Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:52, 30 July 2013

• WT:ANIME
• WT:MANGA

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:10, January 20, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Archives

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

Mascot Discussions

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

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

Quality Check June 2013

Is anyone interested in helping to check the project's Quality articles for issues? I plan on going through it soon. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

FLs

• List of Black Lagoon episodes No longer FL worthy. Sent to FLRC
• List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes unsourced airdates?
• List of Hitohira episodes Merge discussion yet to be resolved; unsourced airdates
• List of Gunslinger Girl episodes Dead links
• List of Kaze no Stigma episodes unsourced airdates
• List of Last Exile episodes Weak summaries that also break MoS with boldings and such. Sent to FLRC here.
• List of Night Wizard episodes unsourced airdates and multiple link rots.
• List of Oh My Goddess! episodes link rots, wayback machine unable to retrieve.
• List of One Piece video games Citation needed, should be easy to fix.
• List of Rental Magica episodes Questionable and unclear when I checked its story source.
• List of True Tears episodes airdates
• List of Vampire Knight episodes summaries and unsourced dates along with probably incomplete information

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Will need help from someone who has seen Black Lagoon: Roberta's Blood Trail. The summaries for those episodes need to be made about the same length as the earlier episode summaries. Goodraise 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just an update, I will nominate another list for FLRC at some point. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sent Last Exile to FLRC.DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cal.syoboi.jp as a source

Lots of old FL lists used this source but FL standards and risen and I doubt the source's reliability. Should the source still be used? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally never understood why it started to be used in lists a few years back. Was it just misinformed editors and no one ever called them out on it?--十八 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It just never seemed to be addressed back then. I don't think it should be used. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This always seemed like a consistent place to get airdates, although what should be used then? KirtZJ 02:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you know some Japanese then there is the official site of the show, and the sites of the channels airing it (for currently airing shows at least). Newtype Magazine has TV listings which can be useful for older shows. Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting views at FLRC

Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates/List of Black Lagoon episodes/archive1 DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

XXXX in anime

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is there a reason why there are lists like 2004 in anime made? These articles I feel are redundant to Category:2004 anime television series and also goes against WP:NOTDIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I habe no idea. Could probably get speedily deleted.Lucia Black (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the articles go back to 1907 and are just a repeat of what the categories already show so idk either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How about you actually help with working on them? I've been extremely busy as of late and have been working on various pages including 1917 in anime. I intended to get them filled out earlier, but something came up and I wanted to add the releases (at least pre-60's) to them in proper format. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that you're probably going to be the only one who even cares about these articles, do we really need one on each and every year? Even if "1917 is the year of definitive firsts in the history of Japanese animation", was 1976? 1985? 2013? This seems like a good time to invoke the WP:POKEMON rule. If a given year is not clearly notable because of some major event, and/or cannot be shown to be notable by reliable sources, the year should be deleted for lack of notability. Furthermore, even if you can show that 1965 or whatever was a notable year for anime, don't create the article before you can show notability. This is why each and every Pokemon does not have it's own article, though Pokemon articles continue to be created once notability has been established. Not to mention that these seem hugely redundant and contentforky to the XXXX in animation (such as 2000 in animation) articles. Why is anime getting preferential treatment? Couldn't you just put this content in those articles? I wish User:AnmaFinotera was still here.--十八 03:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't count the first production of anime with the three founding fathers as "a notable year" then we will never agree on anything. Chances are you never even heard of them before this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Back off a bit, will ya? I've been trying to deal with multiple issues in multiple areas. The pages are going to be more than just a primier on what happened and how it impacted the culture and production. The year in animation articles I did not know about before I made this and I disagree with the American bias. Before you go overboard, I just put up piece on four more of them, while it is Litten's work, I haven't gotten to notable births and haven't done much in notable events. The reason these articles should be kept are fairly obvious - the purpose is specific and not out of place with the other tabular lists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why even make such an article in the first place? Theres no strong notability toward them. Why follow a similar trend such 2000 in animation when that one is lacking aswell. If anime has a specific and well known age or era, then its best to expand anime in general. But making these type are pointless, provide no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and just not notable (especially for just 1 year).Lucia Black (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Im adding RfC, because this doesnt seem to be getting any approval and this is just arbitrary years of anime. Making "decades" rather than single years would be better off. And all of this based off of just one source (Litten, surprise surprise). And its definitely not a good idea to create over a 100 stubs at once if their not going to dedicate the time to build them.Lucia Black (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think decades would make more sense, and would reduce the number of permastubs. If we have 1950s in film, why not 1950s in anime? And then any single year which is particularly notable, i.e. 1917 in anime or the like, can get their own article.--十八 02:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Chris is considering notable births to add to these type of articles, are those even relevant? I'm still not supporting these lists, as their just arbitrary info to anime that occured within a time frame (sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS), but I am just looking for a compromise so that it would reduce the number of stubs.Lucia Black (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are deliberately targeting me and my contributions; no matter what I do in the area. The type of article is fine and has numerous other types split off the main one. Leave me alone! I removed the RFC, because it's not a part of anything. I am done dealing with you and your professed hatred. You continue to attack me and my contributions and engage in disruptive and dramatic false claims. You do not even know what synthesis is. Leave me alone already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You posted them on the public domain, targetting you is a complete stretch. You created 105 stubs, and you admit your too busy to work on them, and the wikiproject isnt going to invest on these type because their arbitrary years that have no real connection to anime. So listing or mentioning any piece of work or notable birth or event that can possibly be related to anime under these years wouldnt make the topic notable. This isnt about you, whether you want to be involved in this discussion. You have no authority to remove an RfC. And stop using my "hate" as an excuse for every dispute. So far, its not just me, this entire wikiproject doesnt agree with this. My reasons are legitimate.Lucia Black (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on them! You assume and assert bad-faith. They still have the construction and the topic and type is perfectly acceptable. They still have construction tags on them and other editors are adding, editing and improving these pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats where I disagree, and mis-use of bad faith (if you knew what bad faith meant, youd know how hypocritical it is to accuse someone right after assuming bad faith themselves). You cant just make virtually empty articles, and I see the contributions are very minor. I noticed youve made these articles entirely based off of one source. But listing arbitrary events in history of anime at a yearly base? How many sources do you actually think youll find? And im not talking about "manga artist A born in 1999" or "anime B began development in 2008". Im talking about sources that cover subject A (year) in B (anime history). Do we have to wait until you prove that these type of articles are notable?

if this was something a little more concrete to anime, for example, "The golden age of anime" or the "dark age of anime" which ive personally seen in several books regarding to anime history use. (Example: many highlight dragon ball Z in the golden age of anime). But this has absolutely nothing to do with you, if the most recognized editor in this wikiproject did the same, i would still question it. And dont mention me in unrelated topics and say "see above". Thats a jerk move, and you know it. Im on topic here.

