Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re character list

I have noticed in the to do list that the character section/list is to be redone. I highly suggest looking at the following article series, esp. the first two articles, as an example. Note the use of the {{tl:Main}} template, and the fact that the main article uses prose, as opposed to a list, for the character section.

Regards, G.A.S 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are old sandboxed character lists here (Main Characters), here (Supporting characters) and here (Villians). Although I have not worked on them myself, and the user has not been active in a long time, they might be worth looking at. G.A.S 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The first one could be a good shell to start a real character list with, though we'll also need to look at doing some merging. It would be a needed first step. Collectonian (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the format used with the Metal Gear Solid series? I believe it is a good example due to the compliance with WP:SS and WP:SIZE. G.A.S 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly like it. It has too many sub-articles which are unlikely to meet WP:FICT, and it doesn't meet the anime/manga MOS formatting. I'd rather we look at anime/manga character lists for guidance than a video game list, as the VG list doesn't really address the issue of differences in versions. Collectonian (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What I refer to in particular is the use of {{main}} per WP:SS, and the use of paragraphs in the main article; as well as the outline of the list. I did not actually refer to the subarticles, per se. The main issue with most TV related character lists are the trend to link to subarticles via the section title, not {{main}}; they thus fail following the manual of style. Nor did I actually refer to content, as this is as you say, where anime lists are more applicable. As you also correctly state, character articles, if any, should follow WP:MOS-ANIME. Regards, G.A.S 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well yes, I'd agree we shouldn't be linking headers but should use main, and certainly prefer paragraphs to lists and/or that indent thing some lists use. :P Sorry I misunderstood. Two lists I have done some extensive work on that reflect the usual style I follow are List of Blood+ characters and List of Trinity Blood characters. In particular, it shows the handling of the voices not seen in Metal Gear. What do you think? Are those in line with your idea? (sans the excessive non-free on TB, which we're still working on LOL).Collectonian (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Those lists are about what I have in mind, although we really need external sources as well. The characters sections in those articles are also what I have in mind. Re excessive non-free images: TMM was much, much, worse at some point [1], [2], not to mention all of the other non-free images you probably are aware of. G.A.S 07:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree on outside sources. Those two are still very much WIPs. With TB, the source novels have only recently started being released here, while Blood+ is still airing and Sony doesn't release the DVDs until after the eps have aired (doh). :) Tokyo Mew Mew shouldn't have any of those problems, fortunately. Collectonian (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(←) The AfD has been closed (result - no consensus). I presume that the best approach would be to get a proper list up and running, merging and moving information as necessary. We can decide what to do with it after said proper list has been compiled. G.A.S 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we can start by at least going ahead and cleaning out the minor list to remove the ones we are pretty sure are not going to stay, like the episodic characters. I've been bold and removed the most obvious ones to me if you'd like to take a look and hit anymore (or put any back if you feel they are notable to the series). Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removals, they are not all that important. I believe we should actually move List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew to List of characters in Tokyo Mew Mew, and then add appropriate sections for all major characters. That way there will only be a single article history. G.A.S 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Move done (moved to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters per standard naming convention) :) I've also done a quick and dirty set up of the major characters using the sandbox. The formatting needs to be fixed, and several articles will need to go ahead and be merged here, but that gets us started I think. Collectonian (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To merge: The following articles can also be merged into the character list, they fail WP:FICT: Ringo Akai, Cyniclons. G.A.S 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Added :) Collectonian (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: redirected articles

(←) Regarding the redirected articles. The links to those pages should be updated and linked to the video games (etc.) section in the main article. I believe we should try to at least mention these characters in the appropriate section. G.A.S 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Some of the links from the main article are redirected back to the article itself. This should also be fixed. G.A.S 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For the video game characters they do not need mention at all beyond what I believe is already there, that a new mew mew or new enemy was created for the game. We can put in the names if they aren't already there, but that's about all they need. In general, unless the game is notable enough to get its own article, their characters don't warrant a ton of attention and are less than notable. I think I got all of the self-redirecting links on the main article. I've also cleaned up the character section, which just needs to be a shorter quick summary of main points since there is a full list now, and added in the two obviously missing ones :P Collectonian (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. (The same would actually go for the episodic characters being mentioned in episode summaries; but if this is to be done – what will we do when there is English and Japanese names?) About the game not being notable – so true – I could not even find enough information on the internet to write a short summary for it in the media list. G.A.S 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Usually, for the episodic characters, we just list the original name, though with the whole Mew Mew power thing, maybe add the dub name in parenthesis with a note in the lead stating that. Collectonian (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: to make it easier for people to find, I've started a discussion at Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Merge Discussion. Please also join in there. Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters section

