use of flag icons from the infoboxes of their articles, as it has been found to violate WP:MOSFLAG.[10] This has also started to be carried over into the Television project some, so I thought it might be good if we also looked at whether this change should be made. Should we stop the use of flags in our infoboxes? Personally, I find that they are being overused as is, and clutters infoboxes for English licensors (and Animax airings which just goes crazy with the icons). For example, is the Japanese flag really needed to note that the manga publisher is Japanese which, by definition is a requirement of being a manga? Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. I've never really seen much purpose for the flags, and they seem to cause a lot of clutter in certain infoboxes. I'd be in favor of simply ceasing to use them.kuwabaratheman (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In the list of networks under the Sailor Moon infobox, flags are used as shorthand for countries airing the series. This is tidy-looking, but a little confusing, as you have to mouse over a particular flag to see what country it represents. It makes sense to replace those with the names of the countries. --Masamage ♫ 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The flags do not violate WP:MOSFLAG. In fact, it specifically states they shouldn't be used in infoboxes only in cases where it "makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial". I fail to to see how using them makes the infoboxes unclear, ambiguous, or controversial in any way. The only thing is specifically mentions is that they shouldn't be used in prose within the article. Using them in tables, infoboxes, and the like, is specifically listed as acceptable. I think the flags add interest to the infoboxes, and I see no drawbacks to using them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt: I like the flags and I wouldn't see removing them as an improvement. But, if a better reason than "some guideline may or may not advise against use of flag icons" can be given, then I'm all ears. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How about mine, above? (This reply goes to Nihonjoe as well--I think using them intead of a country's actual name is definitely unclear.) --Masamage ♫ 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think using both would be fine. The flag images are only 30px wide, so the space they use is minimal. I don't find the use of the flags alone to be confusing, though, as I recognize most flags. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Goodraise here -- I don't see how they go against the guideline, and they add to the compactness of the infobox, especially when there are a LOT of licensors. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this has been discussed before (although that discussion essentially dead-ended). Flagicons are currently the best method for specifying countries in the infobox for a number of reasons: as Quasi points out, they allow the infobox to remain reasonably compact, even when there are a large number of licensors/publishers (Dragon Ball with all those countries written out, anyone?); they ensure that everything lines up in an entirely predictable manner (there's far more to this reason than the superficially apparent ILIKEIT angle); with the implementation of {{#imagemap:}}, the flags now link directly to their country articles. In comparison, alternatives suffer from a number of problems: country abbreviations are not necessarily widely known (USA and GBR are fairly obvious, but do you know what KHM is without looking?) and can appear to "merge" with the publisher name (I don't know about you, but to me, "AUS Madman" is a perfectly plausible country name); full country names can be excessively long (imagine what a typical Animax entry would look like), and flag/country name combos would be even longer. I wouldn't mind doing away with the country icons, but at this time, I think we are perfectly justified in using them, and a viable alternative must first be demonstrated. As for the issue of using Japan's flag in the publisher field... that's a good point, and I would ask how we might selectively extend that to some of the other fields (especially the _en ones, since often, English licenses aren't announced for one specific region when there's only one English licensor). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 09:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Which one could also bring up the argument of should the infoboxes contain the other fields for licensors and networks aired? No other media appears to have that much information, which could be seen as indiscriminate (and if people every actually checked the infoboxes in GAs/FAs would cause every one we had to fail because the lists are often just added to by anons without actual checking/sourcing). Perhaps it might be better to look at reducing the boxes to just the original and any English licensor/airings, same as the television, film, and book articles, and leave the prose to note, with sources, others. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point. Everything found in the info box should also be in the article body. That should be expressly writen into the MoS, as practically all our articles do otherwise. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be in the body, and I think they should be in the infobox. The reason most other media don't use them is because anime and manga are one of the few media which tend to be extensively translated all over the world in many different languages. I doubt you could find any other medium which is prolific in that sense. We are dealing with an issue which is unlikely to be encountered elsewhere. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you all get to watch me waffle (and thus probably not say anything substantial). =D Collectonian and Joe both bring up valid points in regards to "other countries" information in the infobox. It is definitely not standard procedure amongst other infoboxes to note this information, but we're definitely not dealing with standard media in that respect. On one hand, if it is decided that this information should be moved out of the infobox entirely, we could probably get away with replacing flagicons with country names (although Animax could still muck that all up for us). On the other hand, if it is kept in the infobox, I think we should take a much more hard-line approach to having everything duplicated - and properly sourced - in the prose. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would favor the second approach (making sure the info is also in the prose). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the first things I do as part of article cleanup is do just that -- as part of constructing a manga/anime releases section (invariably there isn't one, just whatever's in the lead) I copy the licensors down from the infobox. It makes for a good start on what's needed. And then, if I get that far, start working on sourcing them. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