And even through all this opposition, im still pushing for compromise of making these into decades.Lucia Black (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith; you announced it. Now I got work to do, I've been improving the articles while you attempt to chastise me and my work. And oh yes... I have hundreds of sources about events in anime for each year; its not hard to go from A to B when the material is already on Misplaced Pages and entire books are devoted to such things. Excuse me if I demonstrate I know more than the "RSes", but I'm volunteering my time here and I do not appreciate the biting and attacking over something that is still under construction and is being worked on. Leave me alone. Period. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes anime special enough to require individual year pages anyway?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Many events occur in the industry, enough that if we went by decade it would be too large to make any sense. Since I am adding the notable works released during that year to the articles it tend to fill them out as well. I doubt we should have individual year pages for anime released by year, but these pages will perform multiple duties. Giving perspective, awards and events in total. I was trying to find decent commentary on the years for a bit, but I tried to do too much at once and got bogged down with issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

But why are we keeping it separate from "Year in television" or "Year in film"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

you made the claims of having hundreds of sources before (ghost in the shell). So dont blame me if im doubting your claim of having hundreds of sources now. And i still disagree with the method, for 1, it would be completely subjective to the editor who they consider to be notable moment in anime history. So obviously it will get too big if we add every arbitrary bit of info that is barely related. But what im more concerned is how many sources cover "year XXXX in anime" in its most general and broad form?Lucia Black (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I still have hundreds of sources for Ghost in the Shell, from production commentary to scripts to interviews to the making of. Then we get into critical commentary, some 40 pages alone in Tokyo Cyberpunk: Posthumanism in Japanese Visual Culture alone. Good sources lead to other sources. There is no single (ahem-published) Year in Review for anime or manga that goes through this like the Timetable of History. Events with a year can exist as a list form and the list has an intended purpose and use. I didn't know that 2011 in Japanese television existed, but 2011 in anime already is superior and is on target even when it is not complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have them, then post them on the talkpage for others editors to insert if your too busy. But the worst part is how arbitrary the article is. List of awards for a topic about a year in anime? These are completely irrelevant. These articles are ridiculous. Its a bunch of irrelevant info taking advantage of the one thing they have in common, year and trying to turn it into an informative article which in reality is a bunch of statistics and release dates possibly.Theress no doubt in my mind, the hundreds of sources are just awards, birth years, and any miscellaneous info relating to the year and anime rather than sources actually discussing how much anime has impacted within that year.Lucia Black (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Go to the library and get them yourself. Not everything is online; most are books (as I pointed out) and others come straight from the media on DVD. I cannot post them for you. And you do not understand the "year" types at all. Your "how anime impacted in year X" would be putting my research and perspective on Misplaced Pages, I'm not falling for it. It is like posting ICv2 and jumping to conclusions. Sorry, but that's baiting me into producing OR and I will not do that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

then theres no point in you bragging about hundred of sources if you cant share. For books. All you have to do is scan the relevant info. And its already on perspective if the editors get to choose what counts as notable info in that year. Its not encyclopedic at all to have something so arbitrary (in which this case your not denying).Lucia Black (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and commit copyright infringement in the process? No. I'm not going to the library and scanning pages and uploading them so you can work on it. The titles alone are fine and I'm not posting DVD materials either for your sake. We are done here. Do not re-add this pointless RFC tag again; what's done is done and your bad-faith attacks on me are annoying. If you have a problem, you are experienced enough to know the proper venue, but it is disruptive and pointy to do so. The under-construction tag applies and I am done wasting my editing time dealing with you. Go bother someone else, I'm running out of patience with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not like you're scanning the whole book. And im not sating for my sake, but for the sake of people working on them. The under construction tag is an excuse to leave stubs such as those for a long time without working on them. You still havent addressed the issue of arbitrary. Your just trying to make it look like this isnt a constructive discussion. And if you remove the RfC again, I will report you. RfC is requesting for comment, whether you find me disruptive, bad faith, or whatever lame excuse you can think of, theres no reason to remove the RfC.Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Look it up yourself - I am not providing you with a copy. Tough luck. And the RFC does not do anything to the articles. That is why this is very improper and disruptive. You know what to do if you have an issue with the pages. What on earth could the RFC do to 2012 in anime or 2011 in anime or 1917 in anime? I'm still working and trying to organize the material and assist other editors while dealing with your problem. I am continuing to work on the topics and your breathing down my neck is disruptive. I strongly suggest helping or leaving me alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

you just dont get it do you? These could be filled with over 40k of text and properly sourced, they would still be considered unencyclopedic. There articles are just listings of info compiled tofether for one arbitrary year. Look at LGBT themes in comics article. Instead of arbitrarily compiling LGBT themed comics tofether, they mentionn which ones affected most in comic history or mention it in a more generalized form. But these are articles are just arbitrary bits of info. How many sources are actually talking about the Year??????? How many sources do u have stating "2008 was a dull time for anime" or "1999 was the revolution of anime due to these animes given here"? Thats the heart of the issue, some of us just dont find it encyclopedic.

also, enough with the jerk attitude. It was a suggestion, im not forcing you to scan a book. Although you could, and it wouldnt be for my sake.Lucia Black (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the hostile one. The type of list here is perfectly acceptable and I am filling one of our top requested article holes. Check the feedbacks sometime, lists for anime are among the most requested comments. I was reading the feedbacks and noticed that the "List of anime" was redlinked. While I am not proposing a compendium right now, the "XXXX in anime" will serve multiple duties and one of them is the anime released by year type. You realize that the categories and other forms would totally mess with most readers; and that less than a fourth/fifth of all releases are even included on the list? I tried to pick the best releases with the largest showings and the most active fanbases mixed in with some more obscure works. No other page is doing the task or is up to it, so I made it. You just don't like it, but this is not radical or unconventional - its pretty standard and most of these pages are already better than the other article types. Best thing is that there will be no more "releases for 2012" and it should be stable and only continue to improve. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you wont learn any other way. You cant do things like remove RfCs or make edits despite having no consensus for it (4 times). And this is still, very unencyclopedic. And of course I dont like it, its a 105 stubs all at once and their going to be just pieces of arbitrary jnfo relating to anime. Its not informative, you just admitted this is to bypass category. But it doesnt change hardly anything. Categories may be overwhelming at times, but when it comes to years, theres hardly an issue of finding what you're searching for.Lucia Black (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Twisting my words again? This RFC is not an RFC capable of doing anything anyways, its bad process, I'll go ask for a 3O if you want, but the last time you filed an RFC to oppose my failure of your GA nom which was improper. Again, a list of notable series released in a year is an acceptable article form. Even a split as Deaths in January 2012 is a notable and allowed article. You really do not understand WP:STANDALONE and that's why you won't take the proper actions. And oh yes, we discourage linking readers to plain categories. Also, please look at , do you notice the three sub sections? Do you notice how not every anime is covered? Do you realize how BAD that is for readers to comb through? Your claims of "consensus" is silly, I'm improving the navigation and functionality of Misplaced Pages. Not having navigation is a major concern. Why can't you deal with the feedback of other users? You seem stuck with your grudge and your bias. This Wikiproject has navigation and functionality problems, but the systematic bias is blinds people who cannot remove themselves from it. You need a new perspective; I am one to provide that perspective. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats not an issue relating to the categories fault. Regardless, your not improving it in a very direct way. Youre creating an article based on arbitrary events of anime in that year. WP:STANDALONE has nothing to do with this unless your admitting these articles are "List of arbitrary events related to anime in XXXX". You cant force someone to follow your perspective, and an entire wikipedia disagrees, and if they disagree, its for good reason. My claims of consensus are real. No one here is supporting such a ridiculous article. This isnt fixing the navigation of articles. If you made List of anime released in XXXX, that woukd be a more acceptable list article, bur thats not what you makjng, yoyr trying to guide readers to more articles, unrelated to what their looking for. And thats not really an issue. The way other editors see wikipedia and the way you see it are vastly different. My "grudge" doesnt make me bias, it just makes me avoid you when possible. You ask me why cant I deal with feedback, I could ask the same thing. Your trying to fix a subjective issue.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

