Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup/Archive 1

Workloads

Here's my personal pledge: to work on striking one and only one title from our plate a week. That is, slow and steady progress that shouldn't overwhelm me. What's yours? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a smart plan to me! I need to start doing the same. I'm totally overloaded right now. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about me... I'm not sure I could sustain a one-a-week pledge, if for no other reason than it would get boring for me... In any case, I tend to jump around episode/chapter lists, cleaning up and reformatting here or there, although I strongly suspect I may do more tagging than actual cleaning... hmm... —Dinoguy1000 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ishval?

The article on Ishval has been redirected, so does it still need to be listed under Articles needing verification? --Eruhildo (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I would actually *know*, but I'd say it's not necessary now. Awhile back, I removed all the redirects from the cleanup list (I can't remember now if I actually removed them, or just redirected them), I suppose it wouldn't hurt to go through again and do it over (this time, it wouldn't hurt to confirm that the articles are tagged/listed correctly, but it's hardly that important). —Dinoguy1000 05:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, that one can come out of the list as long as the redirect is stable. Probably would be good to go back over the list again to check to see if any have been fixed (though have to make sure they really were fixed and not just people removing the tags). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Heheh... great minds think alike? (my mind, great? probably not ;P ) I could go through the list and have a look when I finish my current projects, though help would certainly be welcome. At that time, I'd probably also do some minor reorganizing involving List of... articles. —Dinoguy1000 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

See also: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

A few questions:

• Should we have standards as to which article assessment is the minimum to which certain cleanup templates should be assigned? (For instance, do not assign {{Copy-edit}} to start/C class articles, but reserve it for "High" B class articles—due to the amount of work still needed on the article, copy-editing would be useless at that stage.) [Please keep the answer to Yes/No and why; we can discuss specifics later]
• When should banner cleanup templates be used in addition to inline cleanup templates? (Refer to Yaoi, which has 10 cleanup categories assigned, and is assigned to start class, but only one banner is on top)?
• How many cleanup banners should be on an article before we replace them with {{Articleissues}}?

G.A.S 09:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the first, good question. I can't really say yes/no to it though. Other than copy-edit, I can't think of any template that should be held back until the article is up to a certain criteria. The semi-defunct LoCE says an article shouldn't be copyedited until its mostly free of other issues, however some start and C class articles are so horribly written grammatically, that I think task specific copy editing templates to fix basic prose issues are needed to get them in a shape other editors can work on them.

For the second, I generally use the guideline of "if its just one or two small things, use inline or sectional templates as available. If the article as a whole suffers from clean up issues, then I use top banners. For the third, I usually go with 3, though Friendly goes with 4. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask is some stubs are tagged with, for instance, expand. This would be common across all anime stubs (and start articles, now that C-class have been introduced), but may include B-class articles where a single section should be expanded. Unfortunately the bot listing does not show article quality yet, so it is impossible to find the few B-class articles that could be expanded, possibly resulting in a GA status. If we say that this template is n/a on stub/start articles, this would be easier to find and fix. The current scale at WP:ASSESS say that cleanup templates are not applicable to start class articles as they are incomplete, but this is a better place to discuss it. G.A.S 13:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding expand to a stub article that's noted as a stub seems redundant. :P Is that a new change because of the whole C class mess? No more clean up templates on start class articles? That seems like a really really really bad idea. So an article is start class but has 20 non-free images and we can't tag because it isn't "complete." That just doesn't make sense to me. Even stubs are eligible for some basic tags, such as notability, lack of context, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about expand not being appropriate for stubs -- I remove those as redundant when I come across them, with the edit summary that "stub" includes "expand" by definition. OTOH, while I hadn't thought about it before, I suppose "clarity" would be better than "copyedit" for stub/start articles where the grammar is attrocious. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

" Is that a new change because of the whole C class mess? " No - It has been that way for as long as I can remember. But do you think that we can set up guidelines where we almost accept certain quality articles to have certain issues, and as a result do not crowd the cleanup categories with them? This would be something we would have to decide on a per issue basis. G.A.S 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just found this on {{expand}} :{{expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates. Seems like some persons just did not read the instructions:). Regarding the expert template: A section dealing with the issues to address should accompany {{Expert-subject}}, as it is of little use otherwise. Should we remove these templates where this is not the case? G.A.S 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -- I'm feeling dense this morning. "A section" where? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC), with a sip of coffee

On the article's talk page (per the template's instructions). G.A.S 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Duh. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand sounds fine. Not sure I agree on the expert subject. I usually include it with tags indicating the issues, which I feel is fine as is. If someone has questions, then a talk page discussion should be added, but most of the times the issues are pretty clearly visible. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But why would you rather an Expert should fix it? Secondly, what do you define as an "Expert" in this context? G.A.S 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An expert is a project member, familiar with our guidelines, consensus on RS, MoS, etc. It is someone who would be able to understand the issues and may be best equipped to fix them. This is the same way the tag is used in the TV project. Basically saying "the project needs to fix this issues because they are big or complex and likely not something fixable by someone just driving by." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the way the tag is intended to be used (Refer to {{Expert-subject}}'s documentation), secondly; when was the last time a "drive-by fix" happened? This is indeed why we have the cleanup listing. But would you rather list the issues in detail? {{issues}} should support most, if not all, of those issues. G.A.S 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be, though at the same time, a project member would be the sort of "expert" for dealing with referencing issues, determining OR/notability, etc, as a lot of "non-experts" may think a blog or self-published site is okay, while we know better. :P I do use issues for listing in detail :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather the template refers to expert as in subject knowledge, not knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would rather there are likely more relevant templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for these issues (or entries on {{issues}}).

In any case, leave a description of the attention that is needed on the talk page, use {{Expert-talk}}; as project members that visit the article would not necessarily know what expert issues to fix—they will fix the issues you mentioned, but leave the expert template, as they will not know that they fixed the issues.

G.A.S 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather though that in these extreme cases, {{cleanup-rewrite}} would be more relevant. G.A.S 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam 00

I tagged Mobile Suit Gundam 00 for multiple issues, including needing Expert attentin, clean up, using self-published resources, and needing ref improvement. As this article is currently set to B class and would be one I'd consider to be mid to high importance, these would all seem to be appropriate tags. A newly registered account first undid some clean up to remove accessive non-free images, then kept removing the tags. I gave the appropriate warning levels and reverted. A day later, User:Jtrainor (from the Gundam project) comes in and starts removing the tags without giving any real reason, and called my warnings on removing the tags "frivilous." He then came behind me on some AfDs calling them all bad faith noms. He even filed an AN/I against me for putting them there with all kinds of weirdo claims! I know I sometimes irk folks, but gesh...I can't remember any previous dealings with this guy that he would react so. The AN/I is going nowhere, of course. I am wondering if someone else can take a look and see if you feel my tags are "bad faith" as he is claiming, and if not, to help in keeping them there since this guy doesn't care about 3RR at all and will likely continue to removing them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Aria episodes

Could someone give me a sanity check here? Admittedly I've got a vested interest in the thing, but I'm not seeing much in the way of needing to be cleaned up in List of Aria episodes. Expansion, yes, by way of finishing the episode summaries and some more extensive referencing, but it's pretty wikified and tolerably close to the MoS for a Start class article. What am I missing? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Production staff needs to go. The themes should be prose in the lead, along with the 1-2 sentences in each section. OVA should probably be in the ep list format to match the others. See also isn't needed as its wikified in the lead. Thats the main thing I can see for the tag. Maybe switch around the headings, unless their official names are "Season 1: Aria the Animation" to "Aria the Animation (season 1)" or the like. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If this was spurred by my cleanup of the cleanup list a little bit ago, don't ask me, I was mostly just checking for redirects/merges and alphasorting everything, I didn't bother looking at the accuracy of the tags or where the articles were listed. —Dinoguy1000 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. That would be my guess anyway. I looked back at the article when the tag was added, and it looked about the same. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and no it wasn't spurred by you, Dino -- I just was looking for my next project and it's one I was familiar with. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Right -- I'll make this my next cleanup then. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Video games?