why go by the name most commonly known, what if its not the official name? like for instance. its almost as if you are asking the fans what name do they know most of the time. like for anime and manga related things like a character introduced as "this name" but then through the entire series is known as "that name" wouldnt it make more sense if you change it to something a bit more productive?Haseo445 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't. The official English name takes precedence over any "most commonly" known one unless it can truly be argued that it that the common is more used through reliable sources. Though it sounds like you are speaking about a different issue, of a character changing names mid-series? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And technically, if there is an official English release, it's going to be using the most commonly used name (except perhaps among we fans who prefer a different name for one reason or another). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. This rule is to decide between the native name (in this case Japanese) and an Eglish translation (for example, when there is an English version of the work), or between two English translations (for example when there are more than one English version of the product). Therefore, per WP:NAME, when naming articles you use the name that is most commonly recognized by English speaking readers. This means, for example, that if the original Japanese name is better known by English speaking readers than the English translation, then you've got to go with the Japanese name. On the other hand, if the English name is better known, then go with that.

This rule has nothing to do with whether a name is official or not, btw. That's a totally different issue. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm talking about a name thats more commonly used in the series. is the rule applied to the people who watch it to decide which name should be suggested or the series itself? when there are multiple official names, do we ask the fans or contributors which name we should use, or do we see which name is more commonly used in the series?Haseo445 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, per WP:MOS-JA, "Japanese terms should be romanized according to most common usage in English, including unconventional romanization of titles and names by licensees (e.g., Devil Hunter Yohko and Tenjho Tenge)".

More details from WP:MOS-JA:

1. . Use the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet;
2. . Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary;
3. . Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;
4. . Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Dutch, or variations); or
5. . If none of the above is available, use the macronned form.

To put simple, if there is an official English version of the anime, take the romanizations from that. If there isn't, then try the official website of the anime. If you don't find any romanization there then just use an standard hepburn romanization until an official one appears.

EDIT: don't forget we're talking about romanization rules here, not about translations (that's a different issue, which I already addressed in my previous post).Kazu-kun (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* i'm not tlaking about translations, these guys are. i'm saying if there is multiple official names, like lets say in DEATH NOTE: the official name for L is "L lawliet" and "L" which name od we use? the most commonly known in the series or the one that is know to the fans more.Deathberry (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In the individual case of Death Note, L's full name should be mentioned when he is first mentioned in the article, but after that, there's really no reason to use his full name - simply referring to him as "L" would suffice. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Character section revision

I've been unhappy with how the current WP:MOS-AM#Characters presents the alternatives for how to handle the characters of a series. Here's a proposed rewrite of the first two paragraphs:

There are two ways to handle character information for a series:

1. For shorter series, it may be better to include relevant character information in a well-crafted plot summary. This prevents the article from looking like a SparkNotes summary, rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry, and reduces the duplication of incidents in the story summary and the character summary. If you do this, actors/voice actors should be handled with a cast list in the appropriate media section below.
2. For longer series with a large cast, a characters section consisting of brief character outlines may be more appropriate. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story, and should focus on the characterization and role in the story, rather than a recapitulation of plot points the character is involved in. The character section should include actor/voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}), rather than a separate cast section.

If you go for option 2, keep in mind the following:

And so on. What do people think? Also, should we consider (lower in the section) depreciating a bullet list of characters in favor of definition lists, since that seems to be our current best practice as shown by our higher-ranked series articles? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ETA: I tweaked part of this to make the actors/voice actors part more parallel. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the rewrite. On the list format, not sure. I've seen both bullet and definition, and I thought bullet was the current best practice :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen bullets used in a single GA article, nor in any B-class article or character list for a while. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

*cough cough* (and before it was merged to the plot, Tokyo Mew Mew was using bullets) Of course, its not like we have a lot of B or GA series articles at all :( Actually, looking at a lot of them, almost all B are using prose rather than bullets or definition lists. LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be me not looking in the right places, yup. Though I note those are both articles where the character section is a summary of the spinoff list of characters, which presents its own style issues. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also true...looking at the current sets, I think the prose versions really are the nicest over all, but visually, if it has to be a list, I still like bullets, which mirrors what is mostly done in films and TV articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When you says "Length of each entry should" (in the second option), you're encouraging people to use list format, which we shouldn't. We need to emphasize the fact that prose is preferred over list.