on an unrelated note, the RfC on ghost in the shell accidentally placed it where the GA review, not because the RfC wasn't appropriate. Completely different situation.Lucia Black (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You were told it was inappropriate and it was removed. Placement did not matter. Again, you are caught lying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't inappropriate. You base it off of his text, he clarified in his talkpage why, and it was because it was under the GA. look for the discussion yourself. I dont make up anything.Lucia Black (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Again a lie. He said, "Actually a RfC should be filed correctly and not on a now failed GA nomination. I would like to go into more detail but my reverts and closure speaks for itself in this situation." Which means the first edit I posted was right. Then you said we were in an alliance, a bad faith and personal attack. You also said I was abusing consensus (the review was my own to fail or pass) which is also an attack and false. Now would you stop digging yourself deeper? I really don't take any enjoyment in having to constantly prove everything you say is wrong or misguided and to have you dodge, redirect or make it worse. This RFC is out of process and unable to delete the articles which I am currently working on. Period. You know it, I know it. Everyone knows it. AFD is the proper venue, take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think I should hat this distraction above. Anyone else agree? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. but that purely based on your point of view. And i didn't lie. The comment you quoted does not prove me wrong. and accusing someone of lieing so blatantly and accusing of lieing multiple times is uncivil. i'm not going into that subject because, it would just start something you're so craving to start. And the RfC is meant to dedicate a more compromise, but despite that, you continue the fact that these articles are just list of arbitrary statistics. This RfC is to gain a larger consensus on whether these type of articles should even exist. it doesn't exactly classify itself as a list by title, and its too broad. And i don't see why "List of anime released in XXXX" isn't sufficient? It looks like you're trying to make an anime database of arbitrary events of anime, not for the reader's sake, but or the sake of accessibility, and thats fine if it was a list focused on one thing. You're making a database, not an article on a notable subject, nor a stand alone list. So it could easily be deleted if consensus reaches, hence the RfC.Lucia Black (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And your bad-faith accusations continues... I have absolutely no point in continuing going back and forth with you. Have your little "RFC", but they are perfectly acceptable by policy and cannot be "purged" without going through a process. RFC is a comment, not an AFD and my objection to it is paramount. The type of article is backed by policy, supported by convention. I had to request the unsalting of the list of anime for starters, and it was granted by an admin. I still do not understand why the project is unable to meet the needs of its readers even when deliberately requesting over and over again. Here you are once again actively supporting a campaign of deletion despite the continued improvements which make those articles more and more valuable with each passing moment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what bad-faith. I'm not accusing you of making data-bases intentionally to harm wikipedia. Bad-faith is about accusing someone with the "intent" to make edits against wikipedia. You can't hide against "policy" forever, especially when you're based on the idea of "there's no concrete rule against it". It's still not an article related to notable subject, nor a proper standalone list. This is borderline WP:NOTDIRECTORY under the first rule: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Misplaced Pages also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See WP:STANDALONE#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)" and just to go further, WP:STANDALONE states: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. if this indeed is a list. but you're not denying this article is just an actual "database". and you seem to imply that this is indeed trying to be a list. So, you have one policy that COULD be used against these, AND you have that policy linking to the guide.Lucia Black (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• You don't even understand to what "bad faith" issue I was referring to... Moving on. First of all, NOTDIRECTORY doesn't cover this. Why even copy paste it in? Secondly, its not general or too broad in scope, even by itself the listing of X (anime) released by year is pointed as a valid criteria. So it is backed as valid, you read it yourself. Why are you still creating drama over something that is perfectly acceptable and covered by the whole of LIST? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's divided by year, but the scope of the topic that can be covered is too broad. the only limitation is year, which is the only key factor to this list. nut the scope of it is still too broad. Why are you asking loaded questions? You know why, because its not covered by WP:STANDALONE at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you just being facetious or something? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further. The RfC is there for other editors to comment on the issue, and provide consensus on whether these articles are encyclopedic or not according to the policy of WP:NOT.Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are serious? How is this not under WP:DE is beyond me, you are willingly disregarding policy to exact your "justice", as demonstrated by your continuous examples of your grudge. I think this entire conversation is ridiculous because you are the only one who is trying to assert NOT when greater consensus says they are perfectly acceptable. And this RFC cannot delete them, period. So you are really disrupting Misplaced Pages just to spite me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

i don't joke ever om wikipedia. please stop trying to poison the discussion. this is about the database type article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you dodge the issue and continue with the attacks? I take offense to the dozens of attacks you made on me here and in other venues; you have repeatedly asserted your accusation of bad faith and provide absolutely no evidence. You make one almost every post, now with this "poison the discussion", which has the connotation that I am being malicious. That's a PA. I've warned you a many times already about that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

asking if I'm facetious is not a valid question nor is it related to the topic and considered malicious and uncivil. You're derailing a discussion over and over. You constantly remind me of how i feel about you, and use it as an excuse for dismissing the discussion and ask me questions you know aren't going to have a positive reaction to. So please, stop accusing me of something you know you're doing as well, and stick to the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You cited the very reason why the articles are fine under WP:STANDALONE and you ignore it, preferring to cite WP:NOT which does not cover this in any shape or form. I'm glad 2012 in anime is a lot better than 2012 in animation. Same with 2011 in animation and 2011 in anime. Such articles would be fine additions to the "See also" on articles like 2011 in Japan. Clearly the articles are fine and are a suitable form of navigation. Instead of creating a 2011 anime releases, I intend to simply use "2011 in anime" because we don't have to worry about Miku videos, hentai OVA, obscure OVAs, TV specials and dramas, and web-only content produced by companies. How many titles do you think got released last year? 100? 250? 500? Even a list of anime releases of the year would be appropriate per the criteria, but I intend to limit it to more notable entries and combine it with events, awards, births and deaths and relevant industry information. Making a useful summary of the year for Japanese animation. Once completed, it will be relatively maintenance free and fill a requested gap in our coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was on break during the Spring, but then I noticed this discussion and couldn't help but give my opinion on it. As far as I know regarding "XXXX in Anime" and "Category:XXXX Anime", they're different for sure. But I have to agree that there are a lot of notable events not covered by Misplaced Pages either by claiming they're not notable in their "personal" thought, or just out of WP:GF. It is probably this reason that the WikiProject couldn't get many Articles to GA status. The Stub Articles were usually unable to expand any further due to the lack of sources that could be claimed "Notable", but This is against WP:NOTJOURNAL as the Restriction on notability is too high for those Articles. Misplaced Pages Articles should be written for Common Readers, which should be Encyclopedic but Knowledgeable, but not solely for a Database Articles. The English Misplaced Pages is not restricted to only the United States or any other English-Speaking Country, but Worldwide. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I came upon this discussion because of an article in the incubator, and I don't know the difference between manga and anime.  But two comments, one is that the word "lie" is unconstructive in a Misplaced Pages discussion, and a second is that one of the bottom lines in a volunteer organization is who is willing to do the work.  Hope that helps.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is chris isn't admitting to whether these pages are meant to be treated as "articles" or "lists". If it's list it fits well with WP:NOTDIRECTORY and if it's an article, it fits with WP:NOTJOURNAL. And again, not denying the allegations because he claims that there is no rule against it. So which is it Chris? An article, or a list? Either way, there's more than enough reason to axe these permastubs.Lucia Black (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, no one is on board with it. The articles are not "permastubs" and your deletion campaign which you wish to undertake is destructive, disruptive and goes against established policy and global community consensus. Do not continue this farce any further, either AFD them or work on them. I've been very busy and I've just returned home after a fun/research trip. I do not like your obsession over me, my work, and my activities. You know policy, it was cited, and the IDHT responses is just drama that I shouldn't be needing to deal with. This is my final word here - AFD them or drop it. And leave me alone! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To do a mass AfD would be considered "vandalism" which is why this RfC is appropriate to show more approval to AfD or merge. And there's no obsession of you (really? don't flatter yourself.) And you only spout rules, you yourself don't understand. How does WP:IDHT apply here? You're assuming that you have more approval to make these articles, and no one here is onboard with what you've said. NO one has said "these articles are beneficial and meet policy", so your accusations of WP:IDHT don't apply (and looking back, every single time you've used WP:IDHT, it never applied. You saw one editor use it, and you decided to try to use it as a trump card for yourself). So again, if this is a list article, its against WP:NOTDIRECTORY because the broad is too large, yes, it has a limit, but still too large to be defined, and also incredibly subjective to make such a list because whatever is defined as "relevant" will be upto an editors idea of relevant.