While going through the cleanup list to remove/redirect merged and redirected articles and to sort the whole thing, I noticed a couple of articles on Naruto videogames were listed. Is it really necessary to list articles here when their subject is a video game based on an anime/manga series, even if they do technically fall within our scope? —Dinoguy1000 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I think, probably no, they belong in the VG game clean up. I'm thinking that our primary role in VG should be to ensure its properly tied to the series, maintain appropriate links between the articles, maybe tag for issues and propose merges for less notable games with only a few sentences of real content, etc. VG should be taking care of the article format and majority of the content.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll remove the two Naruto games, then... being listed in the massive bot-maintained list should be enough for VG articles for our purposes anyways. —Dinoguy1000 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would perfer to throw them all under a video games section as I and quite possibly some of our other editors are familiar with the VG projects guidelines. After all, if we just remove them from our lists, they may not get addressed for a long time. And while they don't fully fall under our scope, they don't fall completely out of it either. I think doing something like wouldn't hurt anything. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So then, add a "Video Games" section? Would you object to adding a blurb to it as well that reads something along the lines of "These are video game articles that require cleanup; however, when cleaning these articles up, keep in mind that they should obey the Video game project's article guidelines." (exact wording, of course, is open to tweaking)? —Dinoguy1000 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, in fact I think that is a very good idea. I've seen so many video game articles in shamble 'cause so many people don't read the guidelines. T_T --Eruhildo (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and add the section and relist the two Naruto articles, feel free to adjust the blurb/add more articles to the list... —Dinoguy1000 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New structure

RE [1]:

The new structure does not seem to allow for "(any collaborating help is welcome)" comments. Can we maybe put all of this in a sortable table? (E.g. if two persons are working on something, list it two times, with once per member). A column could then cater for the member's wish to get help on board or to work solo. By sorting we can then get a report by member, or by project. G.A.S 06:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True. In the collab section I mentioned it would be good to start a discussion here first to see if anyone wants to join in a bigger project, sort of a precursor/throw back to the old collab of the week idea. Feel free to play with it though, I was just trying it out to see if it would make it a little neater looking :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone put an article under Collaborations, wouldn't that indicate they want help? I figure that would be a good solution. Anyway, I love the new layout - it's so much cleaner than the old one. --Eruhildo (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we just need to resort the items, as some of the projects were indicated as "help needed". (Which I am going to join once done with my current projects.) G.A.S 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I confess I preferred the old method -- this one emphasizes who, the old one the project. Since the point was to "check out" the project and so avoid conflicts, I think I'd prefer that. Maybe if we'd sorted it alphabetically? Making it even easier to scan the list to see if one you're thinking of is already "taken". —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, another option I thought of was grouping it by "level" so to speak like:

Single articles

• article a - editor a
• article b - editor b, editor c

Series clean up- includes all related articles/templates

• series a - editor a, editor b, editor d
• series b - editor e, editor c

Non-articles

• category clean up - editor a
• assessment drive - editor b

What do you think of that option? If we go with it, or back to the old, though, I think we need to just do User:Collectonian or AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) rather than full sigs to keep it cleaner. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This option should work. G.A.S 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that one even better. I kind of liked having the dates though, but they were kind of messy. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, new version implemented. Whatcha think? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but could we separate the lists from the other types of articles somehow? --Eruhildo (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That works, yes. Better than both the original and interim format. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool and lists separated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, though IMHO the lists should be below the articles. —Dinoguy1000 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate if you need help with the assessments in list class. (Maybe with a "‡"?) The current project should not take too much longer. G.A.S 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate help with all the projects I have listed there... I've been focusing mainly on listing all deletion discussions in the archive, but there's still plenty to do there too. —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just ordered them kinda by order of what usually requires the most work sort of :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why it was my own humble opinion. ;) —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User Box

Thought it might be fun to have a little user box. Feel free to tweak the colors and/or wording :)

This user participates in the
WikiProject Anime and Manga
Cleanup task force.

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, cool. I like it. --Eruhildo (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Tsutomu Nihei

I found the above template during the cleanup. This template is for a Japanese Manga artist, and lists all of his works. This is obviously not standard practice, except in the case of extremely notable artists, and even then it is approached differently, eg. William Shakespeare. Not even J. K. Rowling has her own template (she is listed on {{Harry Potter}}). Should we replace it with a Blame! template instead? Comment? G.A.S 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me...rename and retool for Blame!. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done G.A.S 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

*waits for someone to notice {{Mitsuru Adachi works}}* *whistles innocently* —Quasirandom (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will get to it ... later. G.A.S 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting case: all of the articles seems to be short stories and manga the person was involved with, unlike the one above. Most are redlinked though. There does not seem anything to rename it to and reuse it for. (Leaving only delete as an option) Any comments? G.A.S 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Projects he was illustrator for (most of them books?) are redlinked; manga he's writer and artist for are mostly there, and most of those are at least Start or C class. (I have the template bookmarked for easy access to the series articles, so in that sense I find it useful; in that sense, it also duplicates the list of works in his article.) Despite being all but unlicensed in English, he's Big Name in Japan. As big as Rumiko Takahashi, though? Probably not. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Series project: Yu-Gi-Oh!

As I've already got two series projects going, and a third unofficial one Sailor Moon, while really wanting to start on Cardcaptor Sakura, I figure I'll see if anyone wants to take on one. Yu-Gi-Oh! is in horrible shape. It has individual articles for the manga, the manga spin off, the four anime series, the American series, and the films. The main article is a jumbled mess with duplicating sections from separating the Japanese and English versions. It has three character lists: # Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters, Yu-Gi-Oh! anime and manga characters, Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, manga or movie only characters, plus some minor character lists for the various subseries like GX. Almost every character seems to have their own articles as well. There are FOUR media lists, containing indiscriminate info, with the bulk of three being episode lists primarily from TV.com as evidenced by the prod code field (which needs to go). There are also three templates on just the main article.

This one would be a long term commitment, and I think would be something where collaboration would be a must. Anyone feeling adventurous? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've known about the shape the Yu-Gi-Oh! articles are in for some time now, and have given thought to working on them, but the whole thing has been way too big and intimidating for me to really start on. I'd likely pitch in some on a collaberation, though. —Dinoguy1000 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template update

I have asked Farix to update {{anime}} by adding parameters for the following:

• "needs-TLC", like "attention" in {{Physics}}, for projects needing out attention
• "needs-image"
• "needs-infobox"
• "It has been suggested that this page be merged with one or more pages", for cases like Category:Sgt. Frog and Category:Shaman King characters where we simply do not have the time to add individual templates on the pages at the moment, but need record to get back to those articles in time. (For that matter, see Category:Japanese anime and manga characters)

Comment?

G.A.S 06:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but that last one needs to be a wee bit shorter like just "suggested-merge" or something. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I left that one for Farix to name, as this refers to his mockup. G.A.S 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How is adding a template parameter any less work than tossing a {{mergeto}} template on the main page? And where would the notice appear? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you should list all of the "merge-from" pages on the {{mergeto}} template. This notice will appear on the talk page, and be categorised in Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged. (The idea being that it should be added only on the main article's and lists' talk page.) G.A.S 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than a little dubious about putting a proposed merge notice on just the talk page. When J. Random Reader comes through checking for recently added misinformation, who might have something to add that makes it clear that no it shouldn't be merged, there's a darn good chance she won't be checking the talk page. I strongly believe merge notices need to be on the main page, on both the merge-object and merge-target. (The other additions to the template, I like.) (Also, I think this needs to be discussed on the main Project Talk page.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a more than little dubious about this "not hav[ing] the time to add individual templates on the pages at the moment" thing -- if you don't have the time, you're rushing things, and rushing means you'll be making mistakes. Slow down and do it right. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think G.A.S. is suggesting removing the proposed merge tag from the front page. I think he's refering to using it when we have a larger merge where individual tagging is a pain, such as merging a category of characters to a character list. I think it will primarily be used to call attention to project members of on-going merge discussions that are also tagged on the article front page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what Collectonian is saying. We will be reassessing all of the anime articles soon, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Assessment drive, and when we are busy, we may come across articles that require major cleanup or merging. Considering that these are about 9000 articles to go, it will be too time consuming to get caught up in the minute detail of tagging 50+ articles for merging, when we will not be returning to complete the mergers for a long time. Best to categorise them appropriately, so we can return later (And then properly tagging the articles, and doing a proper merge. This is more of a reminder to return at a later stage, not some way to hide a merge). G.A.S 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:Last Exile and Talk:Sgt. Frog for examples.

I believe a proper edit description will be "Record that article require urgent attention" or "Record that sub articles should be consolidated", as these descriptions may seem less intimidating?

G.A.S 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Twelve Kingdoms terms

There's a merge proposal over at The Twelve Kingdoms article the clean up project might be interested in. Doceirias (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article cleanup

After the spectacular support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mew Mew/archive1, it may be a good idea to get our FAs under review back up to FA class. It might be easier than trying to nominate new ones. G.A.S 11:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Requests

So, now that we have the clean up from WolterBot, should we look at redoing the current clean up lists to utilize it some and avoid repetition? The page is way too long to just include here, but perhaps some selective including to highlight items? Such as including the lists of items with 5 or more clean up tags here as "big projects", and maybe a list of items with the oldest tags (like the ones from 2006).

We could also have a list of problem types with direct links to those sections in the list, kind of like:

What kind of clean up tasks are you looking to do?

• help with an accuracy dispute?
• help provide references?
• help fix in-universe writing problems?
• provide expert attention?