Also, in the first option, when you say "cast list in the appropriate media section"... some articles use a "production" section or something similar instead, so we should add that... just something like "in the appropriate media or production section" would do. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The "length of each entry" clause is carried over unchanged from the existing guidelines. And in any case, that's talking about the length of each entry in the list, not the length of the series. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem: if you talk about the length of each entry in the list, you're encouraging people to use a list, and we shouldn't do that. We need to add something to make it clear that prose is preferred over a list. I'll go ahead and post my revision:

1. For shorter series, it may be better to include relevant character information in a well-crafted plot summary. This prevents the article from looking like a SparkNotes summary, rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry, and reduces the duplication of incidents in the story summary and the character summary. If you do this, actors/voice actors should be handled with a cast list in the appropriate media or production section below.
2. For longer series with a large cast, a characters section consisting of brief character outlines may be more appropriate. Prose is preferred over a list format; the amount of text dedicated to each character should vary relative to the character's importance to the story, and should focus on the characterization and general role in the story, rather than a recapitulation of specific plot points the character is involved in. The character section should include actor/voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}), rather than a separate cast section. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, let's back up a bit here -- when did we decide to promote prose over lists? On what rationale? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed awhile back...might be in the archives now. And based on what's been happening with GA and FA reviews, and PRs, where the bullet lists were less useful than a prose summary if an article has a separate character list (and more in keeping with doing a summary of a main). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My memory was that we agreed to allow prose as an alternative, not to promote it as preferred. This is sounding like a discussion that should be taken to the main project talk, as we're moving past wording and into changing intent. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Media organization

I don't understand why the guidelines state that all the media has to be lumped into one section. I can understand when it comes to franchises that has an anime version airing concurrently with the manga (like Naruto and Bleach to use current examples), but what about franchises like Golgo 13 or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, that had a couple of anime adaptations, but for most part were published independently without any sort of adaptation? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus more on the original media, have a section for the publishing history (or broadcast history if its an anime) and then focus on adaptations in other sub-sections? Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. If theres no adaption, you don't need to mention them. However, even if there is no adaption, there is often some other form of media, such as artbooks, guidebooks etc. Neither of your examples seem like exceptions to the rule. Theres nothing wrong with the Manga section being 3x as long as the anime section, as long as the content justifys it.

I'm looking at Golgo at see no reason to have "publication history". All of that can come under manga. Thats the exact content that should be a basis for that section! So far, I'm not seeing any reason to ignore, or change the MOS just to accomodate that page. Golgo is clearly a franchise now, regardless of it not being a weekly show Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that why should we lumped all media equally into one section. I cited Golgo 13 because the manga has a 40-year publication history with over 140 collected volumes. During all those years, there's only been three animated adaptations (the 1980's movie, the Queen Bee OVA, and the 50-episode TV series which ended recently). Its ridiculous to give the same weight to the anime versions when they only have a fraction of the history the manga (the original medium) has. Likewise, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has a 20-year publishing history and it only has two anime adaptations (the thirteen episode OVA series and the Phantom Blood movie).

The Manga and Anime Wikiproject is the only Wikiproject that enforces to give equal coverage to all media. The Harry Potter article focus primarily on the books, with a proper sub-section for the film versions, while Star Trek focuses primarily on the TV shows, and they're both multimedia franchises. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In both of these cases, the article focuses mainly on the original (and main) media releases. The section is really more of a formality IMHO, to ensure a uniform layout throughout articles in our scope. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by the "equal coverage". As I said, the content will weigh in favor of the manga, simply because there is more to dicsuss. But thats no reason to choose a different layout for the article, especially as you still have to discuss the other media. You won't be giving the same weight to the Anime, because coverage will be smaller to fit with it's smaller "status". I don't see how it's different to only having a paragraph to discuss artbooks or soundtracks in an article while the animne or manga get multiple paragraphs. I would also argue that both of the other projects are vastly different to our own. Either way, at this stage the article doesn't have enough content to suggest that any change will be beneficial. My ideal scenario would be to adapt what is there into the mos layout, and get as much verifiable, detailed content as is appropriate into the manga section. Fillout the anime section with relevant verifiable material, then come back. It will be so much easier to see if there is any benefit to change or making an exception if the article can show us why it should be considered as such. To me, that would be how I would do things. As it stands, it's hard to see how doing it against the MOS is beneficial. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article as a whole is about the primary work. The media section's first section is for the publication/broadcast history and licensing of that work, but when there are adaptations and related works, naming it "manga" or "anime" is clearer than "publication history" (which is a bit misleading for manga since its usually serialized first and most people don't associate publication with serialization even if technically it is). Where a series truly has no adaptations, then there are no sub-headings (such as with Free Collars Kingdom). This is, in part, a reflection of the MoS of Films and Television, and balances better with works that start as anime and manga. I also agree that the MoS as is works fine, and I can't see any benefit to the proposed idea. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion/Question for Listing Voice Actors