Now if it's an article (which i'm sure where it's leaning towards to) is still against WP:NOTJOURNAL per #3 "wikipedia is not news reports". This is public discussion, not a talk page. So i'm not bothering you, i'm bringing up a case to the public, and it includes you. If you feel bothered, don't answer. Allow other editors to discuss.Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained it already. You do not read what I write. It is covered under WP:STANDALONE. Unless you want me to formally make Anime released in 2012 and list every entry and not list a collection of the more impacting and notable ones. Such a list of anime released by year is notable anyways, but you do not even define criteria for your arguments. You cite a list of potential problems and do not assert the problem, you instead make some lame excuse under "directory" when X in Y is perfectly acceptable, exclusive, limited or otherwise. Even without the details on awards, events, company closures and such the actual releases alone makes the page a useful list by itself. Not sure why you are disputing that. Or are you? You don't define any issue with any specificity, you are as general and vague as possible. You do not even use the word "vandalism" correctly. You also do not use "news reports" correctly either, I'm keen on hearing your explanation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the issue, it's trying to list ambiguous and abitrary events of anime given to that year. So yes, maybe "list of anime debuted/released in XXXX" is better off. I list problems, i already see such as 2012 in anime, and i am addressing the problem whether you believe it or not, because the problem is that these type of articles even exist. You haven't proven "X in Y" is acceptable in this case, when X (anime events) is too ambiguous. You're trying to make a database of events in anime you deem notable, but can't be made into their own article. Which is why WP:DIRECTORY applies, because as stated in WP:NOTDIRECTORY Misplaced Pages is not a lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. And you have not clarified how it doesn't apply, because from what i can see, it clearly does.Lucia Black (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Break

2012 in American television is not under NOTDIRECTORY. Hell, 2012 in animation is more "ambigious" that anime ain't it? It meets STANDALONE, and if you want I can list every TV, OVA or movie if you really want. Be prepared for about 300 releases, most which do not have articles and probably never will under N. The list includes ones which can meet N and already have articles, another of the criteria under okay. You can say NOTDIRECTORY all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Let's go through NOTDIRECTORY to end your assertion of it:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics - Not applicable. All are anime releases.
2. Genealogical entries - Not applicable.
3. The White or Yellow Pages - Not applicable.
4. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business - The key is "conducting business" not here. It most certainly not a Business directory. And it is not a Directory service.
5. Sales catalogues - Not applicable.
6. Changelogs, release histories or release notes - Not applicable.
7. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations - Not applicable.

So what on earth is your specific assertion? You are dodging the question. Clearly explain how this is under NOTDIRECTORY. Because none of these apply. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. what exist outside of this wikiproject is another wikiproject's business, and i do plan on mentioning it to WP:ANIMATION the issue, however, i don't plan on investing my time convincing another project for a horrible and flawed idea. I already mentioned the relevant entry in WP:NOTDIRECTORY and i never stated that it was "list of genealogical entries, The White/Yellow pages, Directories of bussniess current events, sales catalogue, or Changelogs". Only to List or repositories of loosely associated topics. And that is NOT true, and sorry for my BADFAITH, but denying that these list are solely about releases is trying to game the system, because A) it's not just about releases, it contains reviews and awards as well 2012 in anime B) the so-called list states the EVENTS of XXXX in anime. C) You've attempted to state several times, these type of articles aren't an issue. D) You've mentioned plans to add more than just reviews and releases, but deaths of notable people who contributed to anime history, and also some mention of companies aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from your "bad faith" - If you are arguing point #1 then I can clarify further. Here is the full quote:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Misplaced Pages also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)

In this case "loosely associated topics" is just completely untrue, the defined scope is "anime" so its not loosely associated topics. Now under SALAT this type is acceptable, heck its why we have these reference articles. You can say OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions invoking "An unrelated X exists, why not Y." You can say it, but given that these types of articles survive deletion discussions and have entire Wikiprojects to maintaining and improving these is really the crux of the matter; they are acceptable in Misplaced Pages. And that plus the arguments in policy is evidence that it is completely acceptable. I do not think you understand that my argument is not "X exists so should Y." Its more like "X is valuable to the project, survives deletion attempts per cited policy and has a group to maintain and care for it, Y is the same method applied to our project's scope with explicit parameters on its limitations and focus." But whatever, if you aren't able to extract the meaning from policy, then you have an issue I cannot resolve. I don't like arguing with you, but I am certain 2012 in anime would survive AFD and I don't think you want it as a precedent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep separating X and Y to make your point, but try to put them together, and thats where itr shows how loose it really is. It's loose because "anime" is being vague, not accurate. IN reality, it's events that happened in anime history organized by year. Which WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not condone, and i'm unsure whether "these type of articles" have ever been AfD, but thats not stopping the issue of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:NOTJOURNAL is also still relevant, as they aren't 100% articles, you just treat them as such.Lucia Black (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, no. You have to specify when your cite something that has bulleted lists at my request, but you seem to have no examples to provide or rational other than claiming it. That's not how things work. Anime is not vague, to call it a vague term is ridiculous for a project on anime and manga which goes into specific detail about what is and what is not anime. The criteria by year is also fine. Now since those two little issues are gone, let's get to where you probably will go next. List, article, who cares on the specifics, but the parts and not the assessment fall under a list. Now you might say "oh we have categories for that" and WP:CLN backs the usage of both categories and lists, so let's not trudge down that path either. This is taking too much time and you seem to like to argue because you don't actually bring up any points and just rehash the same flawed argument over and over again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