Re this edit: I strongly disagree: according to my understanding, WP:MOS-ANIME only requires a list in the main article up to, but excluding the point where List of (series) characters is created. Furthermore, WP:SS is firstly applied for all articles, secondly predates WP:MOS-ANIME, and thirdly, is a editing guideline, as opposed to a manual of style, fouthly, said recommendation is much more neat. Even if a list is given in the main article, I rather an appropriate lead is included for it of 2-4 paragraphs. G.A.S 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected after reviewing some of our scant GA/FA articles. In those, a paragraph seems to be just as acceptable, though I'm not sure how much summary can be done without repeating the plot section. I don't get it, myself. I did the same with another article, but when it went to peer review, that was one of the first thing I was told to change. Though, come to think of it, I used paragraph style in my one FA. Sorry, yesterday was not the best days for me. Collectonian (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I will attempt to rewrite this section in due course, but have to do some research as how to present the information best. I have some ideas in this regard as well. Regards, G.A.S 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Draft
Tokyo Mew Mew's protagonists are Ichigo Momomiya, Mint Aizawa, Lettuce Midorikawa, Pudding Fong, and Zakuro Fujiwara, a group of girls who have been mysteriously "infused" with the DNA of rare animals. Now a part of the "Mew Project", they find out that they have been chosen to protect the Earth: gaining special abilities and a different appearance, they become the group known as Tokyo Mew Mew — magical girls with the power of Red Data Animals. During the story, they receive support and advice from Ryou Shirogane and Keiichiro Akasaka. They are later joined by the mysterious Blue Knight, who pledges to protect Ichigo; and in Tokyo Mew Mew a la mode by Berry Shirayuki.
The main antagonist of the series is Deep Blue, the leader of the aliens. He is joined by Kish, who develops a cruch on Ichigo; Pie and Tart. The aliens all have the ability to use parasites to create monsters (called Chimera Anima) to attempt to defeat the protagonists and take over the Earth. The sequel introduces the Saint Rose Crusaders, which takes control of the remaining Chimera Anima, as the new antagonists.
Other characters include, Masaya Aoyama as Ichigo's crush and boyfriend, Masha, a robot with the ability to detect the aliens' and Chimera Animas' presence; Ichigo's parents, Shintaro and Sakura Momomiya; and Ichigo's friends, Miwa Honjo and Moe Yanagida. The anime series also introduce Mint's grandmother and brother, Lettuce's parents and brother and Pudding's four brothers and sister, while the sequel introduces Tasuku Meguro as Berry's friend and later crus and boyfriend.
End of draft
Please provide comment on the above. I believe it just need sources and tweaking, and should then be ready to go into the main article. I have not included the Japanese text, voice actors or dub names here as it is provided in the list.
Regards,
G.A.S 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Masaya and Masha can be incorporated into the first paragraph, and the rest dropped. We don't need to mention the minor characters in the main article discriptoin, particularly those that aren't even in teh list anymore. Beyond that, probably should mention the SRC are humans rather than aliens and that Deep Blue, though the main enemy, is not really seen until near the end of the manga. Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
M+M: I tried to incorporate those two into the first paragraph, but it I could not work out a way to have the text flow.
SRC+DB: I will work that in, but only later.
I do not believe that mentioning minor characters are a bad thing per se, and honestly, I needed some content (1) to show that there are other characters as well (2) to show some differences between the manga and anime (3) to show differences between the original story and the sequel, and (4) a space filler other than the main characters' descriptions or voice actors. I believe we can provide a sentence for these characters in the existing characters' sections in the list. Regards, G.A.S 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have raised the inclusion issue here, to gain the opinion of the larger community, since there seems to be no clear guidance in this regard. Regards, G.A.S 06:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit point

(←) That seems like a waste of time. No advice at this time.

I would rather that we include characters in the list as separate entries where:

  • They help us to understand the main characters, and
  • We can write a description for them that is not limited to their actions in an episode, and
  • They serve a supporting character's role (per that article — but seen in the context of the series as a whole).