And so on. What do y'all think? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Answer part 1
   1. Step 1, I believe is to validate the cleanup tags, which I am currently busy with. That is why I asked originally if we have minimum article grades for certain cleanup types; for instance: stub, and probably start, will always require expansion. I have removed the expand tags from most stubs, but not start articles — for now.
   2. Step 2, would be to assess the articles for importance, and reassess the quality.
   3. Step 3, Redo this list: list only articles of high or top importance on this page, as the bot cannot cross reference importance or quality to the cleanup list (yet); as those should receive top priority. (E.g. FA with cleanup tags, such as Excel Saga should receive top priority, then GA, then "top importance", then "high importance" articles.)
      • The listing bot has been updated to list by assessment (Top, high) and quality (FA, GA). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Cleanup listing for an example. G.A.S 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Answer part 2
   1. I will take up wikify'ing references, and checking (and removing) links. G.A.S 06:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Answer part 3
   1. Instead of using "needs expert attention" we can add a taskforce parameter to the {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}, to list these articles in a category for our use. This way we can reserve "needs expert attention" for (IMO) external expert attention. G.A.S 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
   2. We can call that parameter "Needs TLC" :) G.A.S 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it :D That can be part of our template upgrade for the B check list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall we settle for with that name, or are there any other ideas around? G.A.S 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should start with the most well known anime shows because some of the shows I have seen seem to use YouTube or fansites for references for the shows information and plus they are most likely to have easily available info. I have found with some anime shows the most reliable info sometimes is from non english sites unfortunately. I am sad to say I am not Bilingual so I have to use Babel fish which translations aren't so Good.

Here some in my opinion really need fixing

• Astro Boy confusing and a lot of unreferenced info in the character sections.
• Gatchaman and the related Gatchaman articles, very few references
• Robotech the character section needs doing I tried editing but met resistance as I tried to removing unreliable fansites as references but it keeps being put back up Voltron and Golion again the best info seems to be in Japanese.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Slayers

The Slayers main article and all of its subs are in need of massive massive work. The main is almost entirely character summaries, with no plot summary and little basic info. It didn't even have the info on the production company in what little prose there was about the series. Even the sections on the "anime" were more about the plot that the actual series itself. Anyone want to join in the clean up effort as a series clean up? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters

This isn't really a request for comments or asking someone to undertake this cleanup right now, but more me making notes for whoever does want it. Not only is this series insanely long (92 volumes in Japan, and still running, a definite candidate for sublists), but both the way it's divided into subseries and how it started being translated are a bit complicated. The subseries divisions are documented on the series article - note that most of them happen in the middle of a volume. In translating the series, Viz started with the last chapter of volume 12, effectively skipping the first two subseries, although they were nice enough to release all of the original volume 13 in English volume 1 instead of pushing the last chapter off to English volume 2. The list uses the older table layout except for volume 1 (which I converted), and I've split the whole thing into sections by subseries to aid future editing/cleanup. Chapter titles look to be fan translations, and *nothing* is referenced. I also rewrote the lead, but it's still a one-liner in dire need of expansion. —Dinoguy1000 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the entire series, and could theoretically help provide the Japanese titles and any information missing on that side of things. What sort of references would it need? Doceirias (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The usual... references for release dates/ISBNs, as well as anything needing a cite in the lead after expansion. As for splitting the list, fortunately, there are already articles for each subseries that we can hijack when we're ready for it. BTW, the older table layout is more than structured well enough for automatic conversion to {{Graphic novel list}}, why hasn't anyone written a script to do it yet (or if they have, where is it)? And before I forget, Japanese information is more than welcome, it saves me the trouble of having to go out and look for it myself (and working with a language I can't read (but would definitely like to!)). ;) —Dinoguy1000 21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you convert them, I'll add the Japanese info. Slowly. References for release dates/ISBN beyond the information on the copyright page of the volume in question? How would we go about providing those references? Doceirias (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends... It's being published in Japan by Shueisha, so their website may have pages on every volume, or at least an overview list of the series. If not, I'm not sure what reference might be used. In the meantime, I'm gonna see if I can track down someone to write a conversion script, especially since it would be useful to far more than just this list. —Dinoguy1000 21:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't figure out why my previous response is superintended. Basically, release dates and ISBNs are readily available, but from things like amazon and the like, which are hard to cite. Doceirias (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's because I accidentally directly transcluded Graphic novel list, instead of going through {{tl}} like I meant to. Anyways, in my experience, citing Amazon isn't difficult really, but just tedious, and that's for only three or four volumes. I couldn't imagine trying to do it for 92... -_-;; Although, I'm not sure why you're talking about Amazon, having just taken the time to look, I found volume 1's page on Shueisha's website (not fun when you're looking at stuff like ‘–¼ŒŸõiƒˆƒ~‚à‰Âj). Why not just cite it? —Dinoguy1000 21:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be much easier, yeah. Why don't you cite the first volume (I don't know where the citation should go in the template) and I'll follow suite for the others as I add the Japanese info. Doceirias (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the citation placed after the release date and the ISBN, so it really boils down to personal preference, I suppose. In any case, I'll go ahead and cite volume 1 for you. —Dinoguy1000 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, though, a citation after an ISBN isn't needed. The whole point of the autowikilinky magic is to make an ISBN a self-referenced piece of information. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Actually, I never thought of it like that. Now that you point it out, though, not citing ISBNs definitely makes sense, and it stops looking so much like a matter of personal taste. I'll definitely keep a closer eye on how I do this in the future, then... —Dinoguy1000 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything ever come of converting this list? Doceirias (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a combination of me being a bit lazy and now having a full-time (albiet temporary) job. I looked into using a tool to auto-convert the list, but unfortunately I don't have the time to attempt to learn regexes right now... although maybe the folks over at WT:AWB would be kind enough to take a stab at it? —Dinoguy1000 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge talk pages?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to move off-topic discussions to the main noticeboard.

---

I somewhat recently noticed the new sub-page for cleanup stuff, which makes perfect sense, but I wonder if we need the second talk page. WT:ANIME isn't very active these days, and it's pretty easy for a talk page like this to not be noticed by a lot of people. Just to throw it out there. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say that WT:ANIME is not very active these days. Or do you mean this page (WT:ANIME/CLEANUP)? This page is not very active, but its primary role is (read "should be") to discuss improvements to the cleanup page itself. Discussions not related to that should, in my opinion, occur on WT:ANIME. Maybe we should put a notice on it similar to the one on WT:AN, like This is not the page to discuss cleanup projects or article issues. This page is for discussion of the Cleanup task force' noticeboard page itself. In that case, I support the merge as far as discussions which are not related to this page, be moved to WT:ANIME. Regards, G.A.S 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I support G.A.S' proposal of only moving those sections which have nothing to do with improving this page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I support to a degree, but I think discussions about clean up collaborations from task force members (aka, series), should remain here. The rest, agreed, its been going off topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Before the collaboration is started – accepted. Once it is started, this content should go on the main article's talk page (I believe that this is the current process?), and the noticeboard G.A.S 07:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support moving the tagged ones -- they're discussions of cleanup tasks, rather than the task of cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. —Dinoguy1000 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goals and guilt

I've been cleaning up articles, I really have. It's just, I've been scrubbing articles with cleanup tags that aren't on our Big List. Which is real, and needed, cleanup work.

So why do I feel guilty? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

At least you've been busy doing that... most of my time off work is spent just catching up on my watchlist. =P ^_~ —Dinoguy1000 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's a sure sign you're watching too much. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Naah, I've only got 873 articles, templates, categories, project and user pages, etc. on my watchlist... plus a list of titles on a subpage... ;) *is in denial* —Dinoguy1000 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it?? Dude, I have like 2,110 on my watch list! :P Reminds me...I should like do some more actual editing too...though I have worked on a few things, not much in the "major clean" area, more like, tweak and get ready for something else. Mostly, though, just watching, dealing with vandals and bad edits, then the watchlist needs watching again LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but consider that you pretty much have 24/7 access to the internet - it is your job and all, after all (yep, I know that you're a web designer... *creepy stalker impersonation*), while I'm really limited only to however long I can get away with staying on the library computer, since my home comp sucks beyond all reason (and why shouldn't it, considering it's a relic from '98 or so?)... In any case, since I took off most of the high-traffic articles, the number of new changes is down considerably - by at least half - so I don't have to take nearly as long to work through it all (I still don't do as much editing as I oughta, though). —Dinoguy1000 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I do sleep now and then ;) I sometimes take out some high traffic articles where all I'm doing is basically vandal watching. Helps cut things down some...along with an occasional watch list purging. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you want an easy project, take the 3 Fruits Basket lists to FL. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, but still avoiding spoilers ;) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I start stressing when I start watching over 200. In part because it shows I'm spending too much time monitoring and maintaining, and not enough doing. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto! (And yet the watchlist is already at 644 pages, 200+ of which are outside of the main namespace). Time for a serious purge!