what kind of list is it? it's a list of anime in 2008? then why not name it as such? because that's not the case. you're trying to twist what these list articles really are. And, "flawed" is subjective. i find it to be valid, and i wasn't the only one who brought up WP:NOT. so unless another editor says "this isn't an issue of WP:NOT", you don't have much ground to say this is flawed.Lucia Black (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So you would drop this matter if I expanded it to 'all anime produced in the year? Think carefully about this, because we do not have articles on many of them. I probably drew too close to my research anyways... I don't want to have to rationalize why someone without an article, currently, is a major figure or what events are really important. ANN is one option for such matters, since I can bounce off the editorials. I am certain my coverage for 1917 is complete - or at least as much as records currently show. Obtaining complete lists prior to 1924 is probably impossible due to the earthquake - many records and films were lost. I've mentioned that this is a focus of my research... but I rather not go into too much detail at this time. But I ensure you that Misplaced Pages will have the most complete and extensive list of anime by year if you choose this "path". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly, it would have to be focused ONLY on releases/debut of anime. And be renamed to "list of anime in XXXX" or "List of anime debut in XXXX".Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I was planning on creating that anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

that would mean no "XXXX in anime" articles, just to clarify.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Those can redirect to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

sounds good. i'l get to it tomorrow.Lucia Black (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I will be the one to take care of this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion: Reliable sources

Notability has to do with satisfying WP:GNG, so if a reliable source can't be found to establish notability, that's not really Misplaced Pages's problem. Also, any perceived "lack" of GA/FA articles (which makes no sense if you take a look at WP:A&M/Q) is always proportional to the amount of interest a single editor has in getting any article up to GA/FA; we simply do not have as many interested (or experienced) editors as we used to back in our heyday of 2007–2009 (approximately). That said, I brought 4 articles up to GA last year, three of which were anime/manga related. And I currently have an anime-related article I nominated at WP:GAN too, plus another editor has nominated Shaman King at GAN as well, not to mention that Chris also has Hentai up at GAN, and Akira Toriyama and Eyeshield 21 were promoted just last month; we seem to be doing pretty good as of late. It all comes down to interest, experience, and time.--十八 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet we do not take third-party review sites unless their reviewer is of an established expert whereas this burden is not met by music reviews, simply that they have to be in-depth and make educated and insightful commentary. I do not think saying anything about effort matters for a GA here, because the actual community surrounding anime and manga are not considered an RS on their own opinions and actions, that's a problem. While I do not want to change the topic of discussion to our flawed system; I'm certain that a large group of articles simply cannot be improved under the current "RS" issue. Let's take Dragon Ball Z, I cannot cite verifiable information simply because Pojo's website is not considered a RS by the anime community; the result: No English translation or context for information not found online and requiring a very difficult book to acquire. Is there any doubt as to the integrity or reliability of it? No, but because it is on a non-RS website, it is removed without analyzing its value or importance. The adherence is stricter than even FA sourcing guidelines; even MedRS is comparatively tame if applied to our scope.

Let's put it this way; when you can "prove" a is RS wrong - no matter "recognized status" of the individual - that source and person who provides such evidence is unquestionably the proper source. What I did below with the Spielberg quote shows an example; my own research quickly disproves the account of an RS and my evidence is in numerous places including Cannes itself, and I cited the correct award in the process. Who's the RS now? This is why I find this Wikiproject so out of touch and backwards. Clement's stance on hentai is of the apologist type; the personal opinions of an expert are still personal opinions and should be placed in perspective regardless of the "status" of the other side. I'd be glad to push for GAs, but this project is a hostile environment with a demonstrated history of outright detrimental and unusual practices not shared by the greater community. Commonly this is called a "walled garden" and given the activity levels in a project of 10,000+ the changes may be responsible for the end of its "heyday". There is way too much conflict and kickback over even trivial matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh and Juhachi, I'd put Dragon Ball Z up for GA if I can use sources like Kanzenshuu. I personally think Kanzenshuu is a RS for many things - but A&M seems to disagree. Also in other pages, if blogs of voice actors, directors and animators cannot be used for their own inputs the development and details surrounding many works will simply not be on Misplaced Pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to but so much blame on this project and how it deals with reliable sources. If you think a source is reliable, take it to the WP:RS/N and have a discussion from editors outside the project; that's what it's there for. You mention music reviews that merely have to be "in-depth and make educated and insightful commentary" to be considered reliable (Is that really the case? Please provide me a guideline that shows this is true.), but who gets to decide what is and what is not "educated"? How you do you define "insightful"? Those two things seem to be very subjective, which is why this project has historically defaulted to already established experts since there is objective proof (via their use in reliable sources) that they are indeed reliable. How is that "backwards" as you put it? I really do want to know, because I consider that to be a reasonable level of criteria for any reliable source as set out at WP:RS: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (my emphasis on the italics).--十八 04:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, WP:RSOPINION perhaps? Also for the majority the context matters, and that is part of WP:RS as well. WP:USEBYOTHERS is also useful for weighing it. Let's apply this to Kanzenshuu, where visual evidence is given, (PRIMARY) and commentary on it is provided (SECONDARY). Now, for the purposes of using it on the animation styles Kanzenshuu takes the primary source material and provides secondary commentary. Taking known facts from the original media and comparing them side by side is not "original research", but some of the conclusions gathered are indeed an educated synthesis of sorts. I can argue that the same can be done on Misplaced Pages directly even without Kanzenshuu because I can cite the production details and indicate the same differences as well between animators. In fact the production details not explicitly cited in this particular Kanzenshuu article would be the only leap to preventing inclusion of the same conclusion or sorts. Kanzenshuu's commentary (which is under RSOPINION) is the conclusion that I cannot reach without approaching a level of synthesis likely to be challenged... but it blatantly obvious to any fan or scholar worth their salt. Anime doesn't have a lot of "RS" sources as a scholarly matter, at least not in English sources, and Japanese discussions by the fanbase are typically on par or superior to our typical "RS". I don't think I need to bring up how it is simple and easy to disprove a "RS" with even basic journalism skills.

It is actually this "RS" matter that is the fault of the project; just because someone is involved in the industry or put out a book doesn't mean that they are infallible or even remotely correct about their assertions. You'll have to excuse my rolling around in recent examples, but if it took me all of two minutes to find that "The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki" by Dani Cavallaro is wrong. I am perfectly capable of offering that citation and answering the error and while I am not a recognized expert by A&M you can be assured that my citations (and not my mere word) is what counts. Even forum posts by fans (for now consider me one) have proven to be better examples of research and critical analysis which assembles the information in a straight forward way to arrive at a simple conclusion. An RS is all about the context of its reliability. Formalities are all good and fine, but if Kanzenshuu is not a "RS" in A&M's eyes we got some pretty big issues here. And RSN has been known to be a crap shoot before, where context is overlooked for this notion that the whole must be an RS by extension. And let's not forget that RSN typically has no one informed enough to even begin assessing the sources discussed, let a lone analyze them in detail. And quite frankly, as you go into more esoteric subjects you need perspective and knowledge before you can begin identifying what is accurate and what is not. Forget the notion of an "RS" because I've seen avid toy collectors surpass and correct the meager understanding of toy industry publications - whose information can only be verified by other knowledgeable individuals even if the object in question is provided. One last comparison; I'm sure everyone knows wood, but does anyone claim to be an expert on identifying wood? Even without Hoadley's Identifying Wood: Accurate Results With Simple Tools a knowledgeable individual will draw the exact same conclusions. Though the identification of wood is by no doubt something of importance as evidenced by other publications, it is pretty clear that non-experts are capable of distinguishing wood with even the most rudimentary of methods. If some "expert" or an "RS" claims one thing and that is found to be incorrect by evidence of an amateur third-party, whose source is "reliable"? It most certainly isn't the previously assumed "RS". In this way it is far more important that the actual content and context be checked for reliability and not the status of the source itself.