This should cancel most, if not all, episodic characters, victim of the day, and monsters of the day out. They can be named, if needed, in the episode summaries; or in the case of characters families, one or two sentences in the main characters' section.

What do you think?

G.A.S 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: The guideline talk page has a new suggestion that I tend to agree with; being for us to add a "Minor Characters" section and list these characters in a bullet list, with a one or two sentence description each (subject to the requirements above). G.A.S 09:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're actually saying the same thing, just differently. Character families should be mentioned in one-two sentences in the main character sections, as is relevant. Episodic characters, etc don't need mentioning at all. That puts the list pretty much where it is now. :P I haven't seen the entire anime, though, so no idea if they made up some other regular characters, but for the manga, we have every character covered already. The only one I can think of not mentioned in their own section are puddings brothers, sisters and monkey which should be covered in her section anyway since they just appear on 2-3 pages. Collectonian (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The following characters appear in two or more episodes, and will happily fit into a minor character section using a bullet list: Miwa Honjo and Moe Yanagida (Only these two comes to mind). Shintaro and Sakura Momomiya, Mint's grandmother, Seiji Aizawa, and Pudding's siblings plays a larger role in the anime and can be mentioned in the characters' sections, but I would argue we mention them in the bullet list as well (As it is easier to provide the Japanese text and/or voice actors there. Pudding's parents, or lack thereof, should only be mentioned in Pudding's section. Any remaining characters are trivial. G.A.S 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Mint's grandmother is never even given a name, so I'd argue she's trivial :P Collectonian (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but she does appear in ep. 3, 10, 32, to name a few. G.A.S 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Media section

Re CD's: Some informartion and sources are available here. The sources are provided in the edit history and in the general sources section, but are generally hard to find. G.A.S 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...while normally a CD section doesn't have a table, with fifteen CDs, I'm thinking it might be good here? The one in the sandbox could be adapted nicely to meet that need. What do you think? Collectonian (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I would actually prefer if we can use the information in the sandbox where possible, I wouldn't want it to go to waste:) The section would just need a lead paragraph or two to complete it. Regards, G.A.S 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It also needs format fixing and sourcing. Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; my sources are mainly recorded in the sandbox's history (Please refer to the diffs, ~7-13 Jul 2007), except for those listed under general sources, i hope it is of use; as for the format, I believe you know what would work best;). Regards, G.A.S 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

WP:BRD: I rewrote the lead paragraph as I felt that it is currently quite difficult to follow, but has the following quite serious issues:

  • It starts with "is a shōjo magical girl manga series"; while this is true, one has to read quite a bit further to discover that the series is also an anime series.
  • The lead mixes the plot details with the real world information. (Refer to WP:WAF#Real-world perspective — this is not recommended, and following all manuals of style is a featured article requirement).
  • I believe the proposed version is better organised:
           Before                                After
[PAR1]     
           ... is a manga...                     ... is a manga ... and an anime ...
           manga serialized date                 manga and anime serialized date
           plot information                      -
           -                                     sequel serialized date
           -                                     video game infomation
[PAR2]     
           anime serialized date                 -
           video game information                -
           -                                     plot information
[PAR3]    
           English version information           English version information
  • Please comment.