I have a question about a suggestion for listing voice actors in Lists. This originally began on the List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, so I'll be using examples from that page since I've already got the code in my clipboard. I bring the question here because in my attempts to discuss this change, we've come across the fact that a) there is not currently any sort of guideline or predefined method you all would prefer a List to be edited outside of comparing other FA and GA, and b) even amongst already existing Lists, the prose isn't particularly consistent across the board (for instance, some articles stress seiyu, while others say Japanese series/English adaptations, etc). I bring this question here in the hopes a real discussion will commence and a consensus/ruling will be made.

Currently, most paragraphs list the actors at the end of paragraphs as such:

Rie Kugimiya voices him in Japanese, and Aaron Dismuke in the English adaptation. 1
Yūko Satō voices her in Japanese, and Laura Bailey in English. 2
Kimblee is voiced by Yuji Ueda in the Japanese series, and by Eric Vale in the English adaptation. His voice in the new series is provided by Hiroyuki Yoshino. 3

Also, another way actors are listed:

Edward is voiced by Romi Paku and Vic Mignogna in the Japanese and English versions, respectively. 4
Toru Okawa and Travis Willingham voice Mustang in the Japanese and English versions, respectively. 5

An older edit of the List went as follows:6 7 8

Zolf J. Kimblee

Voiced by: Yuji Ueda (Japanese), Eric Vale (English)

Tim Marcoh

Voiced by: Kouji Totani (Japanese), Brice Armstrong (English)

Alex Louis Armstrong

Voiced by: Kenji Utsumi (Japanese), Christopher R. Sabat (English)

Now the underlying question: should voice actors (in the lists) be stated using the tags or in prose on the tail-end of a character's description? The reason I bring this is up is because upon editing the List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, I found a portion of grammatical errors arose when someone attempted to list the voice actors within the article itself. Personally I used the second method above, since I found it to read better than the first option (listing both actors, then both version, respectively). However the problem arose when another editor began reverting the edits back to the first choice. Neither was technically grammatically incorrect, but overall it gave me the idea to suggest a change in listing the voice actors in a consistent matter over all the characters on the list so that they wouldn't be subject to (too much) change.
So what are your thoughts (or verdicts?) -- Watemon (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Per established consensus (though agree, it does need to be actually clarified in the MoS), Voice actors should always be listed at the end of the character section if the primary (i.e. first) medium of the series is a written one (manga, light novels, etc). They should only be listed at the start with tags if the series primary work is an animated one (anime series, OVA, film, etc). In the case of Fullmetal Alchemist, its primary medium is the manga series, so the voices go at the end and his reverting was wholly appropriate and correct. For a series like, The Vision of Escaflowne, the primary work is the anime series, so its character list uses the anime voices template under the headers. The reason for this is, like the main article, the character list should focus on the primary work. At the end of a character section, any particularly important notes regarding differences between the primary work and its adaptions are noted, including who provides the voice. There is actually a template now for doing the voices at the end of a section, {{anime voices2}}, which can be employed to have it standardized. Beyond that, wording choice is generally left up to the editors, so long as it is consistent. Some like to do "manual" prose to keep it from being too monotonous. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, so to clarify: lists whose primary work is animated lists actors using tags at the start; lists whose primary work is written (manga/light novel) should list actors at the end of character description, as a "particularly important note regarding differences between the primary work (manga) and its adaptions". (Do I understand this correctly?) That being said: would you prefer that the listing of actors at the end of the character description be done in prose or as tags (example below)? You say that "wording choice is generally left up to [us]", so I'm only trying to clarify if this is also acceptable. Also, I'm getting the general impression there is a particular preference to keeping everything "in prose", if I'm correct in assuming so, could you please explain it to me so I may better understand the justification? Again, my chief concern is organizational and grammatical consistency. Thanks again. -- Watemon (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Zolf J. Kimblee