Note: The list got so long due to my using WP:AWB for tagging a few Gundam articles with the project banner. (Those pages needs a serious cleanup).

G.A.S 08:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's just a difference in editing mentalities, then... I really don't have much patience for writing prose, tracking down sources, and so on for something so inherently disorganised as series articles (which is why I also tend to steer clear of character articles and lists) - I prefer the much more innately organised nature of episode and chapter lists, and templates and categories I prefer even more (there's a reason most of my adopted projects are outside the article namespace, you know...). Because of this, close to half of my watchlist is templates (I'm watching close to half of the animanga navboxes and the infoboxes), categories (I'm also watching all of the anime and manga by year/decade categories), project pages (yep, most of the animanga-related project pages are on my watchlist), portal pages (same with them), and a few interface messages, images, and user pages (besides my own formidable collection of subpages). —Dinoguy1000 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All of which are things that need doing -- so it's a good thing someone likes doing them. Infrastructure work tends to be discounted way too much. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for that! ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Quasirandom and that reminds me...want to tackle the InuYasha templates *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, but not tonight. ;) (BTW, could you throw some convenience links at me... you know, for convenience' sake?) On that note, I've been needing to get back to working on our navboxes anyways. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, an make it convenient? :P Here ya go: Template:InuYasha and Template:InuYasha characters -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, to add to the convenience. ;) Thanks for the links, I'll get right on it. —Dinoguy1000 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't do much work sorting the characters when I merged the templates, mostly I just removed those that were redirects or section links as well as going through the associated cat adding all the characters from there that weren't in the template. On that note, I can see that InuYasha still needs a lot of cleanup in regards to the character articles, most of them, I think, need to be merged, redirected, or deleted outright. —Dinoguy1000 20:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. And agreed! I'm going to work on the ones already agreed to, but someone else will have to start new discussions. Taking a break from the abuse for awhile. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I just got Category:Anime and manga articles needing urgent attention down to under 200 w00t. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! G.A.S 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Kewl beans, keep up the great work! ^_^ --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

198! —Quasirandom (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wah! Today, I knock two off, and the list is ... up to 206. I feel like I'm not treading water fast enough. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it too seriously! Last week I assessed ~50 articles, getting the to-do list down to <400... and it is back at 443. It will stabilise at some point. But everything considered, we have assessed 40% of the articles, I do not expect that Category:Anime and manga articles needing urgent attention will get much worse. G.A.S 06:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. :-/ BTW, given that we have the urgent and expert attention categories, do we need to maintain the manual list? Maybe I should present that in a separate discussion ... —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would like to get rid of the expert category, I do not agree with its use (expert = expert in profession, not expert = editor). The manual list does seem somewhat obsolete to the category as well. G.A.S 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought folks were going through and removing the expert tags in favor of the urgent tags, except where there was an actual request for an expert to help with information or settle a dispute (i.e. someone well knowledgable about anime/manga rather than experienced editors).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was... too much to do, so little time... G.A.S 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah...I know when I was doing some of the assess/tags I would go ahead and do that too while I was at it, but don't know if everyone else was. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the expert category based on the tags on the article page, and the urgent based on the project banner on the talk page? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed the case. G.A.S 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Automatically reassessed anime and manga articles

As part of a recent string of edits and updates to our project banner (in which I also added automatic reassessment down to Start-Class if the whole B-Class checklist fails), I added the automatic categorization of articles that are reassessed by {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B check}}. I'd appreciate someone giving the instructions and explanation at the top a sanity check, and rewriting/expanding/whatever as necessary. While I'm at it, should I post about this over at WT:ANIME/ASSESS and on the project discussion page? —Dinoguy1000 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to mention this on WT:ANIME? If only I was not so busy, I would try catch up on the outstanding assessments! G.A.S 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed anime and manga articles

I require help in assessing the new influx of articles! The backlog currently stands at 142 articles. Any volunteers? G.A.S 05:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've knocked through the category on occasion, I may take out a few articles now and then. Unfortunately, though, I go back to work tomorrow, and I don't have much more time on the computer today (library closes at 6, and it's a quarter past 4 now...), so I can't say how much I'll actually be able to do. —Dinoguy1000 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems like we are going to be busy for a while... the backlog now stands at 182 articles. Wonder what is going on? G.A.S 04:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gah, now it's up to almost 400! Someone's really been busy, hunting down untagged articles that are nevertheless within our scope... —Dinoguy1000 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the person have stopped adding the articles. I will see if I can find time to assess them. (I wonder how the person found all of them) G.A.S 05:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have assessed another 49 of them. I find WP:AWB extremely useful in updating assessments. (With a second browser/screen to pre-load the articles.) G.A.S 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The backlog is now down to 176 articles... G.A.S^talk 06:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

All done! Thanks to Goodraise for his help. G.A.S^talk 05:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yowsas. Good work, guys. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List went back upto 21 (mostly bleach related). I've cleared the list after seeing dinoguys request and added the unassessed page to my watch list Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force/Cleanup listing

Would it make sense to limit the above listing to only C-class and higher articles or mid importance or higher (That is will list high importance start class article, or low importance C class article, but not low importance start class article) (or have a separate list for these types of articles? I am aware that the list is not quite as new as we would want it to be, but I find that the list is less than useful due to the amount of tags on our start class articles. G.A.S^talk 06:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I need to think about it a little, but it's worth thinking about. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support a separate list with sections for both C-class and higher, and Mid-importance and higher (or one separate list for each). —Dinoguy1000 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See here for the steps we need to take. We would probably have to do this a.s.a.p. if this is to be ready by the next database dump. Regards, G.A.S^talk 10:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dinoguy1000. Would you mind updating the template accordingly? If the category is properly populated, we can worry about the details later. G.A.S^talk 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not sure exactly what's needed. Will the bot be working from the banner transclusions or the category (in which case, it should only be necessary to check |assesscat=yes)? Also note that IMO this is a suboptimal solution with the potential for serious maintenance problems, why can't the bot just use our categories for C-Class and mid-importance and higher articles? —Dinoguy1000 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot would have to check from The category. Two statement based on |class= and |importance= should do the trick: If Class = OR(FA, FL, A, GA, B, C) then add to [Category] else nothing and If Importance = OR(Top, High and Mid) then add to [Category] else nothing. Regards, G.A.S^talk 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm still wondering why the bot can't just check the categories directly (not to be argumentative or anything, though I realize I certainly sound it). —Dinoguy1000 19:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It could... if we had multiple subscriptions. To be honest, this is kind of a custom report, which it was not designed for:). G.A.S^talk 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, I still don't understand it, but you sound like you know what you're talking about more than I do, so I'll go ahead and add the necessary code to the banner. I think, though, that in the meantime someone should talk to Wolter about this, more projects than just us may be interested in this reporting, and if so, he might want to code in the functionality into his bot. —Dinoguy1000 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I pointed everything at Category:Anime and manga articles for cleanup listing, per your request on Wolter's page. Let me know if the target cat should be changed or anything. —Dinoguy1000 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Iczer_Girl_Iczelion needs some attention. Spotfixer (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I'm slightly confused. The listing is managed by a bot, but it also says to strike an item off the page when done. Which is it, because looking at the edit history I can see Collectonian has reverted manual edits before. Should i remove items that have been checked and dealt with (quick), or leave them for the bot?(slow) Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bot only updates the listing after a completed database dump, something that typically takes 3-6 months to do. At that time, the list is completely overwritten by the bot, so there's really no reason to refrain from editing the list in the interim. —Dinoguy1000 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be OK to update the list by hand, having done so myself before. I am not sure why she reverted the edits. G.A.S^talk 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(could have just asked me directly...) I reverted them because they were inaccurate. That work wasn't done. Its the same editor who has been making all those horrible stubs off the request list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging character pages

Got sick of digging around for templates when merging character pages to list articles so I made an edit button that puts the redirect on the page with the proper templates. If you're interested, consider adding this line to your monobook.js: importScript('User:Kraftlos/extraeditbuttons.js'); Just wanted to pass it on, in case it might be useful to someone else! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! So it automatically adds {{CharR to list entry|}} ? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, G.A.S. requested that I use the template when merging character pages (which seems to be a good portion of my edits), if its used properly, it makes it pretty easy to see all the redirects. I kept having to go to my archives to dig out the template, I could never remember the name. I wish there was a way to make it insert page names too, but that would probably be a lot of work. Here's the output: #REDIRECT [[insert article name]] {{CharR to list entry|insert name of parent article}} {{R from merge}}; I've tested it twice now. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You could probably have it pop up a prompt for the appropriate article's name, and have it insert that... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried that, but I couldn't figure out how to keep the prompt from coming up every time my monobook loaded, see [this version]. There is probably some if condition that I can use to only ask when the button is clicked. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of onClick trigger or something? I really don't know much of anything about Javascript, but you could pester User:Alex Smotrov, he's helped me with Javascript in the past... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable individual-characters