Tldr and summary - Each case is unique and adhering to any notion that any comment from a person is an RS is in itself a stupid idea. If an RS is able to be proven incorrect than any source or sources which prove that fact is an RS (for that case at least). The concept of an "RS" as applies to media is really weak anyways, I catch Fox New's journalists routinely making rather major errors in their fact-checking and verification processes, let alone their critical analysis is often so flawed as be laughable. I'm certainly no expert on the Mazama pocket gopher, but this story has so many inaccuracies that absolutely nothing about the "gophers" is correct except that the gophers live there. The species is recognized as threatened by the State of Washington. The subspecies are all threatened with 2 (and possibly a third) of the subspecies having gone extinct already. Good editorial practice should be advanced whenever possible; this Wikiproject included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply; I'll preface this by saying I read the entire thing. I understand where you're coming from with both RSOPINION and USEBYOTHERS, and overall I feel I understand you're need to editorialize any RS to make sure the information contained therein is indeed reliable (i.e. correct). However, those two sub-guidelines will determine if a cite like Kanzenshuu is a reliable source. First the latter (USEBYOTHERS): Is Kanzenshuu used by other reliable sources? If yes, then there is reason to believe Kanzenshuu is reliable; if no, it's less likely. Now the former (RSOPINION): If and only if Kanzenshuu's opinion can be considered an RS (such as by applying USEBYOTHERS), then you should be able to add in his opinion. For example, let's say Hayao Miyazaki was the one providing his opinion on the same content in the Kanzenshuu article you provided; as a prominent animator, his opinion carries more weight and reliability because I'm sure his opinions and analysis have been used by reliable sources in the past, thus satisfying both USEBYOTHERS and RSOPINION. If, as you state, Kanzenshuu's conclusions are "an educated synthesis", then they would be considered OR (from WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis...") and thus would not be able to be used. I'm also not entirely sure you would be able to "cite the production details and indicate the same differences...between animators" yourself like you say, because I feel that'd be a form of synthesis.

In short, I could be the world's foremost expert on toe fungus, but if my knowledge or expertise in the subject hasn't been used by other sources already considered reliable, then that information cannot be verified, and thus will not be considered reliable in itself. We have already spent a lot of time talking about reliable sources, but it really all comes back to verifiability. Can Kanzenshuu's opinion or conclusions be verified by a reliable source? This isn't a matter of WP:BLUE (which may or may not apply to your wood analogy, depending on the context) if it takes a least a minimal amount of research and/or background to understand. What may be obvious to someone knowledgeable person may not be obvious to someone who is less knowledgeable, and far and wide, Misplaced Pages should be written from the standpoint that our readers know absolutely nothing about the subject in which they are reading (WP:MTAU). You yourself have proven that at least part of "The Anime Art of Hayao Miyazaki" by Dani Cavallaro contains information that cannot be verified, meaning at least part of that book cannot be considered reliable. To say the whole thing is unreliable is a stretch, however, especially if Cavallaro is considered a reliable source per USEBYOTHERS and RSOPINION.

Lastly, I'll go back to what you said: "An RS is all about the context of its reliability." I am not disputing this; what I'm disputing is if that "context" (who is speaking and the information provided) can be considered verifiable, and thus reliable. Anyone can say anything about anything (WP:SPS, a subset of WP:V). Let's assume for a second that Kanzenshuu is an expert, or at least knowledgeable about the subject, in the article you posted. Taken from WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Is Kanzenshuu an "established expert on the subject matter"? Has his work in the relevant field (anime) been previously been published by reliable third-party publications? If the answer is no on both questions, he cannot be considered a reliable source, and thus the information he provides cannot be verified. I'm sure WP:RS/N would come to the same conclusions I have because those conclusions are objective and apply to all of Misplaced Pages, not just this project.

So like I said, I feel you're placing too much blame on this project when it comes to reliable sources. You cannot expect editors to check that a certain reliable source is entirely infallible. Reliable sources are "reliable" because they have been proven to be correct, at least most if not all of the time. If you can find that an RS is incorrect, then that's a good thing, but that is no fault of Misplaced Pages or its editors; this is why we have guidelines on identifying reliable sources: so we don't have to do that for every source. There may be instances where we have to do a little extra digging to find the truth, but are there really that many cases of that?--十八 10:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your viewpoint does not weigh the facts of the information provided. The whole RS topic is one that has specific need to prove whether or not the material consulted is reliable, without actually analyzing said material. RS is best described as the means of testing whether or not the source is of some integrity, without putting forth the integrity of the content. First of all, OR does not apply to secondary sources, OR exists to prevent Misplaced Pages editors from conducting research or drawing conclusions in a novel way. This would be under conducting interviews, lab research, thought experiments or other tests and putting them on Misplaced Pages as a method of publication. This portion of OR applies to A&M the best:

"A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

In this case, the difference between the animation quality of Dragon Ball Z. The analysis of which is the conclusion drawn by the source. Kanzenshuu is allowed to make such claims, it is not OR because OR applies to Misplaced Pages editors and not published sources which can be consulted. So the topic moves to whether or not Kanzenshuu is a reliable source for those statements. While it contains a highly educated analysis, the analysis itself is rather plain and simple here. The pieces of knowledge about the animators and the episodes worked on are specific, but even if were cited from their sources would not be OR even on Misplaced Pages, because a source confirms the claim. The OR would be an unpublished and unverifiable assertion of the animators, which is not the case. It doesn't take a mental genius to say that Frieza and other characters are drawn differently between episodes. Even placing them side by side is not OR, for any person can verify this by the source (the media itself). The conclusions advanced however require an educated analysis which is possible only with a lot of sources and a lot of analysis, but that would be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages and the "feel" and other commentary not backed by any source is not one which Misplaced Pages can advance by itself. It boils down to a simple manner of backing up said statements, the dramatic "this is the best anime show ever" is OR at absolute minimum, but citing with secondary sources can change it from "best" to "one of the best" without too much burden because enduring legacy, profitability, size of fanbase, critical analysis and other facets can show that the claim is not Misplaced Pages's own assertion. In fact a "RS" secondary source can make that claim and be cited, under policy, but it is not good editorial practice to do so. Most of the sources you will find are "questionable RSes" where caution is required. Note WP:QUESTIONED says such material is not prohibited, but use is limited. This is how a director's comments on his personal blog about his methodology is completely acceptable, assuming the identity of the blog is verifiable. We actually see this with blogs of IGN editors and such. Whereas at A&M it seems to be a no-no, even where it is permitted per SELFSOURCE. How does that make sense?