. . . He is also instructed to start a bloody conflict reminiscent of Ishbal. As such, he briefly sides with the country of Drachma, and leads them to slaughter against Briggs's forces. He later breaks the Homunculus Pride out of the dirt dome Hohenheim and the others had trapped him in and confronts Alphonse Elric. After being severely injured in the ensuing fight, it is implied that Kimblee is consumed by Pride's shadow.

• Voiced by: Yuji Ueda (Japanese), Eric Vale (English)

Yes, and they should always be done as prose at the end, not stand alone tags (or can use the anime voices 2 template, but still included at the end of the sentence and not broken out by itself) as the anime voices 2 template produces a full sentence. So for your example, it would be:

. . . He is also instructed to start a bloody conflict reminiscent of Ishbal. As such, he briefly sides with the country of Drachma, and leads them to slaughter against Briggs's forces. He later breaks the Homunculus Pride out of the dirt dome Hohenheim and the others had trapped him in and confronts Alphonse Elric. After being severely injured in the ensuing fight, it is implied that Kimblee is consumed by Pride's shadow. In the anime television series, Zolf is voiced by Yuji Ueda in Japanese and Eric Vale in English.

Or, the sentence could be written out in regular prose. (that said, someone needs to fix the grammar in anime voices 2...its missing a word or two :P)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how I feel about the ". . . in the Japanese language . . . in the English language." part of the tag. I also suggest the tag be updated to read "version" instead of language (or to read: "as voiced by {1} and {2} in the Japanese and English versions, respectively"<-- I'm partial to the language in this example, flows better). Again, just curious, is there any particular reason the voice actors can't be broken out by themselves? Is it a matter of preference? (again, curiosity). -- Watemon (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the wording needs fixed. It should be something like the "original Japanese version...English dubbed version." It needs to be made explicit that the voice only changes for the dubbed, not always all "English" versions (which includes the subtitled versions). As they are not broken out by themselves in these causes because it gives undue weight to a secondary version, and just doesn't look as visually pleasing, nor flow well. In general, the bulk of Wikipedia articles should be prose over lists or bullet points. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cool. Alrighty, so how about: "is voiced by {1} and {2} in the original Japanese version and English dubbed version, respectively." Grammar is similar as seen throughout FA and GA lists, and if we update then use the anime voices 2 template it'll create some consistency. Could I/we also create a new template for the special case of Fullmetal Alchemist. We're in the unique position of having two different anime series now. Maybe we could have it read: "is voiced by {1} and {2} in the original Japanese version and English dubbed version of the first series, and {1} (and {2} if a dub is ever made) in the original Japanese version of the 2nd series." Or maybe simply split the sentence, or use two tags. This was a question brought up in the original discussion, just thinking out loud, basically. (also, thanks for being patient enough to answer my questions!) -- Watemon (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• FMA is one of those rarer cases where you'll probably just want to go with straight prose, or maybe start a discussion at anime voices 2 about being able to include a show name attribute so it can be used multiple times on the same person, but different adaptations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah can someone tel me what is so wrong exactly with defining who does what version? --"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with defining who does what version; you're supposed to clarify who does which. What we're discussing are unified ways that can be done within the scope of the anime/manga project. -- Watemon (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ok--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question on external links

Under the fourth bullet point of Wikipedia:External Links#Important points to remember it says to "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site", however in the FA Tokyo Mew Mew, there are several links to Anime News Network. Is ANN an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelFire3423 (talk • contribs) 13:27, May 4, 2009

Its a back and forth thing on the ANN links. Technically they are separate entries, and there really hasn't been any clear consensus one way or the other whether there should only be one link to the main entry, or one for each individual. I think it would be good to discuss the idea in general, since some other articles have multiple links to official sites that are all under one main official, but one for each season/series/etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology categories

I've noticed that some OVAs and book series are being mentioned in multiple "Anime of [year]" categories. I propose that any self-contained series only be a member of the "Anime of [year]" of its beginning, whether a serial, OVA, manga, or whatever.