I keep bumping into whole series with lots of little character pages with no references and it takes quite a bit of work to merge out all those characters. Could we have a place to list series which likely will need character mass-merges to lists or main articles? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just add |merge=yes to {{anime}}, this will categorise the individual pages in Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged. Unfortunately we do not have such a series list yet. G.A.S^talk 11:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. There are some series that are particularly "forky", I've only personally taken on one of these series... It would be nice to know where these pages are. I guess I could maintain my own list. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you can just add a new cleanup category on the front of this page. (===Articles requiring mass merger=== or something.) G.A.S^talk 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's try that. It can always be removed if it gets too messy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A new list is not a bad idea -- I've sorta wondered myself how to keep track of these myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One note (very important). If characters are merged, the {{CharR to list entry}} template should be added to the redirect page, and an appropriate category should be created here. G.A.S^talk 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Merge (which is so badly out-of-date, it should probably be merged here anyway, along with several other pages). —Dinoguy1000 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge the lot. Per my experience at WP:ANIME/ASSESS, a single page which caters for multiple types of related requests, is more useful and receives more traffic. It is also much easier to find, esp for novice editors. The bot maintained list, and project banner caters for most of these requests anyway. G.A.S^talk 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with just merging them is that I'm not even 100% sure what a couple of these pages are for... The "No banner" list seems to contain a bot-generated list of articles that were found in our categories but that didn't have an animanga banner on their talk pages at the time - because of how old this list is, it contains manhwa, redlinks, redirects, and other stuff that probably shouldn't have our banner; in any case, it would require a new bot run before it would be useful to us now. As for "Categories"... well, your guess is as good as mine, since it doesn't seem to even be a comprehensive list of our categories from that time. "Expand" seems rather pointless IMHO. —Dinoguy1000 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

With regards to redirects: This little piece of code in Special:MyPage/monobook.css helps a lot: a.mw-redirect {color:#308050}.

• The merge page is unfortunately so outdated, I recommend redirecting it to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP and starting from scratch.
• The category page is just... useless. Just go to Category:WikiProject Anime and manga categories for an up to date list. I actually recommend putting a soft redirect there.
• The expand list can just be redirected to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP/LIST#Articles to be expanded. Same purpose, more up to date.
• The banner page does not seem to be maintained by bot... It currently contains 1470 links of which 689 already has the banner. Of the remaining 781, a lot are redirects (remember that piece of code?), video games, etc. Not sure if we need to request an update, though (due to said types of articles). Marking the page as historical might be a good option.

G.A.S^talk 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah yes, I recently added my own redirect highlighting CSS to my monobook.css file... I think it may need some further refinements, though (or else just scrap all the fancy stuff and go back to the basic form); and looking at your color, it's nicer than the bright green I've been using. I basically agree with all of your suggestions, though now that I think about it, it's possible that the category page was for categories what the No banner page was for articles - listing categories in our tree that didn't have a project banner. And as for the No banner page, having an updated list would help us prune articles that are improperly categorized as one of ours. I can redirect the other two in a minute, though. —Dinoguy1000 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected the Merge and Expand pages per your recommendation... I'm holding off on the Category page ATM pending further discussion. —Dinoguy1000 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The category page contains 56 categories which do not have the banner (Of those, 25 have been deleted.) Thus, except for the following, all categories can also be found in Category:WikiProject Anime and manga categories: Animax, Anime and manga sidekicks, Anime industry, Anime screenwriters, Anno Domini, Anno Domini characters, Bandai Visual, Clamp characters, Comic book publishing companies of Japan, Cosplay, Dojin music, Dojinshi, Dragon Ball superhuman characters, Ghost in the Shell technology, Gundam weapons, Kemono, Kyoto Animation, Madhouse, Madhouse people, Malaysian manga magazines, Nippon Animation, Noir, Production I.G, Shueisha magazines, Studio 4°C, Studio Hibari, Studio Pierrot, Sunrise, Sunrise people, Tsukihime characters and Type-Moon.

G.A.S^talk 05:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the list (not going to ask what you had to do to get it... though I'll bet AWB played a role, right?). I'll stick the banner on a few of them, I think... —Dinoguy1000 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes — G.A.S (talk · contribs) 10:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

(←) I recommend we add the following in comment: "Please list the target page here. Add the amount of affected articles, and a consisce summary in brackets." Or something to the like to ensure we have details of the merger, but do not overcrowd this page. G.A.S^talk 21:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ~starts prepping her lists :P ~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(←) I know what I said:P though the bullet format may also be somewhat useful, especially if we archive the entries (Since it will be easy to see if/when they are split off again). G.A.S^talk 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Summaries tag?

Just something I was wondering, is there any value in having a "summaries" tag to add to list articles that require summaries, and have a cat on the task force page (or cleanup listing or somewhere else) to automatically generate a list? The thought crossed my mind after realizing that although I can (re)write a referenced lead for a list page and do the tables etc, the chances of me personally being able to write good summaries is rather slim (although i plan to give it a crack on one list I'm working on), and I know others either don't bother or write bad ones. It would be good to see what articles need them at a glance, and means they may catch the eye of someone planning to read/watch a series. Is there any benefit to this or am I being hopeful? There are a lot of articles that need them, and my plan to recruit people from outside wikipedia to write some didn't go very well. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was such a tag, I'm inclined to think it would be better served put as part of the project tag (like the needs infobox, merge, etc) rather than a front page tag. Front page tag is likely to end up at TfD anyway, but but I'm also inclined to rather try to get project members to write summaries than just anyone, as half the time the random IP popping by and adding summaries adds WP:COPYVIO ones stolen from other websites or from the DVD inserts. *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, thats a good point about copyvio. I'm not claiming I thought it through :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are similar tags in the template at the moment (|attention=, |needs-infobox=, |needs-image=, so I tend to believe a similar tag should be useful. (On that topic, how about |needs-reception= and |needs-summary-table= (where {{Graphic novel list}} and/or {{Japanese episode list}} have not yet been applied, e.g. example?) G.A.S^talk 13:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Scary! I was just coming to post that we should have a needs reception flag too! Maybe a needs production as well? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... they do go supplement the B2 check (completeness) nicely. G.A.S^talk 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure |needs-summary-table= is really useful, and likely to get confused with |needs-summaries=. But otherwise, yeah. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

needs-chapter-list and needs-episode-list would also be useful, or does needs-summary-table already cover these? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not quite cover those, though I now realize |format-summaries= |needs-summary-table= is more accurate. G.A.S^talk 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. What all flags are being suggested? And is there any way to adhere to the KISS principle? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Added:) G.A.S^talk 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag	When to use	Comment
needs-summaries	There is a episode or chapter list, but it has no summaries.	B2 requirement
needs-reception	The article has no reception section.	B2 requirement
needs-production	The article has no production section.	B2 requirement
format-summary-table	The article has a rudimentary episode and/or chapter list that should be formatted using {{Graphic novel list}} and/or {{Japanese episode list}}	B3 requirement
needs-chapter-list	The article has no chapter list.	B2 requirement
needs-episode-list	The article has no episode list.	B2 requirement

When did Production become required for B? Used to be, you could pass a GA without it, under the "most of the information" clause. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Production is required for both B and GA, unless there just isn't such information available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's "required, but not quite"? *raises eyebrow* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically :P I know with 'Wolf's Rain' last GA review, before the reviewer vanished, they asked about that and recorded a strike against it until I explained that there was no such information available at this time that could be found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? If the information is really not available, or under another heading (as the case often is), a production section is not needed;) G.A.S^talk 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have categorys for displaying the results of pages with these tags? Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That will be the general idea, though they will be quite empty at first. G.A.S^talk 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

~(Silence implies consent)~ — G.A.S^talk 04:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are going to put this on ice for now? G.A.S^talk 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapter list conversion bot?