(courtesy break)

Going back to error in Cavallaro's book, barring evidence to the contrary, it is an RS and should be assumed accurate, but there is no requirement to avoid a verification to the contrary. Cavallaro makes a claim of an award that does not exist, Cannes itself is the source for that by the absence of the film's showing and the non-existence of that award. To say without citing a source would be OR, citing Cannes as the source is not OR and Cannes is a RS about itself. Similarly, if an unrelated and self-published source asserted the claim without evidence then Cavallaro's stance would win out based on the presumption of it being correct unless someone is willing to show verification without doing OR themselves or doing journalism by interviewing and posting the response on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages does not conduct journalism, it is secondary, hence why it cannot become the source for that information. The nature of validating a source for reliability for A&M is on its evidence for its information where following the sources can be perfectly acceptable to arrive at the same conclusion, but it would avoid giving credit where credit is due. The Kanzenshuu comparisons fall under this, but the barring the citation to the animators of the individual episodes (not on that page) the actual attribution would not be OR because reliable sources exist to say who produced what episode and the visual differences are often times obvious, which is itself the reason for the article. Whether or not Kanzenshuu is ultimately a reliable source wouldn't matter if a fuss is made, because the pieces (but not the conclusion at the end) are all verifiable - it'd just be a rather ugly method of doing so. Here is an example:

• Dragon Ball Z has numerous animators which has caused variations in the artistic style, this is visible between individual episodes produced by different animators and studios.(citations) The quality of the animation manifests itself in a number of ways, including the differences in proportions as seen in Episodes 28 and 29.(primary citations) (Include picture for visual reference, Caption: Studio Junio's animation is visibly different from Last House's animation.) The work produced by the different studios resulted in quality and model differences that is visible with Studio Junio's work on episode 28 and the differences in Last House's animation on episode 29. The animation supervisors were also different, with Minoru Maeda on episode 28 and Masayuki Uchiyama on episode 29. (citations) ....

Note that I used something NOT mentioned in the source, namely Studio Junio which provided the key animation in the DBZ credits for episode 28. With that being said, everything is verifiable in the credits of the media, so Kanzenshuu's reflection on the artistic quality is the only real issue able to be asserted about its usage. Every instance in the example above is sourced from the credits itself, yet no OR is being conducted and the material is used in accordance with PRIMARY. At this junction would Kanzenshuu's actual comparison be in doubt, of course not. Citing the individual components or Kanzenshuu will not change its production team and thus for detailed analysis of who produced what can either be sourced by 30-40 references to the credits of the show or Kanzenshuu's summation of verifiable visual material. As there is no dispute about the comparisons or their origins, Kanzenshuu is a secondary RS and a secondary RS is preferred over primary sources. This would actually be my argument on this particular page if it were to go to RSN. And of course, at this point my own educated status and analysis about this matter it probably itself indicative of something... but I cannot note in the article as to why this source is a valid shortcut to a much more difficult form of verification and provide credit where credit is due. That is in essence why the matter of editorial practice to verify the statements made of any source's claims, to prove or disprove the conclusion, is itself valid.

(courtesy break)

Despite Cavallaro's publication, the error is still an error and going to the primary source to disprove a secondary assertion and that primary trumps a secondary. Good scholarly works are secondary or tertiary anyways, using primary sources (the material) to analyze secondary sources (commentary) and validate or challenge a popular assertion made by that secondary source. Provided that the work is verifiable from its components, that work is itself a RS for its claims. This differs from the traditional account of RS as in news media or other publications where the sources are not explicitly given or verifiable by readers. Something has to be said that if any person would arrive at the same conclusion with the same material that the source reporting the obvious conclusion is a reliable source for its mere statement. While complex on its face, by breaking down the matter to its core components, you get a BLUE statement being relayed by a "questionable source". I don't need to have a degree in meteorology to identify the clouds in the sky, let alone the clouds in a picture whose verification is visual and identification is based on education obtained in secondary sources. If you want to split hairs, yes the "identifying clouds" RS can be used to circumvent or validate the claim and can be done so if challenged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. First of all, whether Kanzenshuu's statements are factual or not, or are OR or not, is beside the point. He falls under WP:SPS, a policy, while WP:RS is a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. So if you can't prove that Kanzenshuu is a reliable source per what I quoted above from SPS, it fails as a reliable source because it is unverifiable. No amount of arguing at RS/N will change this fact. Questionable sources are not prohibited, but only in extreme circumstances are they permitted; I do not believe this to be an extreme circumstance, especially when there are other sources available to cite the information (primary sources).

Next, if anyone challenges on you using a director's (or other creator's) own words as a source per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE, just point them to those two links. I've used many such primary sources in the past without incident.

Also, you're repeating yourself needlessly. I already agreed with you about fact-checking reliable sources, so you don't have to get into it even further.

Now for BLUE. Your words: "Something has to be said that if any person would arrive at the same conclusion with the same material that the source reporting the obvious conclusion is a reliable source for its mere statement." (my emphasis on italics). BLUE is there to point out that anything that does not need any additional material or information does not have to be cited. Using the two examples on that page: the sky is blue and most people have five digits on each hand. You merely have to exist to know those two claims are true. So if you have to bring in any additional material in order to draw a conclusion, however "obvious", it is not subject to BLUE. That said, I see no problem with you adding in the paragraph starting with "Dragon Ball Z has numerous animators which has caused variations in the artistic style, this is visible between individual episodes produced by different animators and studios." baring you have the citations to back it up (primary is okay) and are not using an unreliable source (especially a self-published source with no secondary verification from other third-party reliable sources as in Kanzenshuu's case).--十八 20:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So even if the material is unquestioned you would rather open it up to a dozen citations under primary sourcing instead? I seem to recall ANN having issues with being an RS despite the material cited is often a better archive for the 404 happy nature of Japanese publications, and they provide English translations and links to the source material which does not 404. Excuse me, but sometimes Misplaced Pages's adherence to high quality sources results in a deeply New York Times slant and rides credibility on the perception of a source when academic publications (self published or peer reviewed) are better off axed without so much as weighing the content. Taking another's research and advancing it without providing a citation is plagiarism and it is even worse to attribute your source's source in its place. Just seems dishonest to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's "adherence to high quality sources" is what sets it apart from other similar sources of information. I don't know about you, but I'd rather an article have high quality sources, than potentially unreliable ones. Academic publications are fine as long as they satisfy WP:V or the criteria at WP:SPS, and while this is not really an issue for other topics which will often have a wide variety of such sources, the animanga community doesn't have as many, hence why animanga articles tend to rely on (non-academic) reliable third-party sources. It's not as if academic publications are axed on sight; they are weighed by the verifiability of their content, not the content itself; this is the defining principle of WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (bolding not mine, but Misplaced Pages's).

Even if it may seem dishonest to apply Kanzenshuu's (or another source's) previous research without attributing it to them, there's nothing Misplaced Pages can do about it. It's not like you're copying his words verbatim; that would be in violation of WP:C in any context.--十八 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

True. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Persona 3: The Movie

Here are my concerns.