I also propose that the manga and anime chronologies be separated. They are already very lengthy and they aren't going to be getting any smaller. Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is perfectly valid categorization, and the Manga of [year] categories are used in the same fashion. Individual articles may need attention, but generally, there should be a category for the start of each series. As for separating the chronologies, I'm not sure what you're talking about... Could you clarify, please? ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? Talk to Dinoguy1000} 09:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then, I just didn't notice that there were guidelines for such. It appears the guidelines just aren't being followed. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of naming order within this page

Per discussion here I would like MOS-AM to add a paragraph for naming order. Something like:

Following the standards set forth by Japanese MoS, characters names should be based upon the era the anime is set in. For those anime set before the Meiji Restoration, names should be family name then personal name. For those set after, including those set in the future, it should be personal name and then family name. For anime set in fantasy worlds, context should be used to determine the relative historic setting. If the setting is timeless or unclear, use first name then family name.

陣内_Jinnai 09:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For the most part I agree, except the last bit about fantasy worlds. That touches too close to the OR line by using context. If it is not a clearly pre-Meiji series, Western order should be used. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of titles such as Shogun, daimyo, etc. were abolished during the Meiji Restoration. Any anime that uses those kind of references that does not clearly contain contradictions like mecha, cars, etc. should use traditional naming.陣内_Jinnai 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this an issue specific to anime and manga? IMO, if it is an issue with Japanese fiction in general, it should be dealt with at WP:MOS-JA. Goodraise 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Because its been brought up a little frequently of late. Its basically a restating of MOS-JA within this MoS, as opposed to a really new issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If it really was nothing but a restating of MOS-JA, which I'm not convinced it is, then I'd be against the addition, because any editor capable of finding this page should also be able to find MOS-JA. If it were an interpretation of MOS-JA that only mattered for anime and manga, then I'd support the addition, but I don't see how this is an anime and manga specific issue. Goodraise 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Japanese MoS does not even touch upon fantastical elements, only historical.陣内_Jinnai 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, #1) unless the cultural setting is clearly feudal Japan, Japanese titles should not be used. Elsewhere it should probably be the English equivalents. A shogun is a military commander in a specific cultural role, it's not the same as a general in the western sense. Still, the terms are used interchangeably in Japanese parlance: it can refer to a feudal military commander, or to a (ranking) supreme commander of an organized military. (recall that such concepts did not actually exist in feudal Europe, because military titles themselves did not exist, only social titles).

Policy should be eschewed wherever it is evident that there is an alternative policy choice that is just as effective. Context and subtle judgment should be employed instead. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I confess I was kinda confused by this discussion because I'm not familiar with Japanese name order conventions. The whole debate seems to me completely superfluous. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that we have had serious arguments about it in the past. The Japanese MoS doesn't deal with fictional worlds, period. It is designed around the real world articles.陣内_Jinnai 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could point to MOS-J for modern, futuristic and historical anime and just clarrify what to do when the setting is more hard to define such as Samurai 7 which use historic setting and references, but modern/futuristic technology or the reverse such as Utawarerumono which is set in the future but uses a political, economic and social infrastructure of pre-Tokugawa Japan. Also ones that deal with time travel between the era like Inuyasha and completely fantasy ones Record of the Lodoss War and timeless peices like Mushi-shi (author has said it was suppose to take place in modern times, but feels like it takes place during pre-Meiji).陣内_Jinnai 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anything been resolved about this? I brought several real problem articles as actual evidence to support that just going with MOS-J is problematic or has this been addressed there?陣内_Jinnai 03:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with character articles