I remember discussing this several months ago in regards to the List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters. I had offered to add the Japanese information, and someone else was going to see about getting the list converted to the proper format - a tool that would come in handy for similar situations on other lists, I'm sure. Was any progress ever made there? Anyone know how to make a bot like that? Doceirias (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...the list doesn't exist and the main article seems to have no list at all? So a tool to convert what, exactly? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

→List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters G.A.S^talk 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was that "someone else" who was going to convert the list... but RegEx is intimidating and the list is massive, so I never got anywhere with scripting a solution to that particular problem. I haven't forgotten about working on the list, though... I've just been busy with other stuff (and that list is, like, really big... @_@ ). (and about the caps... I'm surprised there's not a redirect there yet) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a week off coming up, and was planning on working on that project. I'd appreciate it if you or someone else here could give developing a script like that a shot. Doceirias (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe I could ask User:TheFarix again, he's done some AWB work before at my request. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable characters

Given the section for non-notable characters, and looking at the tagged for merge category, I was wondering if there was a hard and fast guideline for common sense of what denotes a notable character. Basically I'm seeing a lot of major characters (i.e. the leads) for very notable franchises tagged for merging - for example Alphonse Elric and Arsène Lupin III are both tagged for merging despite one being the lead in a famous 30+year old franchise and the other being a major character (but not a lead) central to the plotline. With Minor characters it's easy to use common sense (I've merged 11 in the last few days - all of which were tagged, offered for discussion but never merged despite no objections), but with these two for example I'm wondering if I should remove the merge tags and if they are examples to keep in mind when looking through the list of needed merges. I'm wary of using mentions in the usual places as we would for series notability to gauge this, and don't want to remove merge tags then find I've done it wrong Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, adding real world information - specifically a reception section - based on reliable sources should prove notability, see WP:FICT. Then it would be more or less safe to remove the |merge=yes tag. The tag's purpose is to keep track of potential merges, not to initiate actual merge discussions, or the actual process; for that the normal procedure should still be followed (Hence the reason for articles being tagged, but not merged or discussed). Regards, G.A.S^talk 19:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) While they may be the leads of notable franchises, if they haven't actually received some significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and if there is no ability to bring the articles to at least GA status by having creation/conception and reception information (at the minimum), they should be merged. That said, I'd be seriously surprised if that can't be done for Alphonse Elric considering the tons of hype on that series (though its "youth" may be its current issue as printed books won't cover it yet). Looking at the article, its already on its way, so I'd say remove it one. For Lupin, I'm on the fence. I'd think as long as that series is, there are sources, but the current article rather sucks with nothing but in-universe info and OR and not a single source. As such, merging is still a valid option if it isn't improved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense (both of you). The only real merging I've done is where it's been discussed and there's been a consensus or no objection to an old discussion - I'm not one to cause controversy over merging everything :p (I've seen other people create hassle by doing so) I'm probably looking more to remove "silly" proposals as to merge everything in sight - it's easier for one :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the shear number of cultural references I come across to Arsène Lupin III (and Fujiko Mine), I'd be really, really surprised if the notability sources aren't out there. He's not quite the cultural icon of Doreamon, but up there with Son Guko. But, yeah, WP:FICT is the guideline (proposed it may be at the moment, and still being re-hammered out) to follow. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Priority cleanup list

Hi,

For those who are interested, a new prioritised cleanup listing is now available. ^_^ G.A.S^talk 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice, much more useful :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just found the other list too long to be of use as it included too many low importance stub/start class articles, many of which should be merged somewhere else anyway. G.A.S^talk 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Now if only they could add a section to highlight former FA/FL/GAs :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This can be done manually here, if required. Even the listing goes beyond what the bot can actually do—{{WikiProject Anime and manga}} does most of the work. ^_^ G.A.S^talk 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh that is excellent. Thanks! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure:) G.A.S^talk 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Template cleanup

Would you please clarify a few items on the instructions:

• Clean up links:
  • In the case of redirected character articles, do we
    1. link via the redirect (Advantage: They show as green when reviewing templates, making it easier to find them if they are recreated; simplifies coding of the template)
    2. link directly to the character list entry (Advantage: Not a redirect)
• Remove redlinks:
  • Unconditionally? I presume so per WP:NAVBOX, given that these are usually for non-notable entries.
• User:Dinoguy1000/Animanga navboxes
  • Please add clear instructions...
  • A better idea might be to transclude all of the templates on one page (by type). This should make it easier to find the odd ones out (Remember the purge link:) )

I also think we should have an "unofficial" manual of style, especially regarding:

• Whether templates should be full width?
• The use of colour in the templates. In the case of series, I understand that we sometimes use a color "associated" with the show. Other times, like {{Hakusensha manga magazines}}, I think that this is redundant.
• The bullets used, bolding, etc.
  • I used bold font for separate articles in {{Sakura Wars}}, but think that it may be unneccesary.
• When to use a separate group, when to list in brackets, etc.
  • I recommend • between entries, and · if there is sub-entries in brackets i.e. {{Bleach}}.
  • Entries in brackets should be avoided, unless the naming is repetitive ({{Bleach}}), or if groups cannot be used due to the diverse nature of the related articles ({{Sakura Wars}})
• Preferred headings: Franchise (for episode and chapter lists); Video games (if there are many).
• When characters may be listed separately at the bottom, i.e. {{Tokyo Mew Mew}}. I think this would be preferred when there are characters that can be split according to real world classifications, AND if there are many characters.

G.A.S^talk 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoo boy, you got a lot of stuff there... let's see if I can answer some of it for you.

• Clean up links (redirected character, etc. articles): When an article gets merged/redirected to a parent article (a character article merged to a character list, or a video game merged to the series article, etc.), I generally remove the link altogether. I don't see the point in linking to page sections (except possibly in a very limited set of circumstances), and IMO linking via redirects merely encourages the recreation of the article. There are better ways to watch redirects for article recreation (especially since the green link color on redirects is the result of CSS in your monobook.css file, as opposed to a wiki-wide configuration).
• Remove redlinks: I generally do this as well. Unlike articles, navboxes are navigational tools first and foremost, and linking to a nonexistent article does no one any good - there's no context for the link to establish that it belongs, for one, and like you said, most of the time, it's going to be a non-notable entry, even if it does get created. Simply delinking redlinks is even worse, since it results in unclickable plaintext - once again, no context.
• User:Dinoguy1000/Animanga navboxes: I thought it was actually pretty straightforward, but I guess that's just the creator's opinion, right? ;) I chose not to transclude the navboxes for several reasons, but I wouldn't be against doing it on another page, I suppose. In any case, the current page provides several benefits that transcluding the navboxes wouldn't: mainly, it allows a basic history of the navbox's cleanup (original name, and any other navboxes that were merged in - see for example the entries on {{Dragon Ball}} or {{Naruto}}), as well as notes on further cleanup that could affect the navbox, or that the box itself needs (primarily prospective article merges/splits). In addition, I currently have the page set up to display related categories, which would help in maintaining navboxes in the long run, and also shows potential gaps in the category system (for instance, there is no Category:Mazinger, in spite of a massive number of links in {{Mazinger}}).
• Navbox MoS: Not a bad idea, actually. Some of the things I do include:
  • I only limit a navbox's width if the links are less than about 450-500 px wide, so that there're as few adverse effects on small resolutions (800x600, 1024x768 - I stopped worrying about anything smaller a long time ago) as possible - I don't shrink a navbox to the point that anything wraps. I do, however, shrink them for a purely aesthetic reason - having a full-width navbox on a 1440x900 resolution monitor (the one I primarily use) with a set of links like "Chapters - Episodes - Characters - Video games" (and maybe a few character article links in another group) results in massive quantities of whitespace and a navbox that feels grossly unbalanced.
  • Navbox colors: I never personally color navboxes, but if I come across one in my cleanup, I will generally leave the coloring alone, while optimizing the coding if necessary (|titlestyle= and |groupstyle= can be combined into |basestyle= (which also styles the above and below cells), for example)
  • Bolding (and other text styles): bolding in the |title= parameter is redundant, since all text gets bolded there anyways. Same thing with the |groupn= parameters. I've never seen any valid reason to use bolding, underlining, monospace, text colors etc. in a |listn= parameter, but I'm not going to say there isn't a valid use out there. The only styling I really use is italics (when I remember =P ) for the titles of series, films, video games, etc., indentical to when italics would be used in an article's prose.
  • Bullets and middots: I use bullets as the "primary separator" (if I may invent some completely arbitrary jargon here); middots are only reserved for use as "secondary separators" between bracketed items. At the risk of sounding patronizing, if anyone is wondering a bullet is a big dot ("•", {{•}}), and a middot is a small dot ("·", {{·}}).
  • Bracketing: I essentially agree with you on this point. Individual places where bracketing works well are chapter or episode season sublists ({{One Piece}}, {{Naruto}} and {{Dragon Ball}} have both), VG articles as part of a VG series (such as the Budokai or Supersonic Warriors series on {{Dragon Ball}}), or character articles when there aren't enough to justify a new group (in which case they would work as separate subsections of the character list, similar to how chapter and episode sublists act).
  • Preferred group headings and group order: "Franchise" should usually come first (when I first started cleaning up navboxes, I used "Media", but "Franchise" IMHO works much better). However, there are a couple of situations that aren't very clear: if there is only one group (in which case the navbox may be a candidate for deletion in favor of strong inter-article linking), or if there are only one or two articles that would end up in that group, for whatever reason. In such cases, I'll either skip the navbox, or play it by ear - my handling in such cases would hardly show any consistency over time. Other groups and their ordering depends mainly on the number of articles that would fall into that group. I generally don't put articles into a new group unless there are at least four of them (when there are exactly four, I'll go either way, as you can see from a November revision of {{InuYasha}}). In any case, the most common groups for me to split out are "Films", "Video games", and "Characters", with "Other" or "Related" groups occasionally coming into play. Depending on just how many links end up in these groups, further subdivision (with either {{Navbox subgroup}}, a la {{Dragon Ball}}'s "Films and TV specials" and "Video games" sections; or some customized group work, like the "Characters" section of {{Sailor Moon}}) may be warranted.
  • Characters section splitting: I think this actually depends on the number of other links as well as the number of character links. {{Tokyo Mew Mew}}, for instance, just doesn't look "right" to me - I would have used a {{navbox subgroup}} there myself. {{Sailor Moon}}, on the other hand, looks very good with this formatting (although it wouldn't hurt from a bit more work IMHO).