• I'm not sure if this merits its own article since it is neither a spin off nor does it hint at telling a story much different than the Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 video game.
• It is a planned series of films with interconnecting plots which most likely may pose a problem with a repeat of the same plot in the parent article.
• It may spark more articles in the manner in which a new Pokemon movie gains a new article. Especially since the first film is called "#1 The Spring of Birth" and a new article maybe be spawned as "#2 Etc Etc"
• It seems to have been given the same treatment on wikipedia as the current Persona 4: The Animation article, which was pointed out to me, shouldn't have been.

Maybe since it is only an adaptation of the video game, its Production may only be noteworthy in the parent article, with the corresponding infobox parameters. The article had been previously redirected to the parent article, but another user felt the need to revert this change. I'm a little confused as to what should be done here especially since the article itself (currently a stub) is poorly written and what little information currently available can be included in said parent article, i.e. Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3. Basically should we treat this as an anime series or a film series and if whether or not this article should remain or be redirected. KirtZJ 02:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it's a film, with a theatrical release I think, it can have its own articles. Due to it's lack of information, you can redirect it if you want, but it's a better idea to improve it's current state since it will probably come back at some point. As for being a series, I think it's best to have the article include that information. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Theatrical releases get their own articles. The Persona 4: The Animation article was my doing and it evolved from simply the episode list into what it still is today, which is a location to transclude the episode list and also provide information on the soundtracks associated with it. Also, you can't seriously expect all media regarding a video game with multiple media spinoffs to be included all on one article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks DragonZero/Ryulong. Noted. And okay Ryulong, well forgive me if I was a bit confused about the creation of an article when there is currently little information available on it, no need to bite my head off. Sigh. KirtZJ 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to play devil's advocate, but not all theatrical releases aren't always notable or have sources that are easy access. So its best to expand the best you can, if it can't be expanded more and doesn't meet GNG, it could be merged. not saying this is the case for this particular article.Lucia Black (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Same issue thats plagued this entire year. Ghost in the Shell manga/franchise page

Chris (after giving up on the issue) reopens the same issue, to have Ghost in the Shell (manga) and franchise separate pages. you can find it here ->talk:list of Ghost in the Shell chapters. I've grown tired of it, the same issue all the time, and it will never end because it's only upto me and ryulong to confirm there's no consensus on such thing.Lucia Black (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are blatantly canvassing again and misinterpreting my intentions, I intend to fix the misinformation, the errors and expand the content that you continually axed out. You don't even understand the policy or the information provided. Ryulong hasn't even seen, let alone researched the work and you, my dear Lucia, have deliberately inserted false material into these articles. If anything "giving up on the issue" was putting it aside to prevent further damage and work on what needed to be done. Dragon Ball Z was your "proxy war" and that meets N and GNG, and anything on there is still fought it tooth and nail and its only halfway to GA now. The same argument for the mangas. It is a lot easier if you let me work on these things and stop making every thing so difficult. You think everything is bad faith, and you stopped believing my actions were in good faith over 7 months ago, as your second response to my critical GA review. I'm an expert in the Ghost in the Shell media. This is the sole problem that you have with me and once it is resolved I can go back to working on other things, but I intend to get (at least) the mangas to GA level (nommed but not passed) by Shirow's birthday and FA (maybe main-page) by the anniversary of Toren's passing. The stubbornness I exhibit here is because I care about the work, am knowledgeable in it and I have a goal which I want to meet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris I've fucking watched Stand Alone Complex and 2nd Gig at least 5 times don't say I haven't watched it just because I said "I've not read the original manga".—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you two engaged in forms of dispute resolution other than filling up talk pages with massive amounts of discussion nobody will ever read? Goodraise 02:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN has been done. and yes, you're GA review was BIAS. You wanted a character's section in order for it to pass a GA when there are several Featured A&M articles that don't have one, and are GA. And please stop calling yourself an expert, i've corrected you multiple times. The problem is that this time you're admitting to how much of a fanboy you claim you are, rather than actually proving that you have any skill at all.Lucia Black (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing but bad faith and attacks. And I'd love to see where you corrected me on a GITS matter. Any editor viewing this section will go "Not again." But seriously, you are twisting my words to your own ends. You can't even tell the difference between Shirow's Motoko and Oshii's Motoko. And you were responsible for axing out the majority of the content on Motoko's page. Sorry, but I think your insertions and alterations at these pages speak for themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it hipocritical of you to make such claims. for example: when has it ever been brought up the difference between Oshii's representation of Motoko and Shirow's? I never once brought it up. Their the same character despite being interpreted by different people. And, yes, i did remove alot of content from Motoko's page, and i'm damn proud of it. Did you actually look at the page? it was a direct copy of the one in ghost in the shell wikia. most of it was FAN interpretation, and unsourced. I did what i could to standardize the article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are proud of it, I'm done dealing with you. You are not fit to edit these articles anymore. Just like you said there was nothing on her sexuality, or covering her mentality, you are incapable of doing due diligence before you mess up articles and undo my revert to reinsert it. Not to mention you actually asserted you knew more then the creators of the show itself. When proven wrong, you change to launching personal attacks, saying I called you a troll, assume bad faith (which I did not), said you know more than me. It is not I who has a problem with the material, it is you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And you have called me that. And i'm perfectly fit to edit, the issue is, if there's no source that can be found, we don't leave unsourced info there, especially if it's questionable. And, you can make claims about my debate method all you want, it doesn't make them true.

And again, that's still not proven to be false. I just rather NOT argue with you, over something thats so painfully obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You put those words in my mouth when I proved your insertion to be wrong. I actually defended you against a troll and you attacked me at ANI under the same circumstances. Do not make another single accusation against me, I'm done dealing with someone who assumes bad faith, makes drama and requires this before working together: "Admit youve wronged me in the past and ask for forgiveness (not even beg). All you have to do. You cant deny your destructive behaviour or at least the destructive behaviour you had in the past" and when another editor said that was adding oxygen to the fire you replied with, "What I ask is completely reasonable, this editor doesnt want to? Why should I work woth that editor? im done! Ive been pushed around too far with this editor and now he miraculously changes and expects me to work woth that editor!? NO!!!! GIVE ME WHAT I DESERVE OR YOULL SEE ME MAKE A BIGGER SCENE OR GET OUT!!!" This is why we cannot work together, this is why the problem exists. Do not make another accusation of bad faith or personal attack on me, I am sick of this. DRN then Mediation then Arb Com if that gets this resolved. Outside editors do not want to touch this because of the drama. I'm not dealing with you outside of DRN and other processes from now on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

you don't want them to! you're debate method is too blow things out of proportion and bring up unrelated topics to mkae them bigger than what they actually are! and i'm not going to stand for it. this comment you said WILL get removed.Lucia Black (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Translator needed... again

The Garden of Words is getting a lot of traffic, and like Hotarubi no Mori e, I feel this anime has the potential to reach out to people unfamiliar with anime and pull them in. I am willing to write another article like I did for the latter, however, I will once again need some serious help with references and translations. If anyone can direct me to a person who can help, I would greatly appreciate it. All I need are the full citations from reliable sources and the translations, and I can put together an article worthy of this great film. Best, – Maky 01:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• 2012 anime