Quasirandom: The discussion is very blatantly obviously not closed as people are still discussing it here. If the discussion is closed elsewhere, then close it there, not here. You are making no sense with your bizarre edits. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a better way of clearly indicating the above conversation took place elsewhere (on the assessment workpage) and was copied here to provide context and spark the discussion below, I'm open to it. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to link "elsewhere" to the discussion elsewhere. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's no actual template for something like that? I can't believe it. There certainly should be if there isn't as the code is hard for people to remember compared to a template name like {{Discussed elsewhere}}.陣内_Jinnai 06:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is, but for templates of this nature, the template namespace tends to be a real mess because no one cares enough to clean it all up and give it a semblance of order. ;P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up on current practice for character articles, to be honest, but the subsections were the concensus decision in the original discussion for the character article guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are article like L (Death Note) that follow the video games' characters style. A difference I found is that video game character do not make mention of abilities since that's not important to the games' plot and can be noted to be as a gameguide. Some abilities from anime/manga characters tend to be important for the plot, so they could be noted in a appearances section like "The resurrected Mana was ordered to kill Allen, slicing him through the left eye. Allen's deformed left arm awakened as an anti-akuma weapon, an enormous arm, destroying Mana, and his left eye became cursed, allowing him to see the souls of akuma." Just to give an example.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For another non-video game one that's FA quality there is Tom Swift. That article doesn't lists the character by his incarnations and any other section is either creation or impact/reception. The descriptions are all within the various sections which describe his character without any special not to abilities or the like.陣内_Jinnai 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another FA article is Martin Keamy (though that's a TV article) which has a personality section composed of sources from the author and third-party sources.Tintor2 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least it looks like the trend is to not have to many sections/subsections on a character unless they are significantly different in different incantations and they just give an overview for each incarnation. So probably the part on the subsections for "appearance and personality" and "history" should be removed. A phrase could be added "If the character differs significantly in their role or characteristics in their various media appearances, separate subsections should be used to help distinguish these differences." meh. I'm sure someone could write that better.陣内_Jinnai 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite an afterthought, but I've realized that television character FA's such as Michael Tritter and Nikki and Paulo include a plot overview under headings titled "Storyline" and "Appearances" respectively. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stab draft

Current text:

This can have subsections, such as "Appearance and personality" and "History", if encyclopedic treatment suggests separating them; special attributes/abilities would normally go in the former, but they can be treated in a separate subsection if warranted (however, do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight).

Draft rewrite:

This will generally not have subsections, unless the character differs significantly enough in its various media appearances that subsections can help distinguish them. Other aspects of the character can also be treated in a separate subsection if an encyclopedic treatment suggests it is warranted, based on third-party commentary. Do not list every single named attack of the character, as a long list gives that undue weight.

Assuming we still want to keep that part about special abilities -- if not, then further rewriting will be needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe we should check some more. I'd rather outright not mention the special abilities and just make it a more generic commentary about other subsections being okay if there is enough significant commentary to support multiple decent paragraphs. ie often there may enough for 1 large paragraph or 2 small paragraphs that would likely be merged in a feature article with other sections.陣内_Jinnai 01:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been checking Sasuke Uchiha and noted that there are not many abilities important to the plot. The few important ones are:

• He is a ninja prodigy,
• He has the Sharingan and it evolves along the series unitl becoming the Mangekyo Sharingan,
• He learns the Chidori and develops several variations.

For what I saw it could be merged in an appearances section.Tintor2 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft revised. Does that work better? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Closer. I would prefer something that was a bit clearer. Something like:

This will generally not have subsections, unless the character differs significantly enough in their various media appearances that subsections can help distinguish them. Other aspects of the character can also be treated in a separate subsection if encyclopedic treatment suggests it is warranted, based on the amount of reliably sourced commentary.

In order to not place undue weight on any one element it is nessasary to list only the important elements. Long lists like every named attack of the character give more importance to less important attacks. Exhaustive background which chronicle blow-by-blow accounts of the characters history overwhelm the reader with trivial information as well as possibly needlessly spoiling the plot.

It could be condensed i suppose. There were some key problems with the former one. First, it did not qualify the amount of information nessasary for a subsection. Also the use of "third-party" sources isn't really nessary here for a secondary section. If the creator talks alot about one of the character's attacks, that should be worthy of note.陣内_Jinnai 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, I'm seeing that all the important abilities for fictional characters I have seen could be merged in an appearances section. By the way, would that turn appearances in other media into a subsection?Tintor2 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea looks like "Appearances in other media" would be merged with character info entirely.陣内_Jinnai 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, "Appearences in other media" are usually non-canonical appearences -- references and parodies and other demonstrations the character has become part of the common culture. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a legacy or (Cultural) impact section normally?陣内_Jinnai 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if impact sections are preferred since that would make editors add cameos of 2 seconds of characters in another series. As I understand, other media refers to film, ovas novels, etc. as along as it is part from the franchise.Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