Well, somehow, I ended up with a reply easily twice the size of your original comment... hopefully, this answers many of your questions (but if it spurs further questions, that'd be even better XD ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I will create a subpage for use with the templates tomorrow (12-14 hours). I think this will provide us with a "bigger picture" of what is going on exactly. Much easier than scanning through the category all of the time.

Discussion and questions will be somewhat easier as well.

Is there a way to prevent the templates from adding categories to said page?

Well aware of the green links formtting... I put it there myself;) Is there a way to have category pages also display them green instead of italic (I am too lazy to search now, and too forgetful otherwise).

This is also the reason I am listing all of the pages to be merged on the project page. This will allow archiving the list in a method that will allow us to see if articles are recreated... Through I suspect the list is going to get to long for this me. and * {{Hidden begin}} does not work either. Transcluding a subpage may work better, as we can only display the title without the articles to be merged.

G.A.S^talk 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... you're asking about <noinclude/>, right? All the navboxes I work on end up with that, if they don't already use it. Navboxes automatically categorizing our articles is a Very Bad Thing IMHO, since there are any number of situations in which a navbox would be transcluded but categorization would not be desirable.

You're looking for .redirect-in-category (the exact code from the source is <span class="redirect-in-category"><a href="/wiki/Page_name" title="Page name">Page name</a></span>), so the CSS rule would be

.redirect-in-category { color: #308050; }

I've actually been giving thought to creating (another) subpage in my userspace for watching redirects, since I don't keep them on my watchlist. Such a list would use {{Article}} so that it could keep track of the redirect and its talkpage in one fell swoop, allowing me (or anyone else) to watch for (re)creation and any changes (comments, etc.) to the talkpage simultaneously. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think such a page would be better if it is a subpage of this one. No use keeping it all to yourself;) and since they are all for articles in the project's scope, it may be a better idea to keep it centralised. We are looking at thousands of entries here... and more if the backlog is cleared.

I am unsure about listing the talkpages too, though; as they are often not redirected as well. Navigation popups works quite well to to go to said pages directly.

G.A.S^talk 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me... if you want to move Animanga navboxes to a subpage here, I'm all for it.

Actually, listing the talkpages as well allows you to check everything with one click ("Related changes" in the toolbox, or Special:Recentchangeslinked). The main idea behind listing talkpages, though, is that it allows you to watch for vandalism or new comments that could otherwise go for months without response or correction, if they're ever even noticed at all. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Template cleanup: Edit point

(←) I had a list of templates like this in mind... It is a bit (too) long though. Hint: Disable Javascript before visiting the page in order to disable the autohide function of the templates. Ideally, different pages/sections should be used for series, anime conventions, works by <company>, works by <artist>, etc. Also note all of the categories that page now belongs to. The color coding does not seem to work yet, though:-( G.A.S^talk 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... That also shows how many templates are inserting unnecessary whitespace... and what's up with {{The Big O episodes}}? Other than that, splitting by type would be quite useful (you're talking about my list now, right?).

Color coding? For redirects in categories, right? I'm not sure what to tell you... maybe !important would do it, though? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By type, I mean a list of transcluded templates as a subpage of this one, which would allow us – without viewing each template individually – to easily track the progress of cleanup on the templates, allow us to standardise them, fix red links, and fix redirects. See the sandbox again for some preliminary sorting.

Since we also know that "episode" and "character" templates are normally redundant, the templates under those headings should also be merged to the "anime and manga" templates as a matter of first priority. (As should {{Burn Up}} be fixed)

Ps: How to color redirects-in-category green.

G.A.S^talk 10:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For such a list, it may also be a good idea to start adding a |state={{{state|}}} parameter to the navboxes in the course of cleaning them up, so that we wouldn't need to disable scripting (or click a million "show" links) to see them all expanded (then we could call them with {{Series name|expanded}}).

Of course, that's also the first thing I do - though I usually clean up such templates (without actually saving) before merging them, since it makes the main template's cleanup go faster.

Of course, that should have been obvious to me - <a/> tags have always acted weirdly when trying to style their text. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some more sorting, though I get the idea that this is going to be a huge task... :) I recommend that we select a few of the best as templates to model the others after — and define the situations where a specific format will work best. (Or we can just codify a MOS, and include a few (theoretical) examples) G.A.S^talk 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad... If you're just cleaning up the navboxes as-is, without checking for other navboxes to merge in, or for other articles to link to, it's fairly easy to get through about 15 in an hour. Even with the extra work, you (or at least I ;) ) can do seven to ten or more in an hour without rushing. Codifying an MOS should actually be fairly easy, since we've already spelled out most of the rules we follow above - I'm just not sure on where it should be put (probably too topical to be included with the general MOS:ANIME, and the non-article cleanup section here is already dangerously close to an overload (if that's possible)). If nothing else, we can simply formalize it here or something. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this page – or a temporary sub-page – should be used for the time being. This would be a bit overkill for MOS-ANIME. G.A.S^talk 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have drafted a proposal below, though we need to discuss it. G.A.S^talk 07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox "Manual of style"

• Creating navboxes:
  • Navboxes should link together no less than four articles, and preferably at least five (this does not count the author link for manga or light novel navboxes)
  • Navboxes with three or fewer links should be nominated for deletion if they cannot be expanded with more links. Navboxes with exactly four links may or may not be nominated at the editor's discretion. <May require further discussion>
• Name:
  • Navboxes should be named after the main article they are covering, following article naming conventions for capitalization, punctuation, and, if necessary, disambiguation. {{Naruto}} covers Naruto, {{Blood+}} covers Blood+, etc.
  • Modifiers, qualifiers, and other descriptors such as "series" or "franchise" should not be used.
  • "Characters" and "Episodes" navboxes (such as {{Naruto characters}} or {{The Big O episodes}}) should be merged to a more general navbox, renamed and generalized themselves, or nominated for deletion if there is nothing to merge and no need to generalize.
• Title: Should link to the main series article. If the series (or the original work) is a manga or light novel series, the author (and illustrator, if different from the author) should also be named and linked, for instance: "Naruto by Masashi Kishimoto" <To be discussed>
• Styling:
  • Width:
    • Can be limited at the editor's discretion if the navbox is 500 pixels (px) wide or less.
    • When limiting width, it should be stated in px, and should be reduced in steps of 50 or 100 px starting from 500 px.
    • No lines should wrap when using the browser's default text size.
    • First column width <To be discussed>
    • |groupn= widths across multiple {{navbox subgroup}}s in the same navbox should be identical. If necessary, spaces can be hard-coded to force them to line up. See, for example, {{Dragon Ball}}.
  • Color <Not discussed here>
  • Italics are generally reserved for titles.
  • Other styling, such as bolding and underlining, should generally be avoided. The contents of the |title= and |groupn= parameters are automatically bolded.
• Bullets and middots: Bullets are used as "primary separators"; middots are used as "secondary separators" between bracketed items.
  • Lines should not be ended with bullets where line wraps are forced (whether by use of <br>, or simply starting a new row).
  • Bracketing works well with chapter or episode season sublists ({{One Piece}}, {{Naruto}} and {{Dragon Ball}} have both), VG articles as part of a VG series (such as the Budokai or Supersonic Warriors series on {{Dragon Ball}}), or character articles when there aren't enough to justify a new group (in which case they would work as separate subsections of the character list, similar to how chapter and episode sublists act). Bullets should not be used between a main item and a bracketed series of subitems, although a bullet should immediately follow the brackets (unless the brackets end the line; see above).
• Headings
  • Headings such as "Characters" or "Video games" should be linked to their respective lists, if they exist. "Franchise" can be linked to a respective media list, but such lists are generally discouraged in favor of balanced coverage on the main article and associated chapter and episode lists.
  • Headings should be capitalized as if they were section headers (see MOS:CAPS#Section headings and WP:HEAD), and generally should be plural.
  • Grouping and ordering headings:
    • Franchise
    • Films/Films and TV specials (can be swapped with "Video games") <May require further discussion>
    • Video games (can be swapped with "Films"/"Films and TV specials") <May require further discussion>
    • Characters
    • Related/Other
• Grouping items:
  • Only one group: Do not use |groupn=.
  • Less than 4 items in a group: do not create a separate group. If these items have a main list, individual items should be bracketed after the list, for example "Video games (Game 1 · Game 2 · Game 3 series)".
  • Chapter and episode lists never get their own groups, regardless of how many items there are. This is because they are typically referenced by the season or list number.
  • If there are only unrelated articles, or grouping is "random", use a single line, for example {{Sakura Wars}}.
  • Media should generally be grouped by type and sorted by release date. If, for example, a series began as a manga series and had an anime adaptation, the chapter list would be linked first, followed by the episode list ("Chapters • Episodes").
• Subgroups
  • {{Navbox subgroup}} vs customised groups. <To be discussed first>
• |above= and |below=. <To be discussed first>
• Non-direct links:
  • Section links (Series#Character). <To be discussed first>
  • Redirects (partially dependent on handling of direct links). <To be discussed first>
  • Redlinks are generally to be avoided and removed on-sight, as they provide no context and do not aid in intra-article navigation. Simply delinking them is to be avoided for the same reasons. This is doubly important for links to articles that have been speedy deleted or deleted because of a proposed deletion or deletion discussion. <May require further discussion>
• Images. <To be discussed first>