G.A.S 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead is currently organized appropriate, per the anime and manga MOS and per lead. We start with the first media which is the manga per "Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work." We then give its basic serialization info and a short summary per "At the very least, this should describe the anime or manga, its premise and plot, its author or director, and the English language licensers (if any)." The lead is supposed to include at least a basic plot, if it doesn't it fails WP:LEAD as it is not summarizing the article, and fails the anime/manga MOS (as well as our parent MOS the TV MOS). The plot shouldn't be the sole content of the lead, and it isn't, but a very short synopsis, such as we have here, is extremely appropriate and belongs within the first few statements. Adaptations and the English language version come after the primary information, which not only keeps the intro about the original format, but also better reflects the order of the article. Collectonian (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree:
  • "primarily about the original format": This is still the case, order is different, according to another content criteria.
  • "primarily about the original format": The opening sentence fails WP:LEAD – "The first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence. Readers knowing nothing at all about the article's subject should immediately find the answer to 'What is it?' or 'Who is he/she?'." – currently they get only half the picture.
  • "At the very least...": This does not specify the order that is required.
  • "plot shouldn't... and it isn't": I merely moved the plot content to the second paragraph.
  • "Adaptations and the English language...": I did not change this part.
  • "better reflects the order of the article...": Maybe
  • I merely moved the plot description to have fictional content separate from real world content.
  • Have a look at the following featured articles (all anime and manga related) — the new lead follows these examples much more closely.
Image:LinkFA-star.png Excel Saga (manga and anime series)
Image:LinkFA-star.png Madlax
Image:LinkFA-star.png Serial Experiments Lain
G.A.S 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Excel Saga is the only one applicable here in that it has multiple forms. It was promoted over 2 years ago, making it a bad example to use as it should probably be delisted (I've left a note there to get see if anyone will fix before I send it for delisting). It does not follow the anime and manga MOS at all, and fails LEAD by having citations in the opening paragraphs for no necessary reason. For some more recent examples that have multiple adaptations, we unfortunately have to turn to GA articles as it has been far too long since we had an FA article: X (manga) (still has the issues of citations in the lead) and Tenjho Tenge (has 1 cite in the lead, though it isn't needed).
The current lead for Tokyo Mew Mew does not fail LEAD and far better meets the anime and manga MOS. It immediately declares that Tokyo Mew Mew is a manga series, who wrote it, and when it was serialized. That is the original format. The paragraph then gives the premise, before moving on to talk about the adaptations and sequels. It also follows the standards set by more recent GAs. Collectonian (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I still do not agree, but am not going to argue. Mind if we split the first paragraph into two before the plot description starts? That is a distinctively different to the real world information of the rest of the paragraph. ("by Kodansha.\ It focuses on..."). G.A.S 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: WP:LEAD#Citations does not ban citations in the lead, just mentions that it is not necessary (except for controversial items and living persons)> G.A.S 07:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(<--) This undo-edit refers: This change has been suggested above, and no objection was made. I consider it better style to split the first paragraph like this, and this time I insist on this change to be made. I will only reconsider if a second opinion is obtained. G.A.S 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, but hadn't gotten around to posting an objection. I disagree as I do not believe it needs to be split per my own experiences with anime and television articles and I don't think starting with a short statement before jumping to another paragraph is necessary. So far, it seems we seems to be the only editors here, so it seems we may be at a stale mate. Another editor mentioned having some comments on the article, so I'll see if he'd like to offer a third opinion. Collectonian (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I agree on Collectonian's edit, but only because Sailor Moon (a GA) does the same thing. And since I'm here, why don't we discuss the genres and categories? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, accepted. What about the genres and categories do you want to discuss? G.A.S 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, they look good, though I mgiht give it another look. Until it becomes a problem, I'll bring it up for discussion again. However, I'd like to include [[Japan]]ese in the very first sentence (since many manga follow this layout) and check for any overlinking per WP:CONTEXT and perform general fixes. That ok with you two? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That is fine by me: would you mind having a quick look at the lists as well? G.A.S 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The lists look fine. Was there anything in particular you wanted me to see? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes#Another English DVD Release where we also had some disagreements on the format of the episode list. Collectonian (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


What I meant was if you would mind having a look at those re. possible overlinking, and if re. general fixes; but since the lists are not complete yet, I did not want you to spend to much time on doing this:). We did have an disagreement as Collectonian said, but I do not regard that as to critical at the moment.
Please consider the following questions –(which I have not raised before) – none of which is critical:
  • Does the episode list spend too much time regarding the 4Kids dub? Per WP:MOS-ANIME information regarding the differences between the original and the dub belongs in the Production section, not in the media section. (At most a slight trimming would be needed)
  • Does the character list spend too much time regarding the series's plot (second paragraph), and original run(s)? This information would usually not be given in the main article's character section, so why is it given here? I believe that the second paragraph could – with minor changes only – be adapted as a "lead" for the protagonists' section; but the opening paragraph would have to be rewritten: rather focus on characters, character design, etc. (Refer to List of Metal Gear Solid characters, although this is not an anime specific article, it is one of the few featured lists for characters that I know of. I believe this is a good example to work from.
Regards, G.A.S 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I've spent some much needed time on the reception section this evening, expanding to include all the RS manga reviews I could find, and what little RS anime reception information was available. I also attempted to cover the 4Kids issues in a neutral tone and to give equal balance to both the angry fans and the show's relative success, as could be sourced. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That willl go a long way towards our FA goal; peer review - when we are ready - may prove more input, but I like it. Well done. G.A.S 08:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Reception sections tend to be my weak point, at least to me, so good to hear :) Collectonian (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)