2-second cameos would qualify as trivial information generally. Maybe mentioning they've appeared in other series is fine, but saying "X had cameo appearances in X, Y as B and Z as C." could be better said as "X has appeared in multiple cameo roles" possibly with "outside X's original franchise".陣内_Jinnai 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I started working in L (Death Note) to work with this new style. Everybody is welcome to help.Tintor2 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Is there a policy or guideline concerning the use of terms like mangaka and seiyuu over their English equivalents? I don’t see anything on this MOS page, WP:Use English only pertains to proper nouns, and WP:MOS#Foreign terms only says when to italicize them. I don’t think these two words are in common use by non-otaku, but they’re not in my dictionary; in fact, I think I’ve only encountered them on Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, mangaka should be rarely used in a series article (its fine on their bios I believe, with nearby explanation). Seiyuu should pretty much never be used in any series article/list, as far as I can tell. In general, the {{anime voices}} template is used which does "voiced by" prose instead. Neither are common enough, I think for general use, unlike tankoban or, of course, manga and anime. If either is used in an article, then the same sentence should give a brief summary of what the word means per guidelines (similar to dealing with technical terms or non-standard words - can use, but must explain if can't replace with a more common one). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that Seiyuu is much more common off-wiki then tankoban. Few people refer to volumes of manga as "tankoban" (I would suggest that if you took 100 random manga readers, most people wouldn't know what you were talking about if you said tankoban), however people use seiyuu consistently when speaking of voice actors and/or their works in fandom. Granted, neither have the widespread useage of say, "Otaku" (as much as I loathe the twisting of the actual negative connotation of this word), but Seiyuu is certainly used more freely, and commonly then tankoban (which most people would just call a "volume" - or even a trade paperback). However thats more for other people to decide which is suitable for wiki then myself. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

tankoban is used in the English industry, at the least, while you generally do not see Seiyuu used in press releases and the like (though both are used heavily in reviews, so I'd say Seiyuu is arguably more usable than mangaka. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do official localized credits (on book covers, or at the end of anime episodes) ever credit the authors/voice actors as mangaka/seiyuu? And for what it’s worth, tankoban is new to me, even though I enjoy anime and manga. —Frungi (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's where it gets fun...it depends on the publisher/releaser, the title, etc. For most manga, I do not recall seeing mangaka used, as they are usually modified to use normal US standard credit pages, but on about the author pages and inside cover flaps, some use mangaka, some just use author or artist. I honestly can't answer on anime credits, as I never look at them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions is what you are looking for. Goodraise 05:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I asked because nearly every anime and manga article seems to use those words as if they were English, and this bothered me. But surely they’re not technical terms, and are they really jargon? Is there a policy that says to write articles in English, or is that just common sense? —Frungi (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, regardless of how or whether these terms are used in prose, links to the articles are usually still appropriate - for instance, I probably see about a 50/50 split of ''[[tankobon]]'' volumes versus [[Tankobon|bound volumes]] in articles. As to popularity/usage, I have no opinion on tankobon vs. seiyuu, but IMHO "mangaka" used in English prose seems like the type of thing plenty of people would label as Wapanese; I actually don't recall seeing it used more than a couple of times off-wiki. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. This is all too subjective for my taste. Personally, I would have guessed mangaka to be the least problematic term of the three. But then again, I'm neither a native speaker of English, nor involved in otaku sub-culture aside from this bunch of fanatics. Goodraise 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

mangaka is imo more prevelent than seiyuu mostly because there is no easy equivalent. Mangaka usually are both manga/comic artist and an author, although sometimes manga artist is used. Seiyuu however is much less used. Japanese voice actor is much more common. In either case these aren't jargon, but foreign words with not quite enough mainstream usage so they should be italicized when they are used.陣内_Jinnai 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Noting translation differences in episode/chapter title lists

This comes out of a recent dispute on List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where Viz's title was different from the directly translated Japanese title. I seem to remember the lists for manga chapter titles such as List of One Piece chapters (1–186) used to include notes about translations where the official translation was inaccurate or differed significantly from the literal Japanese translation, but those were removed a long time ago. Was there any particular reason for removing those notes I guess aside from it making the list look bad aesthetically?

I'm not really arguing for either side; I just want to end the dispute about whether or not to include a translation note in the lists. Geg (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would put such notes at the bottom using a ref tag or something similar. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you're in favor of including such notes? Goodraise 23:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am, as I think it's important information (and not WP:OR as some may claim; it's simply a translation). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I can see is that articles may end up with overly large translation note sections. Geg (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine. There are articles with over 200 references at the bottom, so a few translation notes shouldn't be an issue. I doubt most articles will have more than a couple or three. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If its an issue of size and separation for such lists, you can separate notes from references and shrink the default font size slightly.陣内_Jinnai 06:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)