---

Live draft above, edit as needed. G.A.S^talk 07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote some and added quite a bit. I'm not trying to bypass discussion, just fleshing out the framework you've provided. Any thoughts on my additions? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems good:) We should discuss the <To be discussed first> items, though I believe we need to find good examples – of the different implimentations/options – first. G.A.S^talk 10:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that I've had (~5 ½ hours of) sleep, I've made further additions and tweaks. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughrs. G.A.S^talk 10:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• {{Navbox subgroup}} vs customised groups.
  • Customised groups should only be used at the bottom, and only one customised group should be used (i.e. {{Sailor Moon}}).
    This should be used only where a strong division is required between the subgroup's articles, and the other articles in the template. In SM's case, this is to split third generation articles from the others (Series→List of Characters→Characters). Furthermore, in this case it is used as an alternative to a "characters" template. (Compare {{Sailor Moon}} to the alternative.)
  • {{Navbox subgroup}}s should always be aligned.

Sounds good, although I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Navbox subgroups should always be aligned" - could you clarify? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the column width (i.e. not like this). G.A.S^talk 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Aah, of course. On that vein, see the source of Template:Dragon Ball, where I hacked up a method for forcing the columns to align (since for whatever reason I couldn't get the CSS to work). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of navbox colors, see this discussion in WP:COMICS' archives (and unless you want your eyes to bleed, I'd recommend not looking at this @_@ ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They do have a point. I'd say the existing colors are fine as long as it they are toned down (i.e. SM). This is unfortunately not always the case. G.A.S^talk 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had reservations about {{Blood+}} pretty much since it was first made - I've just never done anything about it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding width: "The width of footer boxes should be 100% unless the convention for that type of article is otherwise. It looks inconsistent if multiple boxes in the same article have varying widths." — WP:NAVBOX. G.A.S^talk 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of our articles that have any footer boxes only have one, so the inconsistency argument is largely moot. In the event more than one box is present, though, we can add an override (something like |style=width:{{{width|XXXpx}}};). Of course, I'm still arguing on an ILIKEIT basis here, and am thus cruising for an eventual reprimand. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Case study

Might I recommend {{Bubblegum Crisis}} as a case study... G.A.S^talk 16:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why stop here?

I was thinking (always a dangerous exercise), and I realized that there is no general Wikipedia:Manual of Style (navboxes). We're probably about as close as anyone (even if this is skewed towards anime/manga topics), so why not see what we can do towards getting a generalized version of this adopted as a MoS guideline once we've gotten the details of our version hammered out? (I'm actually gonna post a notice about this whole discussion to the MoS project in a second, to see if we can get any interested outsiders to have a look and comment) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea;) Unfortunately I have very little time nowdays to edit, but will be watching these events. G.A.S^talk 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell (considering this is the only edit you've done since the third)... What's got you so busy in real life all the sudden, if I may ask (and does this mean I should go ahead and ask someone else to to the Animanga by year categories AWB run)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical cleanup

Seems that the following is to be done for shorter templates. Did I miss anything? G.A.S^talk 05:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of it looks good; I've made individual comments on items. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, some more questions follow:) G.A.S^talk 20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And a bit of followup. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied below. G.A.S^talk 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reply (I'm not sure this is the best way we could be doing this... ^_^;; ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Check that the title reads "Main article by Author" for manga. But what about anime only series?
  • I've wondered this too; perhaps director/studio?
    • Maybe we should raise this point at WT:ANIME
      • If you don't I will... ;)
• If there are only chapter, episode, and character (list) articles, the template should read:

  Chapters (Volume 1 · 2 · …) • Episodes (Season 1 · 2 · …) • Characters (Character 1 · Character 2 · …)

  • Basically, yes. Common sense should be used in merging groups on shorter templates; try merged and unmerged and see which looks better.
    • As always:)
      • And I meant to say, this can apply even for groups with more than 4 items - e.g. navbox with 2 groups, #1 has 2 items, #2 has 6 - merge everything into 1 group
• Fix bullet sizes (per above)
• Add |state={{{state|expanded}}} — But why/when do you set "expanded"?
  • I always set expanded, personally - I don't see any reason not to.
    • Personal preference, eh? ^_^
      • Yep, but it can be overridden at the article side, so IMHO no harm done.
• Add |style=width: {{{width|length}}}; — But why/when do you limit the length?
  • Generally, when it can be limited to less than ~50 em without anything wrapping
    • They do wrap on my system as I use another font.
      • Really? Resolution/font, plx?
        • Verdana, default size (Arial does not wrap, but Verdana is more legible). Amongst other, {{Cardcaptor Sakura}}, {{Death Note}}, {{Fruits Basket}}, {{Mobile Suit Gundam 00}}, {{School Rumble}}, {{Suzuka}} wraps.
          • Aah, so I see (previewing with "style = font-family: Verdana"). I was able to fix {{Cardcaptor Sakura}}, {{Death Note}}, {{Mobile Suit Gundam 00}}, and {{School Rumble}} by upping the width by 5 em, and {{Fruits Basket}} with a 15 em increase. {{Suzuka}} only needed a 10 em bump, but there were some other issues - the main one being that the title was wrapping even for me. I'm not entirely fond of the extra whitespace to the right, but it's livable, I suppose. =)
• Remove pipe from Category:Anime and manga navigational boxes if in use
  • Correct, due to a recent configuration change, {{PAGENAME}} sortkeys are no longer necessary.
• Add <noinclude>{{DEFAULTSORT:xxxx}}</noinclude> if an article name starts with "a", "an", or "the", remove otherwise.
  • Not sure about this one; was merely following/properly codifying what was already there
• Remove <includeonly>other categories</includeonly> from the template.
  • Definitely; I've always been against this practice.
• Remove piped links (i.e. to lists or the main article).
  • You mean section links?
    • Yup :p
      • In that case, just like redlinks and styles below - need a good reason to be there.
• Remove redlinks and resolve redirects (subject to the above point).
  • In general, yes - exceptions should be considered on a case-by-case basis (vis-a-vis {{Anime and manga}}).
• Remove custom coloring for the infobox. — although there may be exceptions?
  • Once again, on a case-by-case basis, though any outrageous color schemes should be terminated on sight.

New project: Digimon

During the template cleanup, I came to see the state of the existing Digimon character lists and Digimon articles. These articles are in need of a complete reorganisation. This is however quite a bit of work, and I know too little about the series to do this myself. Any volunteers? G.A.S^talk 06:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rave Master characters

If you look at this article List of Rave Master characters it is quite a big mess listing every single character even minor one time characters. Also lots of characters from the series have their own articles which are just really detailed plot summary and have no sources or any real world reception making them not notable. I'm wondering If I can get some other fans of this series together to get this stuff straighten up. - SuperTiencha (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alot of articles are in that state. You most likely won't find someone that will put alot of time into it, so you gotta do it yourself. I waited to see if anyone was going to clean up the Case Closed articles but ended up doing it myself overtime. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Merged pages - templates?

I've had enough of editing actual articles for today so turned my attention to checking articles tagged for cleanup to update them as needed. I noticed about 40 articles tagged for merging on the talk pages but most of them have already been merged. Therefore I started removing the merge tags but it occurred to me that maybe these pages don't need the anime template at all if they are just redirects.

Whats the policy or feeling about this? On many of them there is just the project template and outdated notices about non free images, so they can presumably be blanked. Obviously any discussions should probably be left, but should the template still be removed? I don't remember how I did this in the past. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just change the class to redirect. Even I don't know what should be done about them